Direct vs History based modelling

[Anonymous]

There is another thread going with this sort of conversation but that thread is more to do with history based modelling than direct modelling.

I find this topic very interesting and have had this conversation a number of times with no real conclusion.

I would be forever grateful if somebody could give an example of how history based modelling is needed from a mechanical engineering point of view.

Ideally what I would like is a solid example, such as if a person was designing a mechanical device how changing something downstream would not be possible with direct modelling, or some other example please?

[Beyondforce]

Who says that you have to choose either DM or TL!? What's really cool about Fusion 360, is the ability to use DM and TL at the same time. Which means, you get the the best out of both of them.
As you can see, your options are almost endless and the rest it's up to you.

[daniel_lyall]

Something can not be done in DM it's simple if you need certain features like parameters that is what say what you can or cant use DM or TM, DM no user parameters, TM user parameters simple as mud.

Understanding Fusion weakness and strengths.

[Anonymous]

This has been a very interesting discussion but what I have noticed is that many of the people who are familiar with history based modelling do not understand Fusion 360’s DM capabilities.

I can adjust anything I want in seconds, if I have a grid pattern of holes and have not broken the associatively, if I adjust one hole they all update and if I move one hole they all move.

I think it was Jeff who mentioned fillets causing problems, if I have to change a part with a fillet I just delete the fillet, flick my middle mouse button to the left, choose fillet from the toolbox and redo the fillet in seconds.

DM can and is used for all design work from furniture design to medical devices to artistic concepts to mechanical design and I have proven this in the real world.

My suggestion to those who are saying DM cannot do certain things is to take a deep breath, sit down and come up with a challenge that proves your point, because so far there has been a lot of talking but no solid examples.

[daniel_lyall]

@Anonymous instead of giving you a example, I give you a task and a challenge.

The task design up a 1200 X 1200 x 300 (external dimensions) bookshelf with 3 shelves even spacing no spacing is to be different

All joints are to be done with blind mortise and tenons no less 2 on the sides and top and bottom of the sides and the back, top and bottom must have no less than 4 with even spacing

the shelves are to have a dado on each end with 4 blind mortise and tenons on the back of them

no dado or rabbits anywhere else and it is to have a kicker on the bottom attached with a mortise and tenons

when this is done change the size of it to 1800 x 1800 x 500 with 4 shelves you have 1 minute to do it. 

Rules take how much time you need to do it as the 1200 x 1200 x 300 bookshelf, if you don't get the size changed in one minute you will be fired.

or cheat and look back a few post and use that file.

[Anonymous]

Lol Daniel, you are the one who needs to provide the example that people can work to, not everybody uses woodworking joints.

I am spending over 60 hours a week at the plant and around 15 hours in the car getting to and from the plant, so I’m hardly likely to go researching dado’s, rabbits and kickers in what free time I have!!!

I plan to do a short practical challenge which I will put up on the forum when I have the time, and while I agree that DM has its limitations they are nowhere near the level people think they are.

Jeff mentioned users where having trouble with extra long assemblies when Fusion 360 was only a DM, he also pointed out that if we have a number of components with faces that are relevant to other components faces, DM would need more work to modify the assembly.

I can agree with those two facts but my answer would be that I work with sub-assemblies and they relate to the adjoining sub-assembly, so I never have one huge assembly.

As for the moving faces, sure that’s a problem but Fusion 360 makes it so easy to select faces (we don’t even have to hold down the shift key) that that would never worry me.

If I have two components with 10 faces each that relate to each other I would just choose the modify tool, select the first 10 faces and modify them as needs be and then do the same to the other 10 faces, Fusion 360 is so well laid out that it takes seconds to do.

Spend some time on your challenge and post the manufacturing drawings so we can recreate and work to your model please.

[cekuhnen]

@PhilProcarioJr

Phill feature stack, timeline, DM, or smart DM or construction history like in Alias/ST are all just ways to offer different ways to manipulate your data either via dump direct editing or relationships that drive data. 

I think in the end this is not down to right or wrong but what is the best method for what one is working on.

It seems your projects are not suitable for a feature system (SW Fusion) while in my case the timeline is pretty ideal.

But I am100% sure we do not do the same thing. To be honest Fusion finally makes surfacing fun while Alias was a pain because of how picky it can be.

And the ability to go back in time (Fusion or SW) and adjust how geometry is created can be quite useful - but also have issues when well you don't use it right.

I maybe have few sketches and when I read that you deal with over 300 in just a design - then man RESPECT !

I think the best thing would be to explain our views to others is maybe through showing the work.

I quite have to disagree that T-Splines and the timeline is not a good idea - I use it in so many ways to even simulate NURBS cv sculpting and all is interactive and can be changed.

@kb9ydn

Rule Number 1 - use components. If in Fusion you start with components from the beginning you will have 3 advantages

1. activating a component filters the timeline shows only what is in the timeline

2. changes to the features of a component timeline only makes Fusion recalculate the data there.

3. you are building on the fly your assembly and later can export each component as a file if needed.

Personally I found building a product this way a lot more intuitive because joints and component relationships are now part of my design and I can see how everything

relates and when done I can create my single components by saving each component as a design. I have to agree agree here with @jeff_strater that this reduces a lot

of the file management overhead.

The timeline being long yes that can be an issue but then the component filter really addresses that.

@Beyondforce

"Moreover, newbies (that includes people with previous experience on a different CAD software) needs to learn the Fusion 360 basics first, which many don't spand the time to do so!"

Yeah that even applied to me because I needed to wrap my "How I work in Alias and Rhino!" around how to do it in Fusion. One I understood that certain tools are not needed then it is fine.

For example at the beginning I was very confused why there is no rotate tool in sketch - while well you can do that via the angle constraint already. Obviously still having one is good and we got it but at the beginning this for me was not easy to understand while somebody who was just used to constrained sketches did not really see the urgent need to have because functionality was there already - just differently.

@Anonymous

I got to Fusion when it did not even have the timeline yet. So everything we did was DM. And the moment TL came I went right to TL.

I disagree that DM is faster that TL. Both use the same modeling steps. In each mode you have to create your sketches on which you can then base your cPlanes or surfacing features.

The only difference is that in DM you do not create associations between sketches and features.

This allows you to just edit a model and you do not have to find a logical position in time to do that.

The advantage of TL in this case is that with having found a logical position I can not only adjust one part but adjust many others as well reducing the amount of work I need to do.

This is a beginner exercise (components are not introduced to the students yet) explaining to the students how to set up relationships for furniture design to drive a model.

Screencast: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Byzv_NlyKp_2b2xKNmxHZEpqY3c/view

Here is a more organic model a bend plywood stool. I have both a DM and a TL mode.

In DM I can easily offset a surface and that will either adjust a trimmed edge/face or adjust the size of a fillet.

The nice part about DM one has to know is that you can push n pull and move parts around and the surfacing kernel will

re-trim everything for you. This is why this mode is quite useful when you need to adjust a step file for molding and lets say

a hole needs to be moved or a draft has to be changed.

But when you want to change more of the design I feel you hit instantly a wall. In the DM mode of this stool what is not

possible to change is:

1 radius (bend amount) of top seating surface

2 radius of the fillets of the solid object where bend seating surface connects to the side faces.

And all adjustments to the sketch do not transfer into the model so adjusting the angle of the leg side surfaces is tricky.

I can however easily move all faces change the shell thickness, adjust fillets.

In Timeline I just adjust the sketch and everything updates. It takes computation time - sure - but so does it take time in DM to change the design

because I have to redo a lot of surfacing tasks TL would do for me.

Screencast: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Byzv_NlyKp_2aHZQQWRMLW1JVDg/view

Here is a screenshot of another exercise model using T-Splines and NUBRS modeling tools in the Timeline allowing us to work

very efficient.

You don't like the amount shape or position of the array cuts? Well adjust the sketch or move the array to reposition it and Fusion will update it.

Also because T-Splines is part of a feature in the timeline I can go into the TS body adjust it, leave TS Fusion regenerates the NURBS surfaces for

me and the rest of the design try is updated. I have a hard time Phill to understand why you see a problem here. In Maya or Rhino you always

made a TS convert to NURBS and then you were stuck with the NURBS result. In case you needed to adjust the organic shape you needed to

adjust the TS model convert again undo some steps and then patch stuff back together. This was always so much needless extra work.

Here is another example combining DM into the Timeline via an inserted design.

Adjusting the blade thickness will force a refresh of the timeline design adjusting the space cut by the DM model making 

the space it would need inside the cutter housing that is generated with using TS and solid modeling in the timeline.

Again note that this are educational models so they are not reflecting every surface requirement needed.

Where I really agree on is that a complex design as Phill seems to mainly deal with are really a tricky thing then in the Timeline.

An adjustment to a feature will require a refresh of all features in that component.

The dish brush uses a fillet command that is very computation intensive. So to explore ideas faster I would freeze that feature or only add just a detail when the design is done.

So I can see the trouble Phill faces and why in this case the way how the traditional DM is enhanced in SE has its serious appeal and usefulness.

I hope that some of the cases I showed here illustrated where in our department and with the work we do in Furniture and Industrial design the timeline and direct modeling has

their spaces - while I have to say we simply prefer TL because of the ability it gives us to roll back design changes, adjust them, and automate surface changes now much better

and faster with more control than we were previously able to do in Alias including solid modeling tasks surface modeler are traditionally weak at anyway.

[Anonymous]

I appreciate you taking the time but many people are not picking up on one of the basic points that I am making, which is the speed that things can be done in Fusion 360 whether in DM or timeline.

With the stool I would delete the component, adjust the sketch and extrude a new component in a very short time. Remember that you are also adjusting the sketch, the only differences being that you are not extruding and re-cutting the sides and I am not carrying all the history that builds up.

Obviously the more complicated designs become the more the timeline helps as far as changes are concerned, but for most Fusion 360 users that will never be an issue.

Fusion 360 is incredibly fast and that is my main point, to me it seems far more time consuming to edit components through the timeline than it does to redo them.

[kb9ydn]

---

@cekuhnen wrote:

@kb9ydn

I see your point. This is why I rather see Fusion being a generative cad app and not a strict parametric. It can like expressed in our views have problems because how one step follows the next.

for me this is very welcome and logical - it actually also helps me teaching proper design surfacing thinking and strategy planing to my students.

---

@cekuhnen

Coming from Solidworks I find that for the things I do (mostly machine design), history based modelling to me is perfectly logical.  I'm also the type that won't even touch the computer until I have already a pretty good idea (in my head) of what I want to do.  I don't usually have all the details worked out but I have a general plan for the overall structure of the model, so that I won't model myself into a corner that I can't get out of.  

---

@cekuhnen wrote:

@kb9ydn

not saying  you are wrong - but the longer this conversation goes on the more i ask myself why people struggle with the timeline, because as I stasted before I don't know a cad app in my price range that does it all and perfectly.

one has to -take apps for what they are.

---

Well, in my case "struggle" is maybe a bit too strong.  It's more like I just don't like it and find it more annoying than useful.  Of course no one should continue to use a tool that just doesn't work well for them.  And for me this is somewhat the case since I'm (for the time being anyway) tied to Solidworks because our customers use it.  I do use Fusion for CAM though and I would also like to get better at using it for modelling.  It has some unique capabilities (like T-splines) that I find interesting, even if I'm not really sure what to do with them (yet).  

As for taking apps for what they are; I agree to an extent but I think there is also value in questioning why things are the way they are.  Not only does it lead to better understanding but it also helps keep us from getting complacent and just accepting the status quo.

C|

[cekuhnen]

I am not trying to make case for DM or TL being better but rather trying to show what Fusion's focus is.

Take it or leave it. Every application has ups and downs. But Fusion is not SW nor is it SE or NX. And SW SE NX is not Fusion either.

I think each mode in Fusion DM TL and TS all have ups and downs. And based on what you have to build, and how you want to later adjust or edit

it you need to select the better fitting workflow and maybe also adjust your preferred workflow to how Fusion wants you to work.

It would be amazing if the DM would allow me to change the sketch and this would update the model so I would not have to rebuild parts by hand.

But well DM in Fusion does not do it. But with the TL I can.

I have to also quite firmly point out that my main focus and where I am coming is education so my personal preference is a mix of teaching and work experience

so might be a good example for a diverse experimental small studio approach but NOT for other environments.

When you come from Rhino to Alias you have to kinda lear again how to work with NURBS. When you go from Alias to SolidThinking there again

are differences in the workflow you can and should use.

Here is another comparison. A shampoo bottle surfaces via T-Splines and then I do the trimming splitting filleting with NURBS tools in the timeline

vs a traditional complete NURBS approach where everything has a parameter added and can be adjusted. You can see that the TS timeline is pretty

slim while the NURBS timeline is pretty long because it simply has more steps to get to the same end result.

Thats somewhat the nice part about Fusion that you can decide which avenue you want to use and what you really only need.

Does a complete design have to be surfaced with sketches and features only or can we mix different modeling techniques together and still

get the same end result.

[cekuhnen]

@kb9ydn

"As for taking apps for what they are; I agree to an extent but I think there is also value in questioning why things are the way they are.  Not only does it lead to better understanding but it also helps keep us from getting complacent and just accepting the status quo."

Yeah thats pretty true. Certain workflows evolved and became a standard but that does not mean that they are really that good.

Does anybody know a person that loves to use MS Word? And it is such a standard hahahaha

I think the Fusion team listens well to user input but also have to manage the overall direction where Fusion can go to without creating problems that only become visible later.

I think Jeff's explanation demonstrated that well.

T-Splines can be an art of itself but so is proper surfacing using sketches.

You can build a handle this way: check the amount of feature in the timeline

Or you can build it with one feature using TS

I think it is fair to point out that if you want to be really good and productive in Fusion you have to be good at

Direct Modeling

Timeline feature strategy

Surface and Solid Modeling

T-Spines sculpting

all equally so you can harness their unique powers the best.

[kb9ydn]

---

@jeff_strater wrote:

@kb9ydn,

The history-based assembly aspect to Fusion is something that is unique, as compared to other CAD tools.  It does take some getting used to, I admit.  And, there are pluses and minuses to this style of modeling.  On the "minus" side, as you point out, the timeline gets very long for a large design, all in one unit.  And there is the time-warp aspect to editing features/sketches, including component moves.  This is actually both a plus and a minus.  On the minus side, there is the "when I edit this feature, the component moves to a different place", which can be disorienting.  On the plus side, you can do "position-based modeling", where you can position a component, project edges from that component somewhere else, then move it again and project those same edges in the new orientation, and use both of those projections to make new features/components. 

---

@jeff_strater

The position based modelling thing is sort of interesting but I can't think of very many situations where I would actually use it.  I would imagine there are others that use it more, and I would be very curious to know how many people really put it to good use.  For me personally I would gladly give up the capability of position based modelling in trade for a hierarchical time line.

---

@jeff_strater wrote:

@kb9ydn,

You do realize that you can use Fusion to model like you did in Solidworks (the bottom-up workflow you describe), right?  That's why we added the ability to insert designs into other designs.  So, you can localize all the features for a component into one document, then insert them all in a single top-level assembly document that has only assembly operations in it.  Then, you will get a very short timeline for your top-level assembly.  But, IMO, one nice thing that Fusion gets you is you don't have to create separate designs for each component.  You can create lots of components in a single design.  This results in a lot less document-level management to be worried about.  But, that comes at the expense of potentially a long timeline.  Or, you can mix and match:  Some local components, some external. 

---

Yes, I do know about linked designs, and I would probably use them except that they can't be edited in the context of the main assembly.  They have to opened in a separate tab; which is sometimes nice to be able to do, but not as convenient as editing in place.  Even if you aren't actually referencing anything in the surrounding assembly it's nice to be able to visualize how the part fits into the whole while you're working on it.  And there is also the extra overhead of separate file management, which I like to avoid if possible*.

C|

* To this end I've (in recent years) made extensive use of what Solidworks calls virtual components.  (For those who aren't familiar with them...) These exist only in the assembly they are created in and don't have an external file associated with them.  This makes it much faster to rearrange the structure of parts and assemblies without having to worry about file management.  You can move them into and out of sub-assemblies at will and even copy them into other designs (no external linking though).  Then when the design is finished you can save them out to their own files (for use in other designs) or just leave them as is.  They are SUPER handy, especially for top down design but also for bottom up design and things like fixtures and such for CAM.

[kb9ydn]

---

@PhilProcarioJr wrote:

@jeff_strater

There is also a way to make DM act like a parametric model...not 100% but close enough for most needs....took me 7 months to figure that out and no I'm not going to get into that discussion here, just wanted to point that out.

---

@PhilProcarioJr

I'm intrigued by this statement.  Is there any place where you will get into this (or have already done so)?

C|

[cekuhnen]

@kb9ydn

"The position based modelling thing is sort of interesting but I can't think of very many situations where I would actually use it.  I would imagine there are others that use it more, and I would be very curious to know how many people really put it to good use.  For me personally I would gladly give up the capability of position based modelling in trade for a hierarchical time line."

That is why I rather call Fusion timeline generative modeling because it seems to offer some extra benefits than typical top down feature stack tools - as far as I know. I could be wrong tho.

Here is a quick example. We created one object to cut a volume but kept the tool. Then we rotated the tool and did another cut and removed the tool.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Byzv_NlyKp_2eGNOdjlqelc2eVE/view

Fusion seems to be more of a hybrid while it seems some want to see it as a pure one or the other way tool.

[kb9ydn]

---

@TrippyLighting wrote:

That is not necessarily true!

The control of where something shows up in the timeline is entirely up to you within reasonable and logical limits.

Yes, when you activate a particular component and do nothing other than continue to add things to the timeline then, yes, you'll add it to the end of the timeline.

There are, however, two ways around this:

1. You deactivate the filter that narrows down the view to show only the items in the timeline that belong to the activated component. Then you can place the timeline marker when you want it. That of course is rather cumbersome, but the possibility exists.
2. The better way is to simply pull the timeline marker bak to after the last feature in the activated component and then move it one step forward in the activated component. And voilá you'll be adding the next items to the timeline to the end on that components timeline.

---

@TrippyLighting

Ah yes you're right.  I do actually know this, but it's good that you pointed it out because it just confirms what I was trying to get at.  Which is that everything you do has to exist somewhere on a single time line, and that there is no way (without using externally linked components) to have multiple time line contexts.

C|

[cekuhnen]

@kb9ydn

"Coming from Solidworks I find that for the things I do (mostly machine design), history based modelling to me is perfectly logical.  I'm also the type that won't even touch the computer until I have already a pretty good idea (in my head) of what I want to do.  I don't usually have all the details worked out but I have a general plan for the overall structure of the model, so that I won't model myself into a corner that I can't get out of. "

And sometimes I really do not want to have to switch to the correct time position to edit something, so I do a dirty hack at the end of the timeline.

But in client projects when collaborating with others this is not ideal at all. Also this would be the same with all other feature stack apps.

Go into SW or Onshape or Inventor and move the design marker up and down. That is equal their timeline.

In such cases I fully agree with Phill that then doing a smart DM edit would be such a help.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@kb9ydn wrote:

---

@TrippyLighting wrote:

That is not necessarily true!

The control of where something shows up in the timeline is entirely up to you within reasonable and logical limits.

Yes, when you activate a particular component and do nothing other than continue to add things to the timeline then, yes, you'll add it to the end of the timeline.

There are, however, two ways around this:

1. You deactivate the filter that narrows down the view to show only the items in the timeline that belong to the activated component. Then you can place the timeline marker when you want it. That of course is rather cumbersome, but the possibility exists.
2. The better way is to simply pull the timeline marker bak to after the last feature in the activated component and then move it one step forward in the activated component. And voilá you'll be adding the next items to the timeline to the end on that components timeline.

---

@TrippyLighting

Ah yes you're right.  I do actually know this, but it's good that you pointed it out because it just confirms what I was trying to get at.  Which is that everything you do has to exist somewhere on a single time line, and that there is no way (without using externally linked components) to have multiple time line contexts.

C|

---

The consequences of what I described is that you can perfectly fine build independent components in Fusion 360 in a single file that function just the same way as when imported as an X-REF into Fusion 360.

If done consequently then all these components items in the timeline can also be grouped the same way they are when the link to that X-Ref is broken.

That functions very similarly to a virtual component in Solid Works, it just takes more discipline.

Just because al the items in the timeline are displayed like a string of pearls, does not mean they are all dependent on each other.

In fact if color cycling is enabled you'll find that all the items fir that component  show as a solid color bar without interruptions.

[daniel_lyall]

You asked for it I gave it and I did it last year.

with TL if it's the correct way to go, what it is with the bookshelf if you are pressed for time it takes under a minute to change it to a new size across the whole model and chuck it out to cam why it is already nested in the same file yes the same model is nested not a copy.

can you do this easy as with DM hell no.

for doing it in DM

You have to have a lot more sketches projected down to the nest sheet other sketches on offset planes, then when you change something you have to rebuild it yes you have to do it and you have to rember all the required measurements then you need to change the built model, A few hours latter you are finished.

I spent a lot of time on the cabinetmaking stuff trying all sorts of ways to do it. useing TL and user parameters is the fastest and easiest way to do it, Hands down.

TL and DM have there places where they work well, yes you can do everything in DM but if it comes down to easy of use and time then it is area by area what to use.

only time and trying can give this answer or just listening to the EE and the jeffs and a couple other staff members.

[kb9ydn]

---

@cekuhnen wrote:

@kb9ydn

"Coming from Solidworks I find that for the things I do (mostly machine design), history based modelling to me is perfectly logical.  I'm also the type that won't even touch the computer until I have already a pretty good idea (in my head) of what I want to do.  I don't usually have all the details worked out but I have a general plan for the overall structure of the model, so that I won't model myself into a corner that I can't get out of. "

And sometimes I really do not want to have to switch to the correct time position to edit something, so I do a dirty hack at the end of the timeline.

But in client projects when collaborating with others this is not ideal at all. Also this would be the same with all other feature stack apps.

Go into SW or Onshape or Inventor and move the design marker up and down. That is equal their timeline.

In such cases I fully agree with Phill that then doing a smart DM edit would be such a help.

---

@cekuhnen

This is true for Solidworks *parts* but not so much for assemblies.  Assemblies don't have a time order for any of their components.  They only have a time order for patterned components, reference geometry, or assembly features (things like holes cut through multiple components).  I'm pretty sure Inventor and Onshape are the same way although I don't have much experience with them.

Anyway I definitely see your point.  Sometimes it's easier to just tack a feature onto the end of the history instead of trying to figure out how to elegantly fit it in.  And in fact, some designs almost *have* to be done this way (if you intend to use history based modelling).  The last project I worked on had a plastic case design that was originally done some years ago and had been modified a few times over the years.  It wasn't a crazy complex design but was enough so that trying to make the new changes by editing existing features just wouldn't work.  It was also complex enough that starting from scratch wasn't really an option either.  So the only thing left to do was to add the new features to the end.  It definitely feels hackish, but when you get beyond a certain level of complexity (number of features) there is simply no other way to manage it.  Organizing features with folders definitely helps but only so far.  I think this is what @PhilProcarioJr was getting at when he said that (I'm paraphrasing here) at some point you have to abandon the the history based approach because it's just too unwieldy.

I like the idea of fully parametric (as much as possible anyway) DM modeler and wonder if Fusion could go in this direction in the future.  The synchronous editing stuff from SolidEdge looks really interesting, though when I look at their feature tree it seems horribly complicated (probably just because it's unfamiliar).

Also since the Fusion style linear time line concept is (I'm assuming) here to stay, I wonder if maybe some additional management tools could help make it easier to deal with?  One thing that I think would help is a way to visualize inter-dependency between features/components/etc..  It could be a graph of some sort or something like the arrows they have in Solidworks.

http://www.javelin-tech.com/blog/2015/11/solidworks-2016-dynamic-reference-visualization/

C|

P.S.  I don't mind MS Word so much.    It has it's quirks but it's really not that bad once you figure out how to use it.

[kb9ydn]

---

@TrippyLighting wrote:

The consequences of what I described is that you can perfectly fine build independent components in Fusion 360 in a single file that function just the same way as when imported as an X-REF into Fusion 360.

If done consequently then all these components items in the timeline can also be grouped the same way they are when the link to that X-Ref is broken.

That functions very similarly to a virtual component in Solid Works, it just takes more discipline.

Just because al the items in the timeline are displayed like a string of pearls, does not mean they are all dependent on each other.

In fact if color cycling is enabled you'll find that all the items fir that component  show as a solid color bar without interruptions.

---

So it takes more work and still doesn't alleviate the problem of insanely long time lines or having to *go back in time* to edit something?  Why would I want to do this?

Working just like Solidworks is not really what I'm after here (though it may sound like that).  What I really want is to feel less burdened by the time line but still have everything be as parametrically driven as possible.  Maybe Fusion can already do this in DM mode and I'm just not aware of it.  I definitely need to spend more time with DM in Fusion.

C|

[TrippyLighting]

---

@kb9ydn wrote:

 What I really want is to feel less burdened by the time line ...

---

Yep, same here.

Currently I would describe the timeline as a house just finished. It's got all the basic stuff. Tungsten light bulbs in bare wire sockets, no real light fixtures, certainly no chandeliers, no furniture, rugs, pictures. It's a start and it will take some time to make it more easy to work with.

With my posts I just wanted to ensure we did not leave other users with the impression that something was not possible when it was. But burdensome sometimes, I agree.