Component Pattern

[Lonnie.Cady]

I have a component that is joined to another component.  I then created a rectangular component pattern.  I was assuming that all was good then I discovered the patterned parts are not actually locked down.

I guess this is the intended behavior but can someone explain as to why it would be?  I would think a patter would be rigid once created.   

[laughingcreek]

pattern is frequently used as a quick way of making multiple copies that will then get jointed somewhere else.  make a rigid group if you want them to stay put in relation to each other.

[kb9ydn]

I can see the utility in using pattern to make multiple copies of components that aren't rigidly joined together.  The problem is that this totally violates the concept of a "pattern"!  If you move all the patterned components around afterwards, it's no longer a pattern is it?

Creating multiple copies of components should be done with the Move/Copy command.  Or at the very least, there should be a check box in the pattern command to create the pattern as a rigid group (by default) or not.

C|

[laughingcreek]

I would hate for it to automatically add a rigid group joint.  I could live with a check box.  Would it also apply to child components?  Another checkbox I guess.

I use patterns regularly to build multi component assemblies.  In my case I usually pattern several different components before applying a rigid group to everything all at once.  Applying the rigid group just once at the top level is preferred over having multiple  rigid groups in the timeline.

[kb9ydn]

---

@laughingcreek wrote:

I would hate for it to automatically add a rigid group joint.  I could live with a check box.  Would it also apply to child components?  Another checkbox I guess.

I use patterns regularly to build multi component assemblies.  In my case I usually pattern several different components before applying a rigid group to everything all at once.  Applying the rigid group just once at the top level is preferred over having multiple  rigid groups in the timeline.

---

Well, ideally if you create a pattern as a rigid group the grouping would be inherent in the pattern feature itself; i.e. there would not be a separate rigid group feature in the timeline.  Adding one would just clutter things up.  If you decide later that you want the patterned components to be free instead of grouped, you would just edit the pattern feature and uncheck the "rigid group" option.

As for child components; the best thing would be if you could control the rigidness of each of the patterned assemblies (an assembly is a component with child components) individually, so that their internally defined joints are still honored (or not if treated as rigid).  Being that Fusion doesn't really have a true assembly mode I'm not sure if that would actually be possible.  Would have to think about that one.

C|

[Vreith]

Again, with configurations this is another awful legacy decision that causes design-breaking behaviour.

I have a patterned LED array.

Different configurations have different sizes, and different numbers of LEDs, but now some configurations will have arbitrary LEDs that aren't fixed

The notion that users should be making a rigid group for every single configuration is ridiculous, and highlights why the original functionality was poorly thought through.

I won't discuss whether or not someone should be using a pattern to make components for use elsewhere, but there are already multiple workflows to do this. Whereas there is currently no way to make parametrically patterned components. Another confounding omission with the addition of "configurations"

[TrippyLighting]

I would not say it wasn't thought through.

It was simply not implemented at the time, and to be completed later. The latest feedback I received ( after having asked for it for much longer than this thread!)  was that it hasn't risen to the top of the priorities. I find that that completely confounds and baffles me! 

[kb9ydn]

---

@TrippyLighting wrote:

I would not say it wasn't thought through.

It was simply not implemented at the time, and to be completed later. The latest feedback I received ( after having asked for it for much longer than this thread!)  was that it hasn't risen to the top of the priorities. I find that that completely confounds and baffles me! 

---

It feels like Autodesk has taken a very broad but not so deep approach to building out the various features of Fusion.  They seem to roll out features that are fine for simpler tasks, but don't have the depth of functionality to deal with more complicated situations.  I understand why they did it (marketing, in the sense that they can say "look at all this stuff Fusion can do!"), but it ends up being frustrating because you get excited when a new feature comes out, only to discover it only does half of what you need it to do.  It isn't right or wrong, it's just the way they've chosen to do things.  And going about it the other way, depth of features before adding new features, might not be any better.

Anyway; I know that assemblies are a current development focus, so maybe we'll see something on this soon.

C|