can't move a sketch

[Anonymous]

I'm struggling to do very basic things in Fusion 360, including moving sketches.  The instructions here do not work for me at all:
http://fusion360.autodesk.com/resources/akn/view/NINVFUS/ENU/?guid=GUID-FFD25CD3-0707-429E-B0E6-B7F9...

For example: I sketch a centerpoint circle.  Then I want to move that circle.  I right click, select 'move,' and the dialogue pops up saying "no selection."  The circle is no longer select-able.  WTF #1.

I change mode from "bodies, sketches.." to "move sketch objects" and now I can select the center point and get the manipulator.  Progress!  Then I move it along the x axis, lets say 300mm, click ok, and... nothing happens.  WTF #2.

Going back, I find the only change I CAN make is rotating the circle about a moved pivot point.  For some reason that actually moves the sketch.  WTF #3.

Clearly I'm missing something...  

[TrippyLighting]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
... Just saying it might be worth pointing Noobs at the material about BORN. Although I had been involved in software development in CAD/CAM in the early 1980s I don't recall that term from back then.

---

A lot of the questions you are asking in conjunction with your prior experience in CAD/CAM lead me to believe that you have not yet fully taken advantage of the learning materials that are provided by Autodesk.
Many of them can be reached directly from within Fusion 360.

The "Self-Paced Learning"  leads to a number of full courses covering the full breadth of Fusion 360.

Having said that, with your experience you fall somewhere between the cracks.

You are not completely new to CAD/CAM but that experience dates back to a time way before parametric CAD software became mainstream. 

To address some of your questions, a component in Fusion 360 is a container that contains all, or at least most of the objects that are used to create the geometry (bodies) and functionality (joints) of that component.

A body is only a single contiguous bit of geometry.

Each Fusion 360 file already is a component. As such if you only want to create a single part, perhaps for 3D printing or machining, you don't need to create another component as that would add an unneeded structural layer.

If you want to create an assembly of components in a single file, it might be a good idea to start the design by creating a component. That is described in Fusion 360 R.U.L.E #1.

The original intend for inventing that rule was to help beginners over the first hurdles. It was never meant to adhere to religiously. Most folks that reference it don't read the first part of the first sentence "When in doubt ...".  Most also ignore the second part listing perfectly valid alternative workflows.

IIRC you imported the sktches/.csv data into the top level.

If those sketches were meant specifically to create geometry for a single component, then the best course of action would have been to create a new component and then drag hat sketch into that component.

If you forget to do that and create the component after you have created geometry, it might not be too late.

Dragging the sketch into the new component might pull the bodies created from that sketch with it into the component.

By default components are "floating" in FUiosn 360. So the first course of action should be to determine what your stationary/reference component is and then lock it into space by grounding it or creating an as-built rigid joint between it and the top-level origin.

All other components will then be assembled using the joints in the Assemble menu. A "normal" mechanical assembly should not contain any (body) move, align, or position-capture features. 

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
 Fusion 360 was recommended to me and it looked like one of the leading products in CAD...

---

Who made that recommendation?  In school we are taught the >>scientific method<< is to cite the sources of our information.

What are the credentials and expertise of the person(s) who made this recommendation?

Do they have a motivation that does not pass critical scrutiny or does their motivation have an easily identifiable bias?

---

@Anonymous wrote:
 I was advised not to put the origin of the parabola on (0,0,0) 

---

I don't think that was the advice.  Or perhaps it was misunderstood from the perspective of the experienced user.

Placing the geometry at the Origin automatically places a Coincident Constraint (in most cases - depending on how it was done).  The automatic Coincident Constraint can either be avoided or it can be deleted after-the-fact.  My advice would be exactly the opposite - establish your absolute datum as the Origin.  You can always move geometry later.  So it would seem you are getting conflicting advice from different users.  Who do you listen to? That is the question?  Or did you misunderstand the advice because of lack of experience (and the inherent difficulty of communicating via text) and both advisors are really advising the same thing?

Learning a parametric modeling software is a Professional Endeavor that deserves (requires?) a professional level of training/preparation/experience.  You don't walk to the front of an airplane and tell a salesman (note I used the word salesman and not the word pilot), "I want to take this for a test flight", without extensive training.  You might get the plane into the air - but at the first sign of bad weather...

[jeff_strater]

"I was advised not to put the origin of the parabola on (0,0,0)"

That was me.  That statement was made in the context of what I understood to be the question:  "why can't I move the sketch geometry in the sketch environment?".  What I meant was:  Within a sketch, if you want to move geometry around within that sketch, do not make that geometry coincident with the fixed sketch origin as that will block sketch move.  I tend to answer questions very literally.  I did not explore (as I should have) why the geometry needed to be moved within the sketch, I just assumed that was a given part of the question.  I would actually recommend that, in general, you do want to create those coincidences with the origin point, to fully constrain the sketch, but just need to realize that this will constrain movement within that sketch.    

[Anonymous]

Thanks for that top level view.

It seems I should have looked for the Fusion 360 documentation and relied less on google and this forum. I'll read through the documentation.

Regarding my CAD/CAM experience, I didn't raise that to claim to be a CAD/CAM expert, just saying I'm not entirely new to this. As I work through problems and go through the old forum posts I see people experienced with Fusion 360 try to explain away the UI complexity behind the rationale that "it's parametric CAD"....and hence "...it has to be complex". Sorry, but I don't find that argument compelling. My experience was with what I think you call "parametric". Back in the 1980s the CAD system I worked on was not as interactive as what is available nowadays, but we did use variables. Geometric structures, lines, surfaces etc, could contain variables dependent on previously defined geometric structures. It was a geometric language. The CAD/CAM designer would create files that contained these structures and then compile the files and the compiler would then generate the structures needed in subsequent CAM processes. So I don't think it's the parametric nature of the CAD that's the problem.

Given my short journey through Fusion 360 so far I think the issue I am having is understanding the philosophy of what people call the "work-flow" that Fusion 360 is attempting to support.  Last night (my time) I successfully made a hinge and could drag the knuckle around. In doing that I'm getting my head around the jargon of assemblies components, bodies, sketches etc. I'm not sure if there's an industry wide jargon for this stuff, but this hierarchy is one of the things I was struggling with.  So I'm understanding the hierarchy, but it's still not clear to me exactly how this hierarchy includes scope limitations on entities, or if all entities are global and visible across the whole structure?  I don't need all the answers here, just point me to the documents that describe that, perhaps you've already done that by pointing me to the help  menu--which I will go through, 

However, the main concern that led me to start posting on the forum is my concern with the usability of the UI. I don't think claiming "it's parametric" will help in improving this product.  In my journey with Fusion 360 this week I have looked through many threads in the Autodesk forums and I have seen a lot of people finding the UI a struggle. I am a not a complete Noob and I find it a struggle. Surely it can be better than this? If you think that the Fusion 360 UI is the best it can be and that it doesn't need improvement, and that the problem is with the Noob then let me know and I will look at alternative products.

[Anonymous]

The recommendation was from a friend who is experienced in the use of Maya. I didn't realise we needed to apply the full the scientific method in looking around at CAD products. Is that how you chose Fusion 360? Maybe you should open a thread and tell us how you did that.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

... and I will look at alternative products.

---

I would encourage you to check out other CAD products and compare their functionality and their price point.

Just FYI, I've used (and still do) quite a variety of CAD and other 3D modeling software professionally for 30 years.
While Fusion 360 is definitely my main tool I still use several CAD software (SolidWorks and ZW3D) and a polygon modeling software, Blender.

[jeff_strater]

"I would encourage you to check out other CAD products and compare their functionality and their price point."

And their UI, since this seems to be a particular pain point with you, @Anonymous .  I think you will some small differences, and maybe a few larger ones, but by and large, you will find the UI of most parametric CAD products to be very similar.  This is a very incestuous industry, and all of these products "borrow" concepts from all the others.  Take a look at Onshape's view cube and Joint commands, as compared to Fusion's, which pre-dated it by several years...

With any significant software package, I've found that you need to get used to "the XYZ way", where XYZ is any product.  Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop, Maya, Meshmixer, even Powerpoint - a complete newbie to any of those products is going to struggle for a while, but there is a noticeable step function in learning, that, once you hit it, everything starts to make sense.  There are a handful of concepts that you just need to understand, and once you do, you are fine.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, I'll take that advice.
Sounds like you're asserting that the Fusion 360 UI is as good as it can be, and the justification is that all the other products in the industry are equally bad. Hmmmm. Oh well, given that culture in the industry sounds like we're stuck with it.
Yep, powerpoint is a good tool and for freeform drawings that's what I use. Might stick with that for freeform drawings given this industry has decided quirky is good enough.

[jeff_strater]

"Sounds like you're asserting that the Fusion 360 UI is as good as it can be"

no, not at all.  Obviously, there is plenty of room for improvement.  No UI is "as good as it can be".  I was only saying that there is likely no "magic UI" that will make everything obvious to new users as well as experienced users.  However, the fact that other CAD products have similar UI behavior, IMO, means that, maybe, this "ideal UI" is not quite as easy as it might seem at first.  If it were easy, someone would have done it.

[Anonymous]

"..."Sounds like you're asserting that the Fusion 360 UI is as good as it can be"

no, not at all.  Obviously, there is plenty of room for improvement. ..."

then later, 

"...IMO, means that, maybe, this "ideal UI" is not quite as easy as it might seem at first...."

So you are stating there is room for improvement, but that it's not easy. Who said anything about it "being easy"?

However, if you use "it's not easy" to dismiss the concerns then your quality-improvement program will stall. If you continually dismiss new users because the they "don't understand parametric CAD" then you have dismissed the possibility of improving the learnability of your product,  because the new users are precisely the ones who will show you where the issues of learnability are located.

In the end, I'm not an owner of the quality-improvement program for Fusion 360. I'll look around and see what else might fit my needs, I was just voicing my concern.  If the experts on this forum choose to ignore suggestions (because they see criticism as "outrage" as someone wrote earlier) then so be it, that way of operating will be reflected in the quality of the product.

Thanks for the bits of useful info and help you've all provided. I'll still be around the forum as I persist with Fusion 360 and the documentation, but I won't be giving any suggestions as suggestions appear to be contentious on this forum.

Cheers

George 

[TrippyLighting]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

...but I won't be giving any suggestions ...

---

Finally we're getting somewhere!

[Anonymous]

Yes you're right, you're not actually interested in improvement of the UI. Now we've actually established your position. Thanks. Moving right along.

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
The recommendation was from a friend who is experienced in the use of Maya. I didn't realise we needed to apply the full the scientific method in looking around at CAD products. Is that how you chose Fusion 360? Maybe you should open a thread and tell us how you did that.

---

Maya? So your friend heard something is the sum of the information.

If you didn’t realize you should be analyzing this from a scientific perspective, well now you know.  That is what I have been doing for 30 years. 
I don’t know where you got the information that I “use Fusion”.  Just to be clear, I don’t use Fusion, I only follow the development as it appears that Autodesk considers it to be their “next generation” product and that position interests me on a professional level as it is my job to keep abreast of the technology.

A thread on how I make on-going decisions?

I can do that in one sentence.

A moving target - study and evaluate everyday - backed by years of training and experience.

[Anonymous]

Thanks CADwhisperer, who can argue with that?
The recommendation I got was the "...sum of the information", yes, we all know what you mean by that.
You don't use Fusion360, and you're here on this forum to provide help on it.
The scientific method is "a moving target", "backed by years of training and experience". I never knew that about the scientific method, wow.
So I guess that means since I've had more than 30 years of not using Fusion 360, that makes me an expert too? I suppose not, I am just way down the pecking order on this forum because I haven't been here very long?
I'll try to put your advice into practise. Thanks.

[MIKEYWIRED87]

Yeah, we need a hotfix for this bug. If you cant highlight a sketch and hit M to move the sketch, then its time to fix it. 

I dont know what type of team Autodesk is working with over their but i mean, its quite laughable i must say. QA initiatives? 

[Oceanconcepts]

Your comment leads me to believe you don't fully understand the how's & why's of parametric design software or how & why sketches are constrained. 

For what it's worth, if you are in Direct Modeling (select "do not capture design history" right clicking on the root component) mode in Fusion you CAN do exactly what you say. You are giving up history and the power of history based modeling for a particular freedom in being able to move things around and try ideas out. Sometimes I find this environment helpful for doing things where I don't want to exercise awareness of history or parametric constraints, and work in a more freeform environment.

Fusion gives you both options, to work within a parametric environment or a more free direct modeling environment. But you can't have the power of parametric modeling without accepting some constraints. 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for your helpful suggestion. While I do appreciate the advantages of
parametric modeling, I do find it a bit rigid for spitballing ideas. ##-
Please type your reply above this line -##
--
Bye for now,
Michael Crumpton

[Oceanconcepts]

I do as well, for early stages of a design. The direct modeling environment in Fusion is free from these constraints, you can move sketches about as much as you want. 

I find I want to switch to a parametric environment when I know pretty well where I am going. History is very powerful for being able to make adjustments/ changes that flow through the rest of a complex design. 

Having both environments available is one of the things that drew me to Fusion. 

[jeffreyromero2019]

Delete all lines and dimensions that are directly attached to the origin.

Move the sketch.

Redraw lines and dimensions.

Nothing else worked for me.

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@jeffreyromero2019 wrote:

Nothing else worked for me.

---

@jeffreyromero2019 

You didn't Attach your *.f3d file here?