Creating variations from a single component

[Anonymous]

I'm wondering if anyone has an update on where we are at with some sort of feature that will allow for a single component to be inserted and modified by having it's parameters redefined or overridden. I've seen many old posts regarding this behavior without any solution other than a configurations feature that is being worked on.

My use-case is designing cabinets. I shouldn't have to create drawers and faces multiple times. I'd rather design a door once and then insert it with overridden parameters so that it is the correct size for the door/drawer. I actually think the software is fairly useless without this type of feature. What does someone do for laying out an entire kitchen??? I thought for a moment that insert derive was going to solve my problem but I'm actually perplexed by its behavior. You can do simple modifications to the component but nothing that would be very useful. Seems like this feature was intended more for sketches than components. 

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

[jhackney1972]

Fusion 360 does not support "Configurations" yet where you would have each component carry a table of configured sizes.  I will offer an idea that may help you but for a large number of linked components in an assembly it may get tedious.  Take a look at this Blog Article and Video.

[Anonymous]

Hi John,

Thanks for the quick reply. I'm not sure if I follow. I understand that I can use a separate file for key parameters that will be cascaded down to other files however I don't see how that solves my specific dilemma. 

Take a cope and stick panel door for example. I could specify the width of my stile and rails as well as the thickness of my panel in a master parameter file. If I want two different size doors (L x W) I would need to first build the door with one size then copy the file and change the size. If I want to adjust the width of my stile and rails I could easily edit the master parameter file and have the change cascade down which is great. If I want to change a flat shaker panel to a fillet raised panel then I will have to open each file and make the change multiple times. Also, consider that if I want to use my door as a drawer face I may want smaller stiles and rails which causes more duplicated effort. Am I missing something?

[jhackney1972]

I said the process may help you and it would be tedious.  Here is the way I see it being configured:

1. You have a Master Parameter component
   1. It has to be well organized since you cannot insert or rearrange parameters in a parameter table.
2. You would create a library of components of various styles and into these you would Derive the Master Parameter Component
   1. You would only add the parameters that apply to the particular library component to keep the clutter down
   2. Each library component must contain the same design, just different size parameters.
3. You would create an assembly, link in library components you need and change the Master Parameter component to suit.  Here is where it get tricky.  If you have to use the library component more than once, in the assembly, you need to create a library component, of the same design, with different parameters.

I have another suggestion. Take a look at this Forum post and see it Sheeter is something you can use.  I test it and it worked well but I am not in the business of building so I probably did not put it to the test.  This the forum post.

[MichaelT_123]

Hi Mr Tksvc,
The challenge you are facing appears on this Forum... with the regularity of flooding in different parts of the world and, it will as long as there is no reasonable understanding of the nature of this phenomenon in the CADmen Populus, parametric design, aka. Weather Pattern will continue to surprise us!
So, how to design a ‘cabinet’ parametrically, making it configurable?
Generally, three approaches are possible...
1. Bottom-Up. Separately design parametric components for doors, frames, hinges/placements, etc...
2. Top-Down. Approach the whole cabinet structure as the logical assembly structure of matching components with a chain of parametric datums which define dimensions/positions.
3. Mixed - Bottom-Up & Top-Down. A hybrid design strategy.

It seems that you look at your cabinet as a separate collection of parts. This is where the problems start. Ask yourself the simple question ‘What do I want to design?... doors/frames/hinges or a whole cabinet!
If one is a wholesale producer of cabinet doors, the Bottom-Up approach will be a natural choice.
However, for a kitchen cabinet shop, The Top-Down method has unquestionably definite advantages... like adding beforehand all required features, a kitchen layout, etc.
Using metaphor, this is how Universe was created. All parameters, laws, features have had been put in place beforehand and then the famous... And Let’s Be... was spelled out.
So, point 2. would be my recommendation... follow Good advice... and you will be fine. If you are extra-confident, try to break the sky by implementing Hybrid Revolutionary Strategy.
Hence, what about the Hybrid approach?
Theology is not clear in this case.
Should the creation be final, or would it allow for the post-modification actions of underwriting its laws?
It is a tough predicament to address, however taking into account the current drive towards unconstrained diversity and freedom, let’s draft the example of Revolutionary Kitchen Cabinet Design Workflow.
Here it is:
1. Design collection of Tier_1 components (cabinet doors or/and other essential parts), each in separate files. Name the respective parameters to reflect their types. This will make life easier later. Remember to add some redundant parts/parameters in a category.
2. Create an RKCDW file.
3. Define in advance some useful global user parameters.
4. Insert (derive might also work) ALL such created files/components into the RKCDW file, which will be your template... predecessor of Bing Bang Kitchen Design.
5. You will find that some global user parameters might be ‘multiplied' under post-fixed names like thickness & thickness_1.
6. You might elect to correct the namings, manually or otherwise.
7. Create Tier_2 component(s) in BBKD (let say it will be a single cabinet). In the process, implement dimension datum assignments based on already in place user parameter set.
8. Create Tier_3/4/.. components in manner similar to the one above.
9. The above should result in creation of a single BBKD_TEMPLATE component in BBKD file.
10. The subsequent operation should be performed in new components representing various kitchen variants. Do not use paste new in building them up unless really necessary, use generic paste.
11. When completed you will be in charge of My Kitchen (variants), including easily adding cabinets (by simple paste), removing them indiscriminately, putting them on top of each other or even change hinges from left to right or vice versa.
12. The fluidity of the above will be deterministically dependent upon the quality and consistency of the preliminary template set-up of Bing Bang Kitchen Design, ... so be mindful!

Regards
MichaelT

[TrippyLighting]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Am I missing something?

---

Nope!

What has been offered so far are workarounds and alternative workflows, each with their unique challenges.

Probably OK for a one-up design, but not if you need to do this efficiently and effectively in a professional environment.

What has not been addressed are the issues that might arise form those workflows when you actually want to create a BOM or even a cut-list from the design. I am assuming that designing the cabinet is not the end game 😉

Whatever workflow you might end up adopting, follow this through completely to BOM creation and see if the end result is acceptable to work with.

If you have adopted Fusion 360 as your main CAD tool, then my recommendation would be to follow the suggestions offered so far. If you use another CAD tool, then hang on to it for a little while until this feature set has been implemented.

I do know first-hand that the Fusion 360 team is working on this feature set and have a Zoom meeting with the product manager next week. That's all I can share at this time.