Announcements
Attention for Customers without Multi-Factor Authentication or Single Sign-On - OTP Verification rolls out April 2025. Read all about it here.

Construct 'Plane at Angle'

Anonymous

Construct 'Plane at Angle'

Anonymous
Not applicable

When I construct a "plane at angle" does Fusion allow me to choose the angle reference?  I don't know what plane it references to give me my angle and I would like to choose the plane it references rather than it just choosing for me and not even telling me what it's referencing (it being fusion360 interface).  I'm growing increasingly frustrated with placing planes and feel the interface isn't allowing me full control of my options.

1 Like
Reply
6,868 Views
14 Replies
Replies (14)

Anonymous
Not applicable

Just click on a plane and it will be used as reference.

 
Also you can link them manually using parameters.
2 Likes

Anonymous
Not applicable

You've actually captured exactly what I am talking about.  Even though you're clicking on a new reference and the new construction plane is placed parallel with it, the actual degree callout does not change to zero based on your new reference.  It's still referencing the default plane for the angle callout.  Thank you very very much for your quick reply!  Unfortunately, I'm still looking for a solution to this.

1 Like

jeff_strater
Community Manager
Community Manager

@Anonymous,

 

You are correct.  Today, there is no way to specify a reference plane from which the angle is measured, and which is parametrically associated to that plane.  That would certainly be a useful feature.  I would suggest adding it to the Fusion IdeaStation.  The feature that @Anonymous showed in that post is just a "snap" selection, which will set the angle so that the plane is parallel to the selected plane, but that is not associative.

 

Jeff

 


Jeff Strater
Engineering Director
0 Likes

mroek
Collaborator
Collaborator

@jeff_strater:

Not to be disrespectful, but the IdeaStation is just so full of stuff (and a whole lot of it useless, to be brutally honest), so getting anything voted up high enough to become considered by you guys seems more or less futile.

5 Likes

mavigogun
Advisor
Advisor

Frankly, this ain't an "idea"- it's a bug that needs be fixed.   The very notion of "Plane at Angle" is that the angle is in reference to a feature- not the origin.  On a related note, it seems there have been persistent inconsistencies in the performance of Plane at Angle- I found this page looking for a way to address angled planes deviating fractionally from the entered value; judging from my search, a re-occurring problem.    Screencast forthcoming.

3 Likes

therealsamchaney
Advocate
Advocate

I think you've hit on an important issue with Fusion which is lack of fine control in some of the most fundamental features such as creating construction planes.

 

Having a "plane at angle" is meaningless if the only reference is a line. A line can be coplanar to an infinite number of planes, so it doesn't make any sense for Fusion not to require both a line and a plane reference to perform this action. The function should be called "plane at angle to existing plane and edge" and should require both a plane and edge references.

 

The only time using the plane at angle command works is when the line reference is already parallel to one of the origin planes, but this still requires the user to look at what Fusion arbitrarily chooses as the secret plane reference and then mentally calculate how to factor that into creating the plane they actually want. If the line you need to use as a reference is not parallel to any of the origin planes, there is no way to actually control the angle of the newly constructed plane without doing some pretty complicated geometry math, which completely destroys the purpose of GUI-based CAD software. If I could easily calculate the relationships between all of the angles of the faces of my object I could just code it in OpenSCAD or something.

 

This makes modeling something like an icosahedron a huge headache. You can easily get the base triangle, and the first 3 edge-adjacent triangles to it using plane at angle (because the edge references were sketched on one of the origin planes). However, there is no way to use plane at angle to create the required plane for the next triangular face. If you click on one of the edges of the 3 outer triangles and use plane at angle, the 0 degree point is not actually 0 degrees with respect to the plane that triangle was sketched on, and there is no way to tell Fusion to use that plane as a reference. To make matters even worse, there is no other way to create the required plane in Fusion. So, the only way to model this shape is to use some internal geometry like the pentagon that is formed by 5 adjacent triangular faces, or by constructing 3 orthogonal rectangles using the golden ratio phi and connecting the vertices in a 3D sketch.

Anyway, it's baffling to me that Fusion 360 uses this "plane at angle" feature as one of the main (and relatively few) methods for creating construction planes, one of the most fundamental parts of CAD modeling when it's not even fully defined. You can't create a plane at an angle to a line without an existing plane reference, and the user should be able to explicitly select that plane reference. This needs to be overhauled.

3 Likes

therealsamchaney
Advocate
Advocate

Hi @jeff_strater , is there any update on fixing the "plane at angle" feature? There is still no way to define a plane reference when using this feature which makes it pretty useless to be honest. You can't create a plane at a certain angle to a line without having an existing plane as a reference. It's not fully defined. Fusion is just secretly choosing an origin plane as a reference behind the scenes, and this doesn't work if the line reference is not parallel to one of the origin planes.

 

Thanks!

-Sam

4 Likes

Anonymous
Not applicable

Dear Fusion360 team,

 

It's been over THREE YEARS and this STILL HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED.  Come on people.. There are over 2,400 views on this thread.  That, at the very least, indicates curiosity from your user base.  They land on this thread for a reason.  PLEASE MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN.

 

To everyone else/whom it may concern,

 

If this post captures what you wish was implemented, make your voice useful and post a simple reply to this thread.  Writing, "Agree" would probably suffice in grabbing some attention from the Fusion squad.

 

P.S. Fusion360, Your product is otherwise awesome.  Thanks for your diligence with other improvements.  Now add this to the list, would ya?

 

 

2 Likes

jeff_strater
Community Manager
Community Manager

I've said this before on many other different threads, but I'll repeat it here.  Yes, your observation is correct, this has not been fixed.  We do the best we can to address as many of the high priority requests as we can, but, in the end, we have to make a call about the order in which requests are addressed.  We do not have infinite resources, so we have to prioritize and triage things.  I know I am inciting flames here, but, this issue is just not one of the higher priorities.  You can be outraged by that, but it reflects the current state of Fusion.  I agree that this would be good to have, but in all honesty, it may be a while before it gets addressed.


Jeff Strater
Engineering Director
1 Like

kevinwilcox46
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Well, I landed here so got my answer. Probably the same issue as everyone else and no point moaning, I know only too well what it's like to be seen as an infinite resource. Instead, I'll share a workaround which may only be good for my particular situation.

 

This will be easier to understand by looking at the attached file and, vice versa, what I add here. No apologies for the unconstrained sketch etc, it's just to illustrate the point.

 

I have a shape (profile) with a series of almost but not quite parallel lines. (This is why offset planes won't work here). I need a plane at an angle to each of these and the plane angle needs to be identical. I want to then create a profile sketch on each of these angled planes. The profile is almost identical on each so I want to create it on the first angled plane, then copy and paste into sketches on each of the other angled planes; and then make some small tweaks to each sketch such that each of these profiles is unique. Ideally I want each paste to be in exactly the same place on their respective sketches, as each one is connected to a common edge.

 

Using plane at angle gives me two different outcomes, some planes are angled to one invisible reference, some to another, so not much use. I can play with the angles to get them close enough but it's a bit of a bodge. Un-suppress the first group in the timeline to see what I mean. But in any case, when I copy and paste from the first new sketch, it is placed randomly on the next sketch, and the next, etc. Of course it's not truly random, software can't do that, but there seems to be no way for me to predict and control for where it'll be pasted. On the attached example, they are mirroring. On the real project, they can be mirrored, 180 degrees rotated etc. Big PITA as the real profiles are a little complex and it takes ages to get them sorted out.

 

I next tried plane through two edges. supress all but sketch 1 and group 2 to see this. An improvement. I made a dummy copy of the 'lines' sketch and offset this, so I have two parallel edges for the new planes, thus ensuring they are true to each other. But when I copy and paste the profile sketch, I still get random mirroring. I guess this is something to do with what these angled planes pick as an invisible reference. Anyway, better but still no good.

 

What seems to work is plane through three points. Suppress all bar sketches 1 & 6 and group 3. Similar to the previous, using an offset copy sketch. Two of the points are off the top line, the third from the copy sketch. Identical methodology for each angled plane. Now, the copy and pasted sketches paste reliably and predictably. I'm guessing that the three points become a reference for the respective sketches.

 

I have no idea if there's a better, easier way but this looks like it'll get me through the issue that brought me here this evening.

 

1 Like

Anonymous
Not applicable

I am literally in the process of attempting to create an icosahedron. This comment perfectly sums up the infuriating problems I have realized. I recently switched from SolidWorks to Fusion 360 but this will absolutely convince me never to use 360 again. What an absolutely asinine "feature". Thank you commenter for putting it so perfectly. 

1 Like

mbeachal38Q58
Explorer
Explorer

My workaround here is the following and only can be insured for my exact situation:

I create a pipe feature out of the line I'm looking to reference at 1" diameter as a new body

I create a tangent plane feature on the pipe, which allows for a reference plane.

I create an offset plane -0.5" from that plane, effectively at the center of the pipe, or on the line I'd have otherwise just created a plane from directly.

Of course you can substitute a different diameter for the pipe and offset, Ƙ1.0" just seemed easy enough here.

 

Hope this helps someone!

0 Likes

kevinwilcox46
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Jeff, are users able to influence what gets fixed next? A year into using F360 there are three major bugs (this, issues with lofting and poor error handling) that have me about to start learning Rhino, because with years of complex 3D modelling ahead of me I don't want to be still sat here this time next year swearing at the programme to 'just do it'. But in general I really like F360 and, if I do migrate, it'll be with reluctance.

0 Likes

jeff_strater
Community Manager
Community Manager

@kevinwilcox46 wrote:

Jeff, are users able to influence what gets fixed next?


Yes, definitely, user input absolutely factors heavily into fix priority.  However, the key word here is "influence".  It is not the only factor.   The number of users reporting the problem is a big factor.  Whether there is a workaround is also important, as is the impact of a bug (crashes and data loss are more important than annoyance bugs).  What does not influence the priority is the date at which it was reported.  Just because an issue was reported N years ago, does not, itself, bump up its priority.  I only mention that here because the topic does come up on the forum a lot.  Lots of outrage is expressed at the length of time a given bug or enhancement request has been in existence.

 

We have lots more issues that need addressed than we have developers to address them, so we do have to triage those requests.  And, of course, we have to balance fixes with new development and other strategic initiatives.  It's a complex system of equations.  We don't always get the ideal balance, but I think in general, we are in the vicinity of that balance, but I am admittedly biased.

 


Jeff Strater
Engineering Director
0 Likes