Copy sketches or how to split pieces of a sketch into bodies

[nkloski]

Hi all...some questions on sketching (see attached picture of some bolts going through a plate):

-I created a sketch with all of the geometry I needed

-The base plate needs to stay the same place

-the bolt housing needs to rotate by 12 degrees upwards

....If those were separate bodies, I would be able to do that easily, but they are not...everything was created in the same sketch.

Questions:

-I cannot see how to copy a sketch into a new sketch (then I would be able to save all of my original work, and delete the parts I don't need out of the new sketch and make bodies just out of the bolt housings

-Or, I cannot see how to select specific parts of the geometry (that originate from a single sketch) and make new bodies out of them.  In this way, I would select all of the bolt housing pieces and click "make new body of of these pieces" and then be able to rotate them

...because right now, when I select Move-->rotate, everything wants to be the target of the Move command.

Ideas?

Thanks!

[rishivadher]

Hi nkloski

One process that I use is to create a blank sketch and project the other sketch, sometimes tis process helps to machine to define one 2d drawing so the lines are closed (still using artcam and on the process to move to hsm ;)).

Open the sketch you want to copy from the tree and “crt+c” to copy the lines you want and then in the new sketch “crt+v” and will be there with the move command active.

Best Rishi

[Oceanconcepts · Accepted solution]

If you are in Direct Modeling it is possible to just select the faces you want to move, then select the Move command and reorient the manipulator to have the axis of rotation you want, then move the faces.  Once you start the rotation you can enter in the specific numeric value you want for the angle. You can't do this in parametric/ capture design history mode- one of the reasons I'm still mainly using direct modeling.

[Anonymous]

Hi Ron, that is the reason why I am still using the DM mode rather than the Parametric mode. Until they can make that mode more stable. For your information I also use wired keyboards for all my Macs. Only the iMac at home I used the wireless one sometimes. Easiest way to punch in the numbers. I like the WowPen Mouse very much!

[nkloski]

Wow...thanks, everyone!

I guess, being a "new user to Fusion 360" I did not understand that some features were just not supported or do not work like they do in other "modes".  I understand that there are differences to working with Forms and Sketching, etc....but that the constant presence of the Design History function actually prevents you from doing things in _all_ modes.  That is weird functionality to me....it is like the design history function is acting like a "super mode" that affects your entire environment (negatively in this case), and that if you don't know to turn it off, you just lose access to all of the direct modeling features!

Would be great if someone could point out a place (I did not see any) where that tradeoff in functionality is described, since new users would just "start using" the program and would probably never think to turn off what they think is "an awesome undo feature" to get functionality they might want......unless that functionality was described somewhere.

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Hi I would default to Direct Modeling mode at "Preference". In fact that was exactly what I did. There are things that the Parametric Mode cannot do especially the Move Command on some sketches like "Offset Planes" (I actually added that as an Add Feature Request). If you want to use the Move Command at the Parametric Mode you might have to Change to Edit Face mode. But sometimes it would not work and you have to plug in values at the "Parametric Expression". Then you will ended up choosing the Basic Feature Mode.

Until they can make the Parametric mode better and more stable I would suggest to just default to Model, Sculpt and Patch workspace Mode.

By the way in Direct Modeling mode, the "Push Pull" command works beautifully. Say you wanted to make a hole smaller you can Push Pull the inside of the hole. You wanted to decrease the depth, just push pull the bottom up. If you wanted to eliminate the hole completely, this is a little trick I used, "Extrude" from the bottom using Join option  all the way passing the surface, then select the protruded part and select delete. The hole is gone ! It works. Try it. Enjoy!

[Anonymous]

A little correction, to change the depth of the hole, you should use Extrude command, not push pull. Push Pull can change the diameter of the hole. A little screen shots are provided here. Hope this will help you more on your Bolt assembly. Sometimes you do have to change the depth of holes or eliminate them completely. Please note to extrude the bottom of the hole, this hole should have a flat bottom. Not one with an angle (created by the HOLE command).

Using Push Pull to change diameter:

Changing the Depth of the hole using "Extrude" (Join option)

Using Extrude, Extrude the bottom up (Join option, not cut)

If you want to elminate the hole  select the protruded part, and select delete

Hole is gone!

Hope this will help you a little more on your assembly modeling.

[Oceanconcepts]

Kingson,

It can be even easier to get rid of a hole.  In most cases, if you want to get rid of a hole, or any other feature in the direct modeling environment, you can just select all its faces, such as the sides and bottom for a hole, and hit DELETE. If Fusion can eliminate the feature and heal the body, it's gone. This ends up being a really powerful feature.  Or if the bottom of the hole and the surface it is in are co-planar, using the extrude or push-pull tool on the bottom surface to just start it moving, then click on the surface you want to match and the hole will disappear.

I missed history when I started working with Fusion, but I have now become addicted to the freedom that the direct modeling environment offers.  I've come up with workarounds for some of the limitations in not having history- for instance if I have a complex component I want to modify, but I'm not quite sure where it will end up, I make a copy and work on that. I can have several different versions of a component developing in parallel, and choose the one that works best. 

Hopefully as Fusion's history based environment evolves more of the freeform capabilities will find their way in, because for some things it's really nice to have parametric links. But for now the direct mode gives me a kind of flexible, freeform but precise sculpting environment that is very productive.

[Anonymous]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for sharing your tips too. I think most users will find different ways of doing the same thing. The most important thing is we share our findings. Your way is very good and accurate as well. In fact the early versions of Direct Modeling could not do things like this, if I could remember. These are the new things there were added and discovered by the users most of the time by accident.

I worked with very very small objects for plastic injection molding (moulding) method and most of the time little guides are needed for final assembling. I discovered these ways of eliminating holes when I deleted the rods that were moved into holes, then "combined" but could be deleted later on. That is very powerful. In the old days once something combined it might not be possible to delete part of the combined parts. When I worked with very very small parts of less than 2.5mm, and usually 1mm or less, like little holes, the more precise way is to extrude the bottom up. It is because the speed of doing all the modeling becoming very very slow with changing shapes, diameters, and depths of these small holes. I usually used the Extrusion method because the speed of doing these modifications seems to be faster and "less chances of crashing". Yes you can say that I am using ways to prevent crashing that you and I know so well but I think both of us had found some ways to work around those terrible things.

For the time being I could not bear the risk of loosing data and design features in the Parametric Mode. I already tried but the costs of loosing important designs for industrial projects are too high. I defaulted back to the old fashion Direct Modeling mode. In fact DM had been improved so much that I failed to see the need for Parametric Mode which in its early days seems to be very inefficient. Until they could improved them. The hobbyists might be better testers for that mode.

Maybe I am just a Physical Chemist and not an Engineer specializing in 3D programs like Rhino or Solid work. In fact I never used them. I started with Fusion360 brand new and I had been using it for my own industrial projects. I just wanted to model the actual products for manufacture. Measurements are more important than engineering terms for me. I would say that is the original idea of the Fusion360 design. They wanted Designers right?

I am the real new user of the Fusion360 3D world in fact!

[Evilix]

nice question and straight clear answer

thanks Fusion 360 nerds 😄