Configurations with component patterns RE: new ground to parent feature

[cschofieldL2TXN]

Something I've been looking for a solution to for a while now is handling configurations of a file with patterned inserted components with different quantities across different configs. I think the new ground to parent feature has made life a bit easier, but it's not quite there, unless I'm missing something or there is an obvious workaround.

My previous workflow was to rigidly join the first inserted component to the parent, pattern it along the needed path, and create a rigid group with all of the instances in the pattern. Different configurations with different lengths/quantities would have their own pattern and rigid group features in the timeline, with all others suppressed. This works, but makes creating lots of configurations time consuming and a bit of a mess.

With the new ground-to-parent feature, I can simply place the first instance where it needs to go upon insertion and ground it to the parent. Any following patterned instances of the component will then also be grounded to the parent, meaning there's no more need for individual pattern and rigid group features for each different configuration.

The issue though, is that the moving of the initial component position can only be done at the time of insertion, and the position that it's placed in uses absolute coordinates with no ability to set positions relative to the parent. For example, if I insert a child component and move it using the point to point method to align two holes, that alignment gets lost if the location of the hole on the parent changes relative to the origin. After making the change to the parent hole location, the only solutions I can come up with are to either A) roll back the insertion and re-insert/pattern it or B) make the change to the parent part in a way that the absolute position of the hole remains the same, moving every other feature of the parent component in the process.

I'm hoping there's a workaround to this as I work with a lot of configurations where the differences between them are primarily the lengths and related quantities of patterned components along those lengths. As of now my method (A) of re-inserting/patterning is at least better than having a different set of unsuppressed features for every configuration, but I'd love to know if there's a better option.

[TrippyLighting]

Could you share an example file?

[cschofieldL2TXN]

I've attached a basic example of my old workflow and new one here.

In the old workflow file you'll see the suppressed features change in different configurations and a different set of unsuppressed features is required for each configuration. I threw these together really quickly but I'm sure you could imagine how messy this gets when there are many instances of this in one design.

The new workflow is a lot better in terms of keeping the features required for each configuration to a minimum, but if you were to edit the hole position in sketch 1 from 3in to something else, the couplings won't line up like they did originally. If I remove the midpoint constraint and leave the circle in the same position relative to the origin, they will line up, but that obviously shifts the entire part as well.

 

[TrippyLighting]

Sorry for the delay. Live (work), and some graduation ceremonies got in the way 😉

The Ground-to-parent feature really only works for the case you describe. I believe that the Fusion team is working on functionality to allow editing of an initial insertion point. That would likely remedy this particular problem, but only to a degree.
If you edit the sketch, as you do in your second screenshot, you would have to manually edit that insertion point. That is hardly a parametric workflow.

But there is no doubt in my mind that the pattern tools in Fusion need a desperate update.

[JamesLodge01]

Deleted to stop confusion.. @TrippyLighting is correct.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@JamesLodge01 wrote:

Therefore, generate a Rigid Group as per configuration.

---

Not having to do that is the entire point of the OP's first post.

That is the workflow he's demonstrated in his "old workflow" attachment.

[JamesLodge01]

Apologies - I completely missed that from the origional file.

Yes, the only way at the moment is to use the workflow you have been.

Its a shame Fusion doesn't also pull across the Joints when patterning.

Hopefully an improvement can be made herein the near future.

[TrippyLighting · Accepted solution]

@JamesLodge01 if you are still listening, I've found a workaround. This works less convoluted if I don't use external components and design in place. But with some consideration of origin location and  orientation this can work quite easily as well. No need to create different rigid joints for different quantities of SpinCo couplings!

[JamesLodge01]

Nice. Yes the new ground to parent option has certainly made a difference to how this type of operation is managed.

[TrippyLighting]

I've taken the liberty to accept my own post as the solution 😁