Extrude join to specific body

mr.codycole · ‎02-02-2022

This is a feature request, my workflow would be improved by having the ability to choose what body to join when extruding from a sketch (exactly like choosing what bodies to CUT). I've found that currently, the only way to accomplish this is to toggle visibility on bodies I do not wish to join to the extrusion or to extrude as a new body and then use combine.

g-andresen · ‎02-02-2022

Hi,

please share a sample file (f3d)

günther

mr.codycole · ‎02-02-2022

this is a feature suggestion, not particular to a specific project.

jeff_strater · ‎02-02-2022

you are correct. The only way to do this within Extrude itself (or any geometry-creating feature) is with body visibility. This is already on our list of possible enhancements, but, unfortunately, there are no immediate plans to implement it. Your request, though, is noted. Thanks.

Jeff Strater
Engineering Director

mr.codycole · ‎02-02-2022

Thanks, Jeff!

donpaulPC3T5 · ‎05-03-2023

I agree with the original post on the request. We should be able to select bodies to include while in the feature. turning visibility on and off is a hack. Extruding, finishing the feature, then joining creates extra steps.

kb9ydn · ‎11-17-2023

@donpaulPC3T5 wrote:
I agree with the original post on the request. We should be able to select bodies to include while in the feature. turning visibility on and off is a hack. Extruding, finishing the feature, then joining creates extra steps.

Indeed, this is such a hack. Having to fuss with visibility as a workaround is incredibly weird.

I really hope join body selection makes its way into the new features list soon.

C|

jhackney1972 · ‎11-18-2023

Give the Emboss command a try. It will join your sketch to a body behind any number of separate bodies between it and your sketch. Animated GIF attached.

John Hackney, Retired
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.

crawlinbrain · ‎11-18-2023

Thanks for posting this workaround!

Just played with it a bit and wanted to list out a few limitations in case anyone is looking to try this out.

-New addition must be fully enclosed by selected face or it will be clipped

-New addition will only combine with the selected face. Additional bodies with need an additional combine feature

-No draft feature

-No thin feature

-No ability to offset from the selected surface

-No ability to extrude in multiple directions

🤞here's hoping for a fully resolved extrude feature for 2024

infoDA5Q4 · ‎06-30-2022

Hi Jeff, are there any updates on plans to implement this feature? It would be a big time saver and eliminate unnecessary steps from the timeline.

chabain92 · ‎11-14-2022

This should be absolutely top of list for new features.

raduVUS · ‎04-17-2023

I agree this should be top priority... The current behavior actually looks like a bug. Joining is a symmetric operation to cutting, so it's extremely strange that one supports specifying the impacted bodies and one doesn't. In fact, even if one uses a "new body" to do the extrusion as was suggested above, if the new body is adjacent/touching an existing body, a subsequent extrusion on the new body will often auto-combine the two bodies resulting in a single one (buggy).

Also, one cannot just rely on the visibility of a body to guide the joining behavior, because that would imply that "Compute All (Ctrl-B)" is then magically aware of what was visible when during the authoring process so it can correctly re-calculate everything and join extruded parts onto the correct bodies. I doubt that's actually the case.

crawlinbrain · ‎04-17-2023

God, your reply to this has reignited my frustration that this still hasn't been fixed. I want to love fusion, but lack of detail within features is so frustrating. And the response from the community is always " the workaround is fine why are you complaining?"

TrippyLighting · ‎04-18-2023

@chabain92 wrote:

This should be absolutely top of list for new features.

I disagree!

JeremysilieTUHWE · ‎07-15-2023

This feature is indeed a must. Are there any plans for implementing this?

TrippyLighting · ‎07-17-2023

@JeremysilieTUHWE wrote:

This feature is indeed a must. Are there any plans for implementing this?

Really, is it? So Modify->Combine(join) does not do that?

mr.codycole · ‎07-17-2023

It’s an extra step

crawlinbrain · ‎07-17-2023

Why are you against increasing the usability of this software? Why are you defending a workaround? More consistent UI makes Fusion better. Why act like things can't be improved?

By your logic why is there a cut tool? Wouldn't it be fine extruding a solid and then adding a subtract feature?

TrippyLighting · ‎07-18-2023

@crawlinbrain wrote:

Why are you against increasing the usability of this software? Why are you defending a workaround? More consistent UI makes Fusion better. Why act like things can't be improved?

I am not at all against improvements, but I can see that my post can be misunderstood as such 😉

In fact, if you spend more time here on the forum and read my posts you'll likely find that I've made many, many such suggestions myself. The one proposed in this thread would indeed be a very nice improvement.

It isn't unusual for these small things to just be implemented somewhat under the radar and without mentioning in the "what's new" blog with every new update.

How I interpreted @JeremysilieTUHWE post was that he is possibly another one of those users that might have some experience in another CAD system, but is unlikely the one who has to pay the bill for it. A particular feature present in the other CAD system is not found in Fusion 360 and then its importance is blown out of proportion.

The feature proposed in this thread is a nice-to-have, but it isn't "a must". You can perfectly fine complete a project without it.

crawlinbrain · ‎07-18-2023

Thanks for laying out your perspective!

I, and think a lot of others, would disagree that this a small issue. When working iteratively on complex parts this regularly turns what should be an automated step into a 10-20 minute exercise of rolling back the timeline, adding features, and selecting bodies.

This is enough of an issue to stop me from choosing fusion for a lot of projects or recommending fusion to other professionals.

This is especially frustrating because it feels like low hanging fruit (I don't know, I'm not a software engineer) but it's already how the cut feature works.

I think it's a disservice to think of any feature as good enough for the free users. Every tool should be up to professional standards.

TrippyLighting · ‎07-18-2023

@crawlinbrain wrote:

I think it's a disservice to think of any feature as good enough for the free users.

I don't see any post in this thread where that was mentioned.

@crawlinbrain wrote:

Every tool should be up to professional standards.

I don't disagree! I've used CAD software professionally as a degreed engineer for over 30 years.

In isolation this does seem like low-hanging fruit. But there are a lot of other low-hanging fruit amongst a number of larger, ongoing projects ("configurations" would be one of those). That means they have to prioritize as to what to work on next.

@crawlinbrain wrote:

This is enough of an issue to stop me from choosing fusion for a lot of projects or recommending fusion to other professionals.

Understood! Fusion 360 unfortunately isn't a tool for everyone and everything. I also use other CAD and 3D modeling tools (both FOSS and paid) if they have features are missing in Fusion 360.

I don't usually make recommendations for any tool until I have a firm grasp on a users requirements.