Fusion 360 features frustratingly close to what I want to do with parameters and patterns

[cebessscws]

I was creating a straightforward design that is parametrically driven. The purpose is to demonstrate the value of parameters to some other woodworkers learning Fusion 360. I have a set of shelves that are driven by a few variables:

ShelfWidth

ShelfHeight

ShelfDepth

BoardThickness

NumberOfShelves

I create a BottomShelf that is ShelfLength-BoardThickness long.

I place a LeftSide board so that it overlaps by 50% (typical Rabbet/Dado joint).

I then cut the BottomShelf out of the LeftSide. which creates a notch as well as 'a feature'.

I thought I could then replicate the feature (caused by the cut) using a rectangular pattern. I've done this before.

Unfortunately, since the BottomShelf and the LeftSide align on the bottom, the feature only has two sides and cannot be replicated in any effective way that I can tell. Note in the picture it is two faces not 3D features.

If I replicate the shelves by NumberOfShelves and combine that, I get the pattern I want, but in order to get the Dados cut out of the LeftSide, I need to do it manually by selecting each of the replicated shelves, whenever I change the NumberOfShelves parameter. Defeating the role of the parameter. Any ideas?

Hopefully, the pictures will help:

The only work around I could think of is to possibly create a copy of the bottom shelf offset by the calculated separation distance, Combine/Cut that and then replicate the feature from that cut multiple times -- but that is a real kludge. I have not gotten that to work either.

Any insights are appreachated. 

[Bunga777 · Accepted solution]

I tried it because it looked interesting.

Make a bottom board in Extrude.

Using the same sketch, create the hooking area.

Both features were array copied.

I made 10 tiers and hid the boards in between.

Sample data is attached.

Parametric shelves

[cebessscws]

I see I needed to have both the board (box) feature as well as the cut feature included in the replication. Great!

[laughingcreek]

top down, skeleton sketch approach works really well with flat work designs like this. attached is an example.

I would encourage you to not cross reference between components at the same level. (ie-cutting the groove by combining with a body in a different component)  you eventually end up with a tangled mess of dependencies that can be very difficult to debug. in the attached example the issue of cross dependency was addressed by extruding from the skeleton sketch that lives one level up.

i organize my flat work designs like this-

-skeleton sketches gathered at the beginning of the timeline

-features needed to create each unique component (this design has 2)

-patterning instances of components into place (or copy and jointing when a pattern won't work for placement) at the end of the timeline.