Double-Ended Ball Joint/Socket Issue

[StellarFusion]

I have a tube with a double-end ball joint that I'm attempting to connect to sockets at each end.  However, once I get one connected them attempt to connect the other joint to the other socket, it doesn't stay attached to the first socket.

How can I get the joint to connect at each end?  Please see video.

Thanks

[jeff_strater]

The error message you get is a clue:  There is some conflict between the ball joint and other joints in the system.  Usually, this is because components are not free to move, or the components are not the exact right size, or the joints conflict in some other way.  If you share the design, someone will take a look at it.

[StellarFusion]

Below is the public share link:

https://a360.co/2wJ0ioD

Thanks

[jeff_strater]

Thanks for the model @StellarFusion.  I'm about to head to the airport for a flight today, so I won't have much chance to look at it for a while, but I will try to get to it later, or early this week.  If any one else has time today to take a look, please do so.

Heff

[chrisplyler]

---

@jeff_straterwrote:

I'm about to head to the airport for a flight today,...

---

Where you going?

Huh?

Where you going, HUH?

YOU TRYING TO GET OUT OF THE COUNTRY BEFORE THEY CATCH YOU?!?!?!?!?

[StellarFusion]

Thanks Jeff.  Much appreciated.  Safe travels.  Did it for 10 years every week, so I no how it goes 😞

[TrippyLighting]

@StellarFusion  the timeline of your design exhibits somewhat of a catastrophe. The joint problem you are encountering is the least of the problems. In my book this is a complete re-do. From scratch.

1. Many of the sketches are fully undefined. I am wondering how you even managed to do that.

2. The glass shape is symmetric, but that was not honored in the sketch.

3. The sketch origin is often not referenced anywhere.

4. None of the sketches have any names to explain what they are for and they probably should not be own the root level anyway but in the comments they belong to.

5. You excessively use the move body feature when most likely you don't want use that at all in this design.

6. Last but not least, you have several yellow warning icons and a red failure icons in the timeline.

[StellarFusion]

I'm a newbie... we make the impossible possible 🙂

Honestly though... I'm am only a few weeks into learning this software, so
a lot of mistakes and overuse of things like moves shouldn't be a
surprise. I don't mind constructive criticism, but you're not providing
any solutions as to help one learn from their mistakes.

Thanks

[TrippyLighting]

Have you watched any of the introductory tutorials in the Support an Learning section ?

There are also a good number of Lars Christensen videos that explain how to work with sketch constraints.

Solid sketching skills and the use of constraints and dimensions are a must.

[TrippyLighting]

The screencast shows how the support ring can be designed.

I only sketch the necessary geometry using constraints. I don't trim anything as you can select several profiles form a single sketch and the auto combine into on solid if they are adjacent. For simple sketches like this it makes sketching pretty quick and robust.

Then I mirror and combine the geometry. I try to avoid mirroring, patterning and filleting in the sketch and use solid modeling features for that. Faster and more robust.

You can also see that all sketch elements have turned back, meaning they are fully defined.

I should have created the component at the start. In this case I was able to drag the sketch into the component and it took the body with it. In general when working with components it can be beneficial to follow Fusion 360's R.U.L.E.#1

[jeff_strater]

Hi @newton.derekt, thanks for the understanding.  @chrisplyler, no, I'm not fleeing the country - just going to Detroit .

I took a look at the design.  I found a couple of issues:

1. There is a Rigid Group that is constraining the design.  I think that this is the root of the problems with this design.
2. You have Contact Sets enabled.  Though there is no contact set created, I found that this is also causing problems.
3. You probably need one component grounded.

Once I did all that, I was able to exercise the two ball joints correctly:

[lichtzeichenanlage]

So... You learned something new 😉

---

@TrippyLightingwrote:...

1. Many of the sketches are fully undefined. I am wondering how you even managed to do that...

---

[StellarFusion]

Hi Jeff, Thank for taking a look at it. I too saw the Rigid Group and
removed it. I had enabled the Contact Set in hope that was the issue. 

I was playing with it more last night and got the ball joints to finally
connect, but it moved one of the components out of alignment with the rest
of the model. 

I'll review your screencast tonight when I get home.

Thanks again!

[jasonhomrighaus]

---

@TrippyLightingwrote:

@StellarFusion  the timeline of your design exhibits somewhat of a catastrophe. The joint problem you are encountering is the least of the problems. In my book this is a complete re-do. From scratch.

1. Many of the sketches are fully undefined. I am wondering how you even managed to do that.

2. The glass shape is symmetric, but that was not honored in the sketch.

3. The sketch origin is often not referenced anywhere.

4. None of the sketches have any names to explain what they are for and they probably should not be own the root level anyway but in the comments they belong to.

5. You excessively use the move body feature when most likely you don't want use that at all in this design.

6. Last but not least, you have several yellow warning icons and a red failure icons in the timeline.

---

I feel like it is important to say something here.  While I find your input and solutions incredibly valuable and helpful, I also frequently am made to feel like some sort of idiot because I didn't just know what I was supposed to do.  I like the person who started this thread came at this as a complete newb.  I had played with cad before and a little google sketchup so lets say I had a kindergarten level of experience.  

After a year of concerted effort and use of this software i now consider myself quite proficient and productive, but up until the past couple of weeks, i have made no use of constraints or sketches in the way they are able to be used in the parametric environment.  Further as a general rule I avoid the parametric environment as I do a lot of free form design work on complex machines which means I am frequently ditching whole blocks of the design and starting from scratch which is very difficult to do in parametric process without having fully mastered all of its intricacies.

Simple things like sketching off of an existing layout become a nightmare as you get hopped around the timeline depending on which sketch you grab. Lets say at this point I have a mid high school level of experience with this program.

Fully mastering and using parametric design features requires two things in my opinion, one that you know how to use all the tools properly and that you know WHEN to use them.  In my opinion that represents a university degree level of knowledge with the program and I figure in another year I will be perhaps getting up into the range.

MY point in saying all of this, is that if we choose to come to this forum and seek to share knowledge and experience we need to do so with the understanding that not everyone is starting from the same place.  We are not all starting with the same abilities and we don't all have the same goals and focus.  For me watching tutorials for things I don't use and really don't need just confuses and frustrates.  I prefer to seek them out when I get to a place where I am dealing with a particular issue I cant solve.

To come into a forum, and slap a list like you did above on someone who is obviously new and making the same mistakes we all did is very bad form!  It is very discouraging and leaves the person with the problem feeling small and silly for having asked the question in the first place.  I think you and anyone else who might seek to help needs to be able to suspend their own standards and consider the question asked from the perspective of the person asking.  Then offer solutions they can use and that will improve their learning curve.

Sorry if this offends but I felt it had to be said!

[jasonhomrighaus]

A couple of things that might help in the future.

1) when developing parts with multiple joints involved its very important to be methodical in your measurements.

2) sometimes I find its better to start and the most complex point in the system and then work outward(ie start with the central connector then build the sockets around it and get your joints working then the rest of the structure)  This saves a lot of headaches.

3) Ive found when I started out that when I was trying to conceptualize a design I had better luck building parts off of other parts  so that I was sure to have the dimensions correct.  Ive only started building the parts first recently as I have developed better skills and interrelating the parts as I go.

4)  I found it easier when I started to make lots of sketches, ie each time I added a new bit I started with a fresh canvas as my earlier designs got very confused as I worked through design issues.

5) Constraints can be very helpful, but don't go crazy trying to make everything be exact at first.  Basic sketch dimensions, and constraints like fixing and tangents can really up your game without pulling you down into the morass of confusion of trying to sort out all the minor variations, Save those till you need them.

If you want to learn more about how to use dimensions and constraints this is one of my favorite videos on the subject, he covers it in a way that is easy to understand and i have found is much more useful in day to day work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKjb1oQIBcs

[jeff_strater]

Thanks, @StellarFusion.  If one component is coming out of alignment, it may be that you are missing a rigid joint, or rigid group constraint in that particular component or sub-component.  I think the rigid joint that exists in the version of the model I had included too many components, including the one you were trying to constrain with the ball joints.  That's why removing it freed up the ball joints.  But, it may have been constraining other important components as well.

[TrippyLighting]

@jasonhomrighaus No offense taken, you make some valid points. I should have certainly used a more friendly and sympathetic tone. I've also read your Helpcratic oath thread! 

But I do wonder if you would still feel the same enthusiasm 8000+ post and 800+ solutions down the road. You pointed out a specific Youtube video. That video is a public video available to anyone at any time. So are a good number of other tutorials that all discuss the nature  of sketches and constraints. 

Nowadays learning content is at the tips of your fingers 24/7. If you've got a halfway current smart phone you don't even need a computer and can watch Fusion 360 tutorials 24/7. It frustrates me to no end when I look at a design and it appears that the user has not used these resources to learn some basic things.

I started working with CAD almost 30 years ago in college. No internet! You were lucky if there was even one book available or really anyone who you could ask.  Literature was very hard to come by and not affordable for a student and/or only available in English which I was not fluent in at the time. There were no forums to speak of, only dial up BBS. 

With the Internet and at least basic skill tutorials being omnipresent on the Internet I fully expect a user to have at least a basic level of understanding so the few folks hat help here on the forum do not have to start with Adam and Eve.

I and a hand full of others provide this support here on the forum on a voluntary basis. We can expect that to be respected by users in the form of some preliminary study!

While I can understand that the list I provided can be daunting and discouraging from a certain glass-half-full perspective it also explains a path to success, because once you eliminate these obstacles your design will function properly. Instead of stumbling forward blindly bit by bit and hit one road block after another resulting in numerous frustrated threads you know what you need to work on and can actually make some progress.

Just as other posters before me I could have easily chosen to simply answer to the one problem that the user perceived to have but I feel that is incredibly short sighted.  As someone who is here daily I've seen users too many times progress with increased difficulty and then hit a wall which they could not progress past. They asked a narrow question and got a narrow answer and 5 minutes later they hit the next road block because their design had obvious flaws in the beginning.

[jasonhomrighaus]

First, appologies to the OP for the thread jack

Believe me I fully understand your feelings on this.  I Have also been a member of several car related forums for more than 15 years and in that time I developed the same feelings you did for a lot of the same reasons.  For a long time about 7 or 8 years ago, i grew so frustrated at answering the same basic(Stupid, Uneducated, lack of prep, basic common sense) questions that I stopped going to the forums for a while.  After a time I realized that I didnt have to try and help everyone all the time.  I started to skip over some of the really basic questions so that other forum members could step up and help some of those users, and in doing so they improved their own knowledge and experience as well as that of the new guys.

I instead started to focus on FAQs and How to videos.  I worked on theory videos and posts rather than straight up how to do(ie teach them the theory of why, not just the basic motions)  Meanwhile i would skim the questions seeking out those that required more experience to help solve, or finding places to offer up additional information in support of another members answers.  I became encyclopedic in my knowledge of what resourses were out there and had a ready list of videos and posts to share.

In this way I felt I became more valuable to the forum as a whole, in time others came along and filled those rolls as I moved on to other interests and other phases in life.

As to tutorials, I agree that they are valuable, but part of the problem is that there are so many and not all of them make sense to all people.  you can rapidly become drowned in so many videos some wonderful and some awful.  The one I posted for example would never have come up in a search for Fusion 360 tutorial.  Its from a completely different topic area and titled as such.  It just happens to include some really great Fusion 360 info, distilled down in a way that many basic, frequently used functions are applied in a very straight forward way so that for me at least they suddenly click.

So many times tutorials made by people with lots of experience dive in detail into a group of topics that are closely related but rapidly become difficult to apply to day to day work.

Thank you for all your time and effort, I would be far worse off without it, but don't be afraid to let some of us less new guys pitch in with helping the more new guys with figuring out the basic stuff.  You can always step in and set us right if we get off track, and just think how much time you will have to devote to more challenging topics and discussions.

[StellarFusion]

---

@TrippyLightingwrote:

The screencast shows how the support ring can be designed.

I only sketch the necessary geometry using constraints. I don't trim anything as you can select several profiles form a single sketch and the auto combine into on solid if they are adjacent. For simple sketches like this it makes sketching pretty quick and robust.

Then I mirror and combine the geometry. I try to avoid mirroring, patterning and filleting in the sketch and use solid modeling features for that. Faster and more robust.

You can also see that all sketch elements have turned back, meaning they are fully defined.

I should have created the component at the start. In this case I was able to drag the sketch into the component and it took the body with it. In general when working with components it can be beneficial to follow Fusion 360's R.U.L.E.#1

---

Peter,

Thanks for the screencast.  You approached the sketch design in a different way that I really didn't think of.  I never really considered mirroring each quadrant.  Curious though... you had pretty much sketched half of the component.  Why didn't you just mirror the half component instead of mirroring it in quarters?

Thanks

[StellarFusion]

---

@jeff_straterwrote:

Hi @newton.derekt, thanks for the understanding.  @chrisplyler, no, I'm not fleeing the country - just going to Detroit .

I took a look at the design.  I found a couple of issues:

1. There is a Rigid Group that is constraining the design.  I think that this is the root of the problems with this design.
2. You have Contact Sets enabled.  Though there is no contact set created, I found that this is also causing problems.
3. You probably need one component grounded.

Once I did all that, I was able to exercise the two ball joints correctly:

---

Hello again Jeff,

I had a chance to watch your screencast.  You did exactly what I was attempting to do.  I will admit I'll have to watch it a few more times to process it.  I'll send you a pm to let you know how successful it turns out (I hope). 🙂

Thanks again for the assist.

Derek