building a box for my vacuum cleaner. (Down another rabbit hole)

[mark33.in.oz]

Sorry folks, this is a real big trip up for me.

This is a bit of a long post.

Only to explain the story - though somewhat academic at this point in time.

But I feel I need to explain how I got here and why to (maybe) help in the bigger picture.

INTRODUCTION:

I have been using Fusion 360 for a few years now but it is only on a limited use and it was done more for 3D printing than where I am now.

Not to detract from what the program can do and I accept its limits.

But recent events have presented me with a whole new rabbit hole down which I am traveling now.

So for the record:

I only "designed" this to get an idea of what I wanted to do and look at how it was going to be built.

Then the situation presented itself that completely changes the course.

I bought a new vacuum cleaner (portable) and want to build it a "house".

I sat down and "built" models on the parts and then the "house" into which it would be put.
This way I could look at item interaction (or how it would look when built) and make sure things were ok.

See the model.

Knowing my luck all the pieces will be everywhere and not where I want.   Haven't worked that problem out either.

Now a "walk through" of the idea:

It is a top/sides and bottom of a box with TWO backs.   1 is the REAL back and the other (in this case) is called the "insert".

Why?

Well, this was done for my benefit for the positioning of the "charger".

At the start I wasn't sure how that was going to attach to the rear wall.   Bolts, nails or.....????

Ends up being two dowels.   There will be washers to fill in a bit of space to fill in the small gap to make it all "level" then a piece of wood (thin) put between the two dowels.

And there is a hole for the power cable to pass through.

That hole also needs to be in the back plane but the two holes for the dowel don't.

So the power cable hole needs to be lined up on both pieces.

This is easy but then lining up the "charger" with the holes is difficult so I hide the "housing" and line up the holes with the "charger" and the holes in the "insert".

Then un-hide the "housing" and move it into position and work from there.

(Sorry, I hope you are still reading this as I still haven't got to the problem yet.)

So with all pieces in place I could see what I needed to build the "house".

This was done by making a drawing of the "house" and showing all / most of the dimensions.

That was kind of painful on my version as I couldn't do all I wanted.

Not sure that is because of the limits of the version or my knowledge.   But anyway.

ALTERNATIVE IDEA:

I showed this to someone for a second opinion and......

Then someone said it could be laser cut easily.

All you need is to export the ...  file in the required format.
(Which ok:  This version doesn't allow)

But that isn't the problem.

I have access to a full version (limited use of for time) and went there with the idea of making/exporting this file.

I "hide" all the non-house parts and export to the file.

Alas ALL the pieces/parts are exported.

What kind of throws the proverbial spanner in the works for me.

QUESTION:

Main one:

What do I need to do?

Delete the non-required parts and then export?

Another while here:

So, the original idea is I make a "model" of all the things and make sure they can "play with each other nicely" in the house I want to make.

But any time I go in and edit a piece/part:  all/most other parts get moved elsewhere/back to their start positions.

Ok, I kind of get that.

But isn't FUSION supposed to be ...... parametric?

And as I am making ... components (separate parts) rather than as I originally did - in one big homogeneous mess - shouldn't they remember where I put them?

I know this is a big ask and it will be difficult to help me.

I am not even sure I am going to be able to understand what will be said/told to me via the group as "SIMPLEX" "HALF DUPLEX"  (two way communication with long delay between who's talking)  communications are not easily processed by me.

I'll stop here as I think I have (probably) gone on long enough now and already lost people.

Going on more will only lose more.

Thanks in advance.

[TheCADWhisperer]

@mark33.in.oz 

The next few steps will demonstrate the real power of parametric modeling - let the software do the work for you.

To get the next few steps - first follow this 4 minute video.

[mark33.in.oz]

Ok,

The AHA moment.

You wanted me to attach the new file (send it to you).

That is not how I parsed it at the time of reading.

Ok.

Here it is.

Instructions and command parsing seem to have overlapped.

(Moving on.)

There is still the "rub" with the rectangles changing sizes/shape, but again:  I won't sweat on it too much.

Just I am (or seem to be) more a visual person than a word person so if there is a conflict, the visual side takes "priority" of the word side.

[mark33.in.oz]

THANKS.

(Not a complaint, but mentioning)

I missed the "trick" where you did the second `mid point` on the other side of the rectangle.

It wasn't explained in the text version.

NO PROBLEMS.  Just saying.

Hope my effort I just sent you is good.

Yes, the `height / 10` may be different.

Anyway, that is simple to change if needed.

Waiting for your reply.

Oh, quickly - not wanting to go off on a tangent:

The "names" of things/parameters:   Limits?

Can I have "height/10" or does it have to be "height / 10" with spaces?

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@mark33.in.oz wrote:

Can I have "height/10" or does it have to be "height / 10" with spaces?

---

If you type in height/10 then Fusion adds the spaces and returns height / 10 .

For stuff like this just try it and observe.

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@mark33.in.oz wrote:

I missed the "trick" where you did the second `mid point` on the other side of the rectangle.

It wasn't explained in the text version.

NO PROBLEMS.  Just saying.

---

What does, "Add Midpoint constraints between the lines as appropriate..." mean to you?

Observation is key to success.

[mark33.in.oz]

I seem to have missed the last "S" in lineS.

Maybe I read the "S" in meaning for the two rectangles, rather than each line is the SAME rectangle.

I saw the anomaly and asked.

Anyway....   Is the file I sent correct?

[TheCADWhisperer]

Extrude the offset rectangle -Thickness.

Right click on the sketch and turn visibility back on.

Extrude the finger tab rectangle at top by -Thickness and Join.

Extrude the side finger tab as a separate Extrusion.

Oh wait a minute - your Work in Progress is not completed.

Did you watch the video.

Blue lines and white dots should keep you awake at night.

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@mark33.in.oz wrote:

Anyway....   Is the file I sent correct?

---

You tell me.

Did you watch the video in Message 41?

[mark33.in.oz]

This forum seems to be making things worse.

There seems to be a lag between posting and the other person seeing the reply.

Yes, I am on the same page.

The rectangles constrained correctly now.

Extruded.

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@mark33.in.oz wrote:

Yes, I am on the same page.

The rectangles constrained correctly now.

Extruded.

---

@mark33.in.oz 

Attach file here so that I can see progress before next steps.

[mark33.in.oz]

Dave caught a small goof with the "height".

Fixed.   Extruded.

[TheCADWhisperer]

@mark33.in.oz 

I hesitate to turn you loose on your own - but it might be entertaining.

I’m going to bed.

The next step is to midplane (symmetric, whatever) Rectangular Feature Pattern - Join one of the tabs.

Then repeat with the other tab.

Then Mirror tab and the pattern.

Repeat Mirror tab (Extrusion) and the pattern.

Will be fun to see result in the morning.

After that we’ll look at simplifying the “t-slots”, more Patterns and dxf test.

I’m signing off for tonight.

[mark33.in.oz]

Ok, thanks.

I shall see what I can make of the last post.

Oh, and I was again caught by Dave on how I did the extrusions.

Fixed them so there are THREE.  the main and the two rectangles.

But they are all JOINED so there is only ONE body.

Just to be sure.  Newest file included.

I'll see what mess I can make in the mean time - just for fun.

[mark33.in.oz]

I did a bit of trying later on "today" (local time).

Getting there.

But not quite.

This is as far as I can get.

I'm just not getting how to mirror ALL the fingers.

Seems something is not quite right.

Seems the file I attach is dynamically uploaded/updated here in the forum if I change anything.

Originally in the PREVIOUS reply I posted V3.

I goofed when updating the fingers and overwrote V3 here - locally.

To (try) and not cause you confusion I renamed it 3vb and attached it.

To my horror I saw the earlier version has somehow changed from V3 to V3b.

ARGH.

Not a big deal.   Easily rolled back to having only 2 fingers (side and top).

[TheCADWhisperer]

@mark33.in.oz 

Do you not observe an issue?

---

@TheCADWhisperer wrote:

Then Mirror tab and the pattern.

Repeat Mirror tab (Extrusion) and the pattern.

---

[mark33.in.oz]

Yes, I tried that.

Didn't work.

I could either select ONE (the original tab) or the pattened tabs.  NOT BOTH.

Tried several times.

Didn't work.

So I guess I will have to mirror the original ones separately.

Did it now and this is what I have:

[mark33.in.oz]

Got home and decided to give it a go.

Yeah, not perfect.

But to show you I am NOT wanting you to do it all.

I know I goofed with how I did one of the finger joints.

Pressed on anyway to try and get it right through "practice"...   I think I did.

Put a couple of small parts on for the sake of going with what I hope was the right way/idea.

I may do a bit of adjustments on the "wedges" as I think they aren't exactly what I want.

I may need to put a "lip" so they can't go all the way through.    But as they are going to be glued:  does it really matter?

[mark33.in.oz]

And after realising I didn't do it exactly the way you were saying - sorry.  (And I'm admitting that)

I did it again the way you were showing me.

This is the latest version now.

Anxiously waiting your reply.

[TheCADWhisperer]

@mark33.in.oz 

I see an enormous amount of repeated work in Sketch1.

Get Lazy!

Let's start over...

Back to our nice simple Sketch1.

Two mirrors and ONLY two mirrors as shown.

If you can't figure out this step - STOP and ask questions.

[mark33.in.oz]

This seems strange.

I posted an "early effort" where I had got beyond the SKETCH and had failed to get the tabs right.

Rather than stopping me there you asked if I saw a problem.

This doesn't help me as if I knew what to do I wouldn't be asking.

I then sat down and dug to find how to get that bit working.   About that time you replied telling me "how" to do it, to which I replied I HAD tried those and I couldn't select the things in the timeline as you showed.

So that way was not an option.

I had to do it in two steps.

So by that point I had all the tabs and the symmetry ok.   (Or so I thought)

I then got industrious and tried to get the rest of the bodies and their tabs.

Again:  I messed up and so went back and worked out how to do it "the other way" you are showing me.

I am not seeing any benefit to either way.  So trying to change my mindset to your way simply because you say this is the way to do it is not as simple as you may think.

So:

With all the sides/top/bottom/etc done:

I went back and had to add the extra stuff for the back plane that are needed.

There are a LOT OF QUESTIONS I would like to ask but I am holding back as I can not express them in a way that makes it CLEAR (CRYSTAL) what I am wanting to do.  So asking now would only waste my time and yours.

I am suspicious you are going to offer/submit a way of doing what I did by - rather than adding sketches - duplicating the "extrudes" at their relevant places.

Again:  I can't see an advantage of doing it that way.

You showing me the screen shot with the blue lines (which you don't like) is only rubbing salt in the wound.

I am not smart enough to know how to do all those things to get rid of them and again is why I am asking.

I can't JUST KNOW THEM.

I am NOT from a design background and ALL OF THIS is new to me.

I also understand you aren't sitting there waiting for my reply and promptly reply to it.

GET LAZY is NOT a way of doing things that is acceptable for me.

I need to know HOW and WHY I am doing the things.

I don't mind doing things efficiently.  But LAZY.   NO WAY.   That is a bad word.

I am getting rattled now and so shall stop.