Duplicate Sketch

[Fully_Defined]

I want to duplicate a sketch, but not delete my design history. How can I do that?

Alternatively, if I could actually work with projected geometry, I might not need to duplicate the sketch. However, I would need to trim, extend and so forth.

Additionally, I would also like to differentiate between construction projected geometry and projected geometry that I would actually use in an extrude profile, when I turn off projected geometry visibility. Currently I only use projected sketch entities for construction, and then I turn off visibility. If I needed projected lines in the extrude profile, it would also be hidden, right? It's one of the many reasons I almost never use it.

[ritste20]

I'm not sure this is a good way to do it but you can copy geometry from one sketch to another and then fix it (not associative to the original this way).

As far as projected geometry goes do you use a lot of it for construction to the point that it's cluttering up your sketches? It might be easier to just project vertices from an old sketch to use as anchor points then draw the new sketch as needed using them for reference. Then you wouldn't even really need to turn off the visibility of projected entities.

Regards,

[Fully_Defined]

---

@ritste20 wrote:

I'm not sure this is a good way to do it but you can copy geometry from one sketch to another and then fix it (not associative to the original this way).

As far as projected geometry goes do you use a lot of it for construction to the point that it's cluttering up your sketches? It might be easier to just project vertices from an old sketch to use as anchor points then draw the new sketch as needed using them for reference. Then you wouldn't even really need to turn off the visibility of projected entities.

Regards,

---

Let me give you the scenario:

1) Skeleton sketch at the top, derived from another design.

2) Vertices from the skeleton sketch were used just like you said.

3) Created a sketch for the profile of the first body.

4) Second body is mostly identical to the first, but with longer mounting legs and some additional tabs.

In this scenario, if I project most of the profile sketch, then my next sketch will be a mix of projected lines and regular lines. Normally I turn off projected geometry because it is only relevant as construction geometry, because of how badly it was implemented in Fusion. But unless I want to resketch this, I have to use projected geometry as extruding geometry, and that means I also have to leave in projected construction lines. Not awesome.

The best case scenario for me is I duplicate the sketch as it is now. A derived sketch would work very well in this case, but I can't derive from inside the same design.

[ritste20]

I haven't tried it at all but what about doing your skeleton sketch in a separate component and throw it in an assembly derived?

Again, not ideal, but might give you some more options.

[Fully_Defined]

---

@ritste20 wrote:

I haven't tried it at all but what about doing your skeleton sketch in a separate component and throw it in an assembly derived?

Again, not ideal, but might give you some more options.

---

It's actually not a crazy idea. Absurd, but not crazy. I would have to create a middle design that doesn't get used for anything but this, but I guess already did that when I made the skeleton too.

One of the neat things about derived sketches is the ability to delete sketch entities I don't need. I could build a master sketch with every line for both profiles, and delete whatever I don't need each after deriving it twice.

Fusion currently makes derived sketch entities the same color as undefined geometry. Not sure why, since they can't be edited. Can I change these colors? That would be cool!

[ritste20]

At least for right now, I think the only colors you can change are the preset background colors in each environment and the electronics workspace has more options even as far as that goes. I don't think you can set geometry colors.

I am curious how you make out with this project though. I don't really use derived anything and I think if I understood it better I would probably find more occasions to do so.

Good luck,

[chrisplyler]

If you mean EXACTLY the same sketch...

I don't duplicate. I use the same sketch for multiple components.

[Fully_Defined]

Piling all of the geometry for two different bodies into the same sketch is a bad idea, especially if this creates many tiny profiles. In my case, it would.

It would be far better if Fusion handled projected geometry better. All they would need to do is make it so I can trim or extend projected lines/arcs - that would change everything. I haven't seen a strong defense of why they don't do this.

[chrisplyler]

Yeah that would be nice.

You just have do draw in the 'extend'ed bits you want, or just leave the desired 'trim' extra in place and work around it. Not as nice, but certainly doable.

[Fully_Defined]

---

@chrisplyler wrote:

Yeah that would be nice.

You just have do draw in the 'extend'ed bits you want, or just leave the desired 'trim' extra in place and work around it. Not as nice, but certainly doable.

---

NOT doable. Nope. Fusion needs to change this.

[chrisplyler]

I agreed that it would be nice.

But how is my suggested work-around "not doable?" Show me a situation where you can't work with the projected sketch elements.

[Fully_Defined]

---

@chrisplyler wrote:

I agreed that it would be nice.

But how is my suggested work-around "not doable?" Show me a situation where you can't work with the projected sketch elements.

---

Listen, I get that you're trying to be helpful, but I think the onus is on Autodesk here, not me. I can neither trim nor extend projected geometry, and that's the issue. Trying to convince me that it isn't an issue isn't really helpful, unless you have a workaround you're willing to share.

@jeff_strater do you have a workaround?

[chrisplyler]

I didn't say it wasn't an issue (although I don't think it's MUCH of one). I said I agree it would be nice if we could trim/extend projected elements.

I told you the work-around. You said it can't be done. I thought maybe I just didn't describe it adequately or something, so asked you to show me an example of what you are unable to achieve due to the inability to trim/extend projection elements. Then I would take your example and show you how you can achieve what you want even though you can't trim/extend projected elements.

[Fully_Defined]

---

@chrisplyler wrote:

I didn't say it wasn't an issue (although I don't think it's MUCH of one). I said I agree it would be nice if we could trim/extend projected elements.

I told you the work-around. You said it can't be done. I thought maybe I just didn't describe it adequately or something, so asked you to show me an example of what you are unable to achieve due to the inability to trim/extend projection elements. Then I would take your example and show you how you can achieve what you want even though you can't trim/extend projected elements.

---

Dude, I appreciate your willingness to engage, but if you don't understand this problem with Fusion, then there is little an example from me will do to help you. Not being able to trim or extend projection geometry is an incredibly huge problem that completely changes workflows to make them several times as complicated as they would otherwise need to be. You finding that acceptable is why Fusion never fixes these BASIC problems.

I have come to realize that Fusion is a deep hole of failure that holds a ton of promise and yet never quite nails the simplest of details. It's a question of vision on the architecht's part, and a question of product differentiation on Autodesk's marketing. And I have had just about enough of it.

[chrisplyler]

---

@Fully_Defined wrote:

---

Dude, I appreciate your willingness to engage, but if you don't understand this problem with Fusion, then there is little an example from me will do to help you. Not being able to trim or extend projection geometry is an incredibly huge problem that completely changes workflows to make them several times as complicated as they would otherwise need to be.

---

1. It wasn't to help me. I'm able to model whatever I want, with the use of projected sketch elements as necessary (without trimming/extending them), with no problem whatsoever. It was to help you.

2. IF this is an "incredibly huge problem" then I agree that it sucks and should be addressed immediately. I just don't see how it is one, because I'm able to achieve what I want to achieve whether I can trim/extend projected elements or not, without any extra work. In fact, it would ADD steps to my workflow to bother with trimming/extending projected elements.

But I certainly don't want you to think outside of whatever this box is that's constraining you. Good luck.

[Fully_Defined]

---

@chrisplyler wrote:

---

@Fully_Defined wrote:

---

Dude, I appreciate your willingness to engage, but if you don't understand this problem with Fusion, then there is little an example from me will do to help you. Not being able to trim or extend projection geometry is an incredibly huge problem that completely changes workflows to make them several times as complicated as they would otherwise need to be.

---

1. It wasn't to help me. I'm able to model whatever I want, with the use of projected sketch elements as necessary (without trimming/extending them), with no problem whatsoever. It was to help you.

2. IF this is an "incredibly huge problem" then I agree that it sucks and should be addressed immediately. I just don't see how it is one, because I'm able to achieve what I want to achieve whether I can trim/extend projected elements or not, without any extra work. In fact, it would ADD steps to my workflow to bother with trimming/extending projected elements.

But I certainly don't want you to think outside of whatever this box is that's constraining you. Good luck.

---

Again, I appreciate your willingness to engage. This isn't my problem, though, that I need help with - this is a problem with the application. You have personally developed a workaround, perhaps without knowing it, to deal with the problem, or you don't develop complicated enough designs that it would ever be an issue in the first place. It is not a surprise that this conversation isn't going anywhere.

I have come to realize, over time, that I have a habit of picking fights with people that have nothing to do with the problem itself. For example, I have argued with other machinists about the metric system, and it didn't register with me so much that 1) they're just doing their jobs, and they may not have a choice, 2) they won't understand where I'm coming from, because they have no context & 3) machinists are consumers of product information, not producers of it.

So a while ago, I decided to disengage on forums like this. I have seen exactly zero of my posts pointing out flaws in Fusion 360 get turned into an improvement, but a couple of months ago I decided to try again. That was a mistake.

@jeff_strater if you're reading this, please create a formal interface between paying customers and your development team, so I don't have to bother people on forums.

I don't pay for Fusion 360 just to join a cheerleading squad.