Copy/Move Bodies - Parameters

[Fully_Defined]

I want to duplicate a body and move it in such a way that maintains the move parameters, so that I can make edits. However, the move/copy bodies feature seems to forget the distances and angles after it is created. Or does it? When I select the feature in the timeline in order to edit it, the text boxes all display zeros.

Am I missing something? And is there a better way?

I want to rotate something - let's say a cuboid - 180 degrees in Z (around a corner), 180 in X (around the same corner), then translate 19mm in X, -25mm in Y & 40mm in Z.

How would you go about this, while making this move editable, and drawing from parameters?

EDIT: ...other than creating five separate timeline events!

[Fully_Defined]

I want to duplicate a body and move it in such a way that maintains the move parameters, so that I can make edits. However, the move/copy bodies feature seems to forget the distances and angles after it is created. Or does it? When I select the feature in the timeline in order to edit it, the text boxes all display zeros.

Am I missing something? And is there a better way?

I want to rotate something - let's say a cuboid - 180 degrees in Z (around a corner), 180 in X (around the same corner), then translate 19mm in X, -25mm in Y & 40mm in Z.

How would you go about this, while making this move editable, and drawing from parameters?

EDIT: ...other than creating five separate timeline events!

[LeonardoBN]

Hi @Fully_Defined.

Are you using Free Move, the first option of Move? 

It is not parametric, so it doesn't remember the position. I look at it as a "relative position".

You could use more than one Move: a first Translate, and Rotate later. Rotate only allow one axis though.

Edit's edit: well, here I have more than one operation in timeline.

[LeonardoBN]

Hi @Fully_Defined.

Are you using Free Move, the first option of Move? 

It is not parametric, so it doesn't remember the position. I look at it as a "relative position".

You could use more than one Move: a first Translate, and Rotate later. Rotate only allow one axis though.

Edit's edit: well, here I have more than one operation in timeline.

[etfrench]

Use joints instead of move.

[etfrench]

Use joints instead of move.

[Fully_Defined]

---

@etfrench wrote:

Use joints instead of move.

---

I said bodies, not components. But you got me thinking...

And so I just placed alignment planes and used the align command X3. It's parametric so mission accomplished - however not as elegant as if free move commands were parametric so I could do it in one shot.

[Fully_Defined]

---

@etfrench wrote:

Use joints instead of move.

---

I said bodies, not components. But you got me thinking...

And so I just placed alignment planes and used the align command X3. It's parametric so mission accomplished - however not as elegant as if free move commands were parametric so I could do it in one shot.

[etfrench]

I'll say it again: Use joints not move 😀  Each and every move command requires recomputing each time a compute is done.  A compute is done whenever  you make a change.  As your file gets larger, this can add significant time the the compute. 

It's simple to create a component from a body.

[etfrench]

I'll say it again: Use joints not move 😀  Each and every move command requires recomputing each time a compute is done.  A compute is done whenever  you make a change.  As your file gets larger, this can add significant time the the compute. 

It's simple to create a component from a body.

[Fully_Defined]

Real talk. Not everything is an assembly.

At the end of the timeline, there will be a combine feature. How will joints be affected?

[Fully_Defined]

Real talk. Not everything is an assembly.

At the end of the timeline, there will be a combine feature. How will joints be affected?

[TrippyLighting]

---

@Fully_Defined wrote:

Real talk. Not everything is an assembly.

---

Yep! 

At the end of the timeline, there will be a combine feature. How will joints be affected?

---

In the hypothetical case that you would work with bodies in components and used joints to assemble those, the joints would not be affected as the combine feature is added afterward.

The combined body would be located in the component with the body you selected as the target body.

In rare occasions that workflow can be helpful.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@Fully_Defined wrote:

Real talk. Not everything is an assembly.

---

Yep! 

At the end of the timeline, there will be a combine feature. How will joints be affected?

---

In the hypothetical case that you would work with bodies in components and used joints to assemble those, the joints would not be affected as the combine feature is added afterward.

The combined body would be located in the component with the body you selected as the target body.

In rare occasions that workflow can be helpful.

[etfrench]

There are at least two options for combining the components with joints between them at the end.

1.  Create a new component and optionally save tools.

2.  Join the two components into an existing component and optionally save tools.  The inactive component can be removed.

In either case the joint will still be active.  Removing it will cause the components to resume their positions before the joint was made, but there will still be only one body. 

[etfrench]

There are at least two options for combining the components with joints between them at the end.

1.  Create a new component and optionally save tools.

2.  Join the two components into an existing component and optionally save tools.  The inactive component can be removed.

In either case the joint will still be active.  Removing it will cause the components to resume their positions before the joint was made, but there will still be only one body. 

[Fully_Defined]

@TrippyLighting 

Okay, but you keep going back to components. This is a part - I guess Fusion calls parts components, but it is NOT in any way going to interact with any other part or component to become an assembly. Are joints relevant between bodies within the same part or component?

---

@etfrench wrote:

There are at least two options for combining the components with joints between them at the end.

1.  Create a new component and optionally save tools.

2.  Join the two components into an existing component and optionally save tools.  The inactive component can be removed.

In either case the joint will still be active.  Removing it will cause the components to resume their positions before the joint was made, but there will still be only one body. 

---

You're one of those Rule #1 people, aren't you? Sorry, not going there.

I never mentioned anything about joints, because there is no motion and this is all within the same part or component. I'm talking specifically about bodies.

Not everything is an assembly.

[Fully_Defined]

@TrippyLighting 

Okay, but you keep going back to components. This is a part - I guess Fusion calls parts components, but it is NOT in any way going to interact with any other part or component to become an assembly. Are joints relevant between bodies within the same part or component?

---

@etfrench wrote:

There are at least two options for combining the components with joints between them at the end.

1.  Create a new component and optionally save tools.

2.  Join the two components into an existing component and optionally save tools.  The inactive component can be removed.

In either case the joint will still be active.  Removing it will cause the components to resume their positions before the joint was made, but there will still be only one body. 

---

You're one of those Rule #1 people, aren't you? Sorry, not going there.

I never mentioned anything about joints, because there is no motion and this is all within the same part or component. I'm talking specifically about bodies.

Not everything is an assembly.

[etfrench]

Using only bodies is limiting. 

Joints are used for positioning, not necessarily for movement. 

Assembly is just a word.  You can make up your own word for organizing your model using components and subcomponents.  The organization will be better than just using bodies.

[etfrench]

Using only bodies is limiting. 

Joints are used for positioning, not necessarily for movement. 

Assembly is just a word.  You can make up your own word for organizing your model using components and subcomponents.  The organization will be better than just using bodies.

[Fully_Defined]

---

@etfrench wrote:

Using only bodies is limiting. 

Joints are used for positioning, not necessarily for movement. 

Assembly is just a word.  You can make up your own word for organizing your model using components and subcomponents.  The organization will be better than just using bodies.

---

Said every CAD newbie until they realized their mistake.

[Fully_Defined]

---

@etfrench wrote:

Using only bodies is limiting. 

Joints are used for positioning, not necessarily for movement. 

Assembly is just a word.  You can make up your own word for organizing your model using components and subcomponents.  The organization will be better than just using bodies.

---

Said every CAD newbie until they realized their mistake.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@Fully_Defined wrote:

@TrippyLighting 

Okay, but you keep going back to components.

---

No, I am not. I use the move tool frequently as well when developing shapes.

I just wanted to provide some feedback that there is another workflow, which isn't possible in some other CAD systems.

There is a reason I call the workflow "rare".

[TrippyLighting]

---

@Fully_Defined wrote:

@TrippyLighting 

Okay, but you keep going back to components.

---

No, I am not. I use the move tool frequently as well when developing shapes.

I just wanted to provide some feedback that there is another workflow, which isn't possible in some other CAD systems.

There is a reason I call the workflow "rare".