Derive Parameters to Multiple Designs are renamed after Copy

[jaccostuitje]

Hello Team Fusion 360,

I am making guitars with Fusion 360 for a year now, getting awesome results. 
I was designing necks and bodies with a new set of parameters for each part for each guitar, but since the Derive Function was introduced I redesigned my workflow. As there was a suggestion in the 'Live360' video about the Derive function was that one could use parameters from one design to drive several other designs I started modelling my parts like that. 

I made one design with only the parameters (80 in total), one design that takes those parameters and models the neck and one design that takes the same parameters and models the body. This worked absolutely great. 

But - I am working on multiple instruments at the same time, and at this moment I am ready to copy the original  design to a different project for another instrument, so I can CAM and CNC  several parts with different measurements.  

Here comes my question: 

When I copy the 3 designs to a new project (parameters-only, body and neck) I delete the original Derive at the beginning of the body and neck design, and make a new derive from the copied Parameter-design. I want to change those parameters to different values, so to be able to create parts with different measurements. 

Unfortunately I can't do that.

Since the copied designs use the original User Parameter-names - every time I insert a different Derive Fusion renames the parameters (it adds _Ref1).  It doesn't matter if I push the Derive from the Parameter Design or pull the Parameter Design into the other designs.

My thought was - no problem; I rename the Model parameters to the new names and get the right parameters.
But Fusion doesn't want me to do that, I get the error:

"Parameter Rename Failed. There is a parameter present in the system with the same name. Please try with a different name."
So I tried to rename all 80 parameters in the copied designs to _Ref1, and derived the parameter file afterwards. Fusion 360 decided to fall back to the _Ref addition, so no succes either. 

I hope I am making a mistake in my workflow - and hopefully one of you people can point me a better way to do this. 

I made a simple workflow with a box and a lid made from a simple parameter file to show you what is happening:

Original Params:   https://a360.co/2EGJUG4
Original box:          https://a360.co/2Tq97ib
Original Lid:           https://a360.co/2TnqzUh

Copied Params:     https://a360.co/2IWCIuQ

Copied Box:            https://a360.co/2EG88Ae

Copied Lid:             https://a360.co/2TjFJKe

Also I made a screencast to show what happens. 

I do hope that you or anyone can help me out with this, and I have the feeling that more and more people will start to use the Derive function to create a Master Parameter File, so hopefully this will help other people as well.

Thanks in advance!!
best regards,
Jacco

Screencast will be displayed here after you click Post.

1b406e10-0be1-4778-b1f1-520043aef310

[jhackney1972]

I believe you would be more interested in the Save As command rather than Derive Component or Insert Derive.  The Save As command will allow you to create a copy of your file, bodies, sketches, and active parameters by a new name making a new file with all bodies and sketch "actively" connected to their associated parameters from the original.  There is no parameter renaming with this method.

Derive is a process of "sharing" bodies, sketches and parameters between files.  Derive DOES NOT maintain an active link between the body and sketch dimensions plus they are rename as you pointed out.  So give the Save As command a try and I think you will be pleased with the result.  One word of caution, check very carefully which file is active after using the command.  Most of the time it is the new file but sometimes....

[jaccostuitje]

Hello John, 

Thank you very much for your quick reply, much appreciated!

Just to be sure that I get what you mean:

Do you mean to say that I need to "Save As" all three designs with different names, and the relations between the 3 designs will stay in sync? How would that work in the 2 designs that Derive their Parameters from the Master File? My guess would be that both Deriven Designs will stay linked to the original Parameter file. 

To clarify: I need to make 2 designs which make different things, but share the same parameters. So the parameter Master File 'drives' both designs. I can't combine them all in one design, since I would like to combine different necks with different bodies later on. 

[jaccostuitje]

Follow-up: 

I tried John's suggestion with the 3 designs and unfortunately the result is exactly the same as when I copied the three designs: one can not edit the Derive, "break link" doesn't work and if one inserts a new Derive to the "Saved As" - parameter file the parameters get different names. 

I will look into another solution - Export and Import Parameters, for instance with Param-IO, an Fusion 360 add-in. If I know more I will post here.

Thanx for any more replies or ideas!

[jhackney1972]

If you take one of your design files, which has not been derived, it has only the original parameters and Save As to a different name, the new file will have all the parameters, with the original names, attached to the model.  These parameters will drive the new file just as it did the original.

When you Derive a file, it only creates a copy of the parameters and renames them.  You have to reattach them to the model in order to use them.  Try a small two parameter model and test.

[jhackney1972]

I wanted to backup my statement with a Screencast of a simple part with parameters to show you the process and how well it works. 

[jaccostuitje]

Thank you very much, John, for your extensive help.
I've watched your screencast carefully, much obliged for the effort that you've put in my question. 

I am sorry to say that it did not help - at the end of the screencast you remark that the parameters are the same in both designs, but they are not Linked. 

I need the master file to give the parameters to the two other designs, not only the names but also the values. If I change the value of f.i. Diameter or Height it should propagate to the other designs and force them to change the model accordingly. This way both designs (who need to stay separate, and will be milled separate) will be modelled to the same values and they will fit each other when I make the guitar. 

This morning I did some testing however with the Parameter I/O Add-in, and that went quite well - now I have a csv-sheet living on my mac which will update both designs to the same parameters.

So far I only tested it on a simple model, I will test it on the complex ones on monday. 

Since you went so far out of your way for me, if it works out I will make a screencast to show you and anyone else interested in linking models parametrically if and how this works. 

But I have to say that I am a bit disappointed in the Derive function in this respect.

Fusion 360 claims it is a parametrical design environment, so I had hoped it would have developed a nicer, cleaner tool than this Add-in with external csv-sheets to link designs parametrically.  I think I will post this remark in the "Ideas" forum to the team. 

Again, thank you very much, and I hope you enjoy a nice weekend!
Best regards, 
Jacco

[jhackney1972]

I am finally on-board with what you truly desire.  Using a single CSV spreadsheet to control all model parameters will work very nicely.  You will make sure that the CSV spreadsheet is imported into each model BEFORE you assign the variables to your sketches and features.  In fact, you are probably using the same one I have installed called Parameter !/O.

Knowing exactly what you are doing, I want to make sure you know that the Derive function(s), in Fusion 360, can do the exact same thing.  Here is the process:

1. Create a Master part containing only the parameters you will need for all components.  Create them as User Parameters and then make them each a Favorite.
2. Before starting you component, Derive the Master part parameters into the new design
3. Make the Derived parameters you need for the new component design Favorites
4. Apply these parameters as you design your new component
5. When you want to update all components, edit the master part parameters.  Then open each component that has the derived parameter table in it and it will prompt you to update.

Take a look at the Screencast, it will show a master parameter part and then two components designed with it derived into it.  The screen cast could get long so I may pause it on non-important steps.  Instead of pausing it, I created only one of the two parametric components during the recording, I had the other created earlier.

I know one of your objections will be the renaming of the parameters with a _REF after it but to me this is not a disadvantage, it will automatically tell you that you are in a component USING the parametric component parameters instead of the master parametric table component.

Screencast will be displayed here after you click Post.

91dedef6-0e76-4b20-a65c-95fa87a5d3d2

[jhackney1972]

In case the Screencast does not show up in the preceding message here is the link to it.

[TrippyLighting]

The derive functionality is very new and certainly has use cases where it is not that practical.

I very much helps, for example when you have al of your components designed in context in a single file and then many of these components will also need to be machined, Previously this case all CAM setups to be in one file and that created quite a data management challenge.

Now you can derive each to-be-machined component out into it's own file and add the cam stuff in these derived components.

I am wondering if the Fusion3360 addin Sheeter could be of use to you. I bet it can:

[jaccostuitje]

Hello @TrippyLighting and @jhackney1972 

Thanks again for your help in this. 

@jhackney1972 : Your suggestion surely works, and I showed this in my Opening Post.
But.... the moment you copy your designs to a new project to make another version of if, and you want to keep the originals, the renaming of parameters will get in the way. So for my question your solutions does not work, I'm sorry to say. 
In fact I really advise anyone with more complex models and designs NOT to go this way with Derive. I just spent a day renaming all the parameters in my models, since they were derived from a file that I won't use anymore. That is 160 parameters and some 2000 dimensions per part that needed revision. 

@TrippyLighting 

This seems to me the way to go - FusionSheeter together with Param I/O, seems to be the solution to me.
I tested this with the simple Box and Lid model from my screencast and this worked wonderfully

Now I am testing this on my more complex designs, which takes a long time because of the renaming (which brings up inconsistencies in my model , alas) 

I've come a long way and when I'm done testing I will get back here. 

Again - thank you very, very much for helping - this is what Fusion360 makes a wonderful experience. 
And if FusionSheeter really works  as well as I hope, mr. Tapnair who made it should get a serious Fusion360 Award....

[TrippyLighting]

---

@jaccostuitje wrote:

And if FusionSheeter really works  as well as I hope, mr. Tapnair who made it should get a serious Fusion360 Award....

---

Mr "tapir" is Mr. Patrick Prainsberry @prainsberry .

[prainsberry]

Hey, thanks for the shout out!  I was looking through this and there is another small thing you could add to the workflow when you do want to make a copy.  For the 3 designs all linked together it seems it would work quite well to use the sheeter add-in. 

If you wanted to copy the design and use it to start a new "family" you could also copy the Fusion 360 design using save-as and make a copy of the Google sheet in your Google Drive.  Then in the new Fusion design, re-link the sheet to the id of the new sheet that was created.  Now you would have a new design file and new sheet that start out at the same state as the old one but are NOT linked, if that is what you are trying to do.

[jaccostuitje]

Finally done with editing and updating all params in my designs.

- and for me the FusionSheeter won't work after all....snif.

Reason: FusionSheeter stores parameters which are calculated from other params as their values.

That way one loses the relativity of those params. 

For instance: 

As a luthier I use a parameter called "Scalelength", "StringSpacing" and "NumberOfStrings".
From those parameters a lot of other params are calculated - for instance "Stringspacing / (NumberOfStrings - 1) gives the string-spacing between strings.

Wat FusionSheeter now does (at least in my testing) is:

it calculates the initial values and stores the outcome if there is one. 
Now if you change the StringSpacing for another model, it won't update "StringspacingBetweenStrings" anymore because it has lost the formula. 

Now one could argue that those formulas should be calculated in the Model Parameters, but I need them in two different designs, so I need the formulas in the User Parameters - as formulas.

I am so sorry for mr. Rainsberry - no awards from the Netherlands, as of yet. I do thank mr. Rainsberry and other contributors for their involvement in this quest!

[jaccostuitje]

To close this thread, at least for me, for now:

WORKFLOW for DRIVING TWO DESIGNS WITH 1 Parameter Sheet
(And be able to copy those designs to other projects)

1 - Install Parameter I/O (AutoDesk Add-in)
2 - Make your first design, making User Parameters in the process. 
3 - Think-through and clean-up your parameters and export them as .csv file on your desktop

4 - import that file in second (or 3d) design

5 - Finish that design with those parameters

6 - If necessary: update parameters in .csv-file, and import back into both designs.

7  - copy designs to new project

8  - copy parameter-csv-file, and rename to match new project

9 - import new csv-file into the new designs.

Done.

Works for me, so far. Thanks To All !!!

[prainsberry]

hey one thing to consider.  I thought about this quite a bit when designing it.  An alternative approach is to create the core parameters with values, and then create all of the dependent or calculated parameters in Google Sheets.   That way you can take full advantage of the math and functions of the spreadsheet tool.   When Sheeter reads the parameters back into the Fusion model, all of the columns you created in Sheets and their COMPUTED values will be returned to Fusion 360.   

[MichaelT_123]

Hi Mr. Prainsberry,

What your thoughts have created is the unnecessary 'maca geegee', unfortunately not the first one in F360.

There is no grounded logic or state machine like mode of performing the action in a cohesive way here.

What left is Business Development selling 'sheeter'.

The simplest option should be to give a user the option to overload/adapt the existing design parameter(s) or derive a new one by some known methodology. No Google Sheet is required!

Sincerely 

MichaelT

PS.

You might not find the phrase  'maca geegee' in the current Google search... yet.

For the record, it means:

The unreasonable action/process performed in a strange/expansive/expensive way, disguised under the pretenses of a valid/noble/legit solution. 

The example:

Picking a nose using two fingers at once, with self-deception of achieving a double yield,  higher digging rate, better applause on UT/FB/..., etc.

[jaccostuitje]

Hello mr. Rainsberry,

Thanks for responding. Since I have been using Fusion 360 I have experienced a lot if improvements,  and there will always be a lot to improve. Thank you for trying to improve Fusion 360 with your add-in. 

I do however disagree with you proposal to edit the parameters in Google Sheets. 

As a luthier I have put a lot of time and energy in building my models with, at least for me, logically - named parameters. This works so well in Fusion that it enables someone who is not educated in CAD to make designs that work and actually make stuff. My focus needs to be on making guitars, not doing math-equations .

I use parameter formulas like: 

"StringspacingAtTopnut + DistanceOuterStringsToFingerboard + DistanceOuterStringsToFingerboard + ( ( ( StringspacingAtBridge - StringspacingAtTopnut ) * FingerboardLength ) / ScaleLength )"

This would be complete nonsense to most people, and I admit that this one is particularly  long, but it makes sense to me and it works absolutely fine in Fusion, so that is important to me. And I can read this. 

You say " I thought a lot about this when making Sheeter", and I do believe you did.

But what actually happens is this :

You ask your users to leave your product, and actually get out of Fusion 360 (where they've put a lot of time and thought in getting their designs right), to go in a 3-rd party app (which, for personal reasons, I really don't like) and solve their questions there.

I do believe that the way forward for Fusion 360 is that something like you have made in Google Docs, is available within Fusion 360, without any 3-rd party app or .csv file, with the flexibility to keep formulas within your parameters.  

I will post this as an idea in the ideas-forum. 

In the meantime for everyone experiencing the same problem:

working with .csv files works fine. 

[prainsberry]

That is really good feedback.  I really appreciate you taking the time to respond.  I definitely see your point about developing all of the logic in the Fusion parameters especially in this case.  

I would like to clarify something even if for future readers of the thread.  When I propose using this add-in or the workflows associated with it I am speaking as myself, not as Autodesk.  The development team is amazing and they are well aware of the need to have multiple variations of a single design and I believe if or when they deliver a solution it will be amazing.  I do work at Autodesk, but I am actually in charge of business strategy for Fusion 360 and have no business writing code 🙂  These add-ins I make are purely a hobby (that has grown into quite an obsession)  and I love being able to help out our users with these utilities, but they should not perceived as the "product strategy" or "recommended workflow" or even "supported workflow" of the broader Fusion 360 development team.  

Now with that disclaimer I think i do have an idea that could be useful here, but you tell me if you think it is worth pursuing.  When I say that I thought a lot about it here is my thought.  I could store all of the equations from Fusion in the google sheet.  But they would be "strings" if i did it, I think I would have to do it for every parameter so they would be like "1 in" for example.  If you did it this way you could manage them all but nothing would work in the sheet.  Maybe this is ok?  

I also have another add-in that is the works that might be more useful for you here.   Quick question though.  In your ideal scenario would you have one Fusion document that you can switch through 3 sizes in the same "file?" or do you really want to have 3 separate files?

[jaccostuitje]

Dr. mr. Rainsberry,

---

@prainsberry wrote:

"they should not perceived as the "product strategy" or "recommended workflow" or even "supported workflow" of the broader Fusion 360 development team. "

Thx for clearing that up. I think it is awesome that you try to make a better product, AND take the time to respond to your users.  

  I could store all of the equations from Fusion in the google sheet.  But they would be "strings" if i did it, I think I would have to do it for every parameter so they would be like "1 in" for example.  If you did it this way you could manage them all but nothing would work in the sheet.  Maybe this is ok?  

---

For me that would be fine. Although I don't like big companies like Google to have anything to do with my work, I do see the need for an online service in this regard. And in your strategy it would  only be used to push and pull data into one's designs. The editing of the parameters can be done in Fusion. 

@prainsberry wrote:

"In your ideal scenario would you have one Fusion document that you can switch through 3 sizes in the same "file?" or do you really want to have 3 separate files?"

Ideally?
Both. I could for instance make 3 sets of parameters which are pushed to the guitar neck and the guitar body (2 separate designs), I could use those sets of parameters to test how measurements actually work out in the design.

Maybe check back with the customer(s) and then push the chosen parameters to the final neck and body designs which would actually be made. From the moment that I start routing parts however I need to 'freeze' the parameters so everything would stay 'in sync'. 

Again, thank you so much for responding and trying to help out! This is the first time I reach out for help, and for you (as Business Developer :-)) I can only say that I will 'spread the word'. Have a great day!