Duplicate parameters appear and change unit and value when activated in the Change Parameters tool

[larsboelman]

In an assembly in which parameters from one component were referenced in another component, I exported all components and imported them again. This was to break the links without breaking the models. After re-importing everything, the main assembly became very sluggish. Some digging in the parameters showed that there were several parameters with the same <Name>, while most were renamed to unique ones (via _nextavailablenumber). An analysis of a CSV export via the plugin for this identified about 20 duplicate parameters out of approximately 1100 parameters. When renaming the found duplicates in the Change Parameters tool to an unused <Name>, the <Expression> and/or <Value> fields suddenly changed as well several times. One example is that an angular dimension suddenly had the <Unit> mm instead of deg and a completely different <Value> as well.

Has anyone experienced this rather disturbing behaviour as well? Any suggestions for how to deal with this? My models usually run smooth, so this is quite unexpected. It is likely due to the export-import action, but that shouldn't create problems like this.

[jeff_strater]

---

@larsboelman wrote:

In an assembly in which parameters from one component were referenced in another component, I exported all components and imported them again. This was to break the links without breaking the models.

---

Can you elaborate a bit on this?  I'm not really following the sequence.  Can you describe your original model (before you started this set of changes)?  Were the original components Inserted (external), or local components, or did you use Derive to bring them into your top-level design?  When you say you referenced parameters from one component to another, I believe that is not possible for Inserted components, so it must be one of the other two methods, I think.

When you say you exported all the components, what did you use for that?  Did you use Save Copy As from the Fusion browser?  How did you export these?

Finally, when you say you imported them again, did you use Insert into Current Design?  How did you import them back in again?

I suspect there is a bug in here somewhere, but without some details about the workflow, I'm not sure how to track it down.  Thanks.

[larsboelman]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for responding.

The original model had a limited amount of externally referenced components (from supplier provided STEP-files; no team work here - just me in Fusion). For most of them I broke the links and so made them local to my model, rather than via Derive. External references to (not changing) supplier parts seem more appropriate than Derive, but by breaking the links they are easier to work with (re-use geometry). Please correct me if I'm wrong.

My workflow, as recommended in other CAD apps and also sometimes prescribed by companies, is to break all external links from each component before it is released and added to an ERP system. That way it can't/won't be modified anymore, unless a new release/revision is created. The only references to other geometry I use, are projections in sketches. I have not found an option to easily break links in sketches to other components in my model, but found a tip to export a component (via <Save copy as> in the Fusion Browser indeed), remove the original (after which I normally do a <Compute all> and <Save>), insert the <Saved copy> via <Insert into Current Design>, break links to make local (but without external references/connections) and be happily ever after.

My workflow also includes starting every day with a <Clear cache data> and quite frequently doing a rebuild of my model via <Compute all> (which nowadays can take a few minutes) to ensure integrity. Bit of OCD perhaps, but it normally keeps things going smoother.

[jeff_strater]

@larsboelman - thanks for the detailed explanation.  Just to be clear, here is what I think I read:

1. the components in question start out as imported STEP designs, which are then Inserted into the top-level design.  I assume, at this point, that because they were imported, they were Direct Modeling designs, and therefore had no parameters defined
2. you then Break Link on the Inserted design, which copies that design into a local component inside the top-level design
3. You then do Save Copy As to another external design, in order to break with the original design
4. and, another Break Link to make the new component local to the design again

Is that right, or did I get it wrong?  I can imagine better ways to do this, but there should not be a problem with this approach.

What I don't understand, though, is where the parameters come from.  Do you follow this same approach for parametric designs, as well?  That could certainly explain where the duplicate parameters come from.  Not that this is expected behavior, there is clearly a bug here somewhere.  Perhaps the double Break Link can end up with duplicates, somehow.

To answer this specific question:  "For most of them I broke the links and so made them local to my model, rather than via Derive. External references to (not changing) supplier parts seem more appropriate than Derive, but by breaking the links they are easier to work with (re-use geometry). Please correct me if I'm wrong."

It depends on what you mean by "easier to work with".  One advantage you get with local components is that you can modify the geometry without doing Edit in Place (or opening in a separate tab), and you can separately modify different instances of the same component (although that comes at the price of losing associativity with all instances).  The down side is larger files, and less reuse if you have duplicate instances.

Jeff

[larsboelman]

@jeff_strater  - Almost, but not completely correctly understood. Hopefully I am more clear with extra info.

The components imported from STEP in my model are in this case LEDs and stepper motors, which I positioned with circular arrays and via sketches on a custom shaped PCB. The clearances around these components are determined by projecting them on the PCB shape sketch, creating an offset and have the outline of the PCB follow this offset. I will not be designing the actual PCB (since I am not capable of doing so; mechanical is my field); an electrical engineer will do this in another software. He will respect the shape of the PCB I am providing and requested those clearances.

I never work in direct modelling mode, although I did clean up the imported STEP models that way before using them in my assemblies. Not much more than stitching though, to get closed bodies if needed.

I exclusively work parametrically to generate geometry, via sketches rather than solids or Derived geometry. (nearly) All my components are fully constrained. During development I do sometimes have the sketches of components or features (e.g. extrusion length) refer to each other. That is something I want to get rid off when the model is mature and several components need to be frozen/released/ordered. In other softwares I would 'isolate' sketches; breaking links to anything referenced and <Fixed> to keep everything fully constrained. Similar story for isolating features. That is what I am trying to achieve here: kill all links to their environment of some components which need to be frozen, while some others can still be associative to others.

The only (workable) solution I could find to achieve this, was to <Save copy as> and (re-)import the geometry. I am still hopeful that I overlooked something trivial in the F360 functionality, since this workaround feels a bit like removing a wisdom tooth - rectally. Overly complex, not really giving the desired result and a lot of mess.

My main motivation for making the STEP files local, was that you have more freedom for assigning materials/appearance, as well as reducing the frustration of the reduced feature set available when editing in place or the hassle of working in another tab and having to update the parent model.

The duplicate dimensions likely come from having two similar assemblies in my model, the base of which was created via copy-paste. Two identical enclosures with some same and some similar components inside in this case. Exporting both separately and getting them back in, did result in the same parameters with _1 or _2 added to their name. That gave me the confidence that there would be no duplicates. But exporting to CSV showed that there were a bunch. Trying to solve that via the F360 internal <Change Parameters> tool resulted in the trouble I started this discussion for.

Another odd thing I noticed, is that not all parameters in the CSV file have "-double quotes around them, even if they contain a space or a formula. That doesn't seem very reliable to me, since the software then doesn't know where the Expression stops. Someone made a remark about this on the download page of the CSV tool.