Fusion Design Limitations Physical size and part count

[Lonnie.Cady]

Is there any size of the model that starts to have an impact on fusion performance?  I read somewhere once there was a volumetric limit in SolidWorks.  Not necessarily a limit but performance was drastically reduced.  I modeled my shop foundation with footings, rebar, and columns.  It was 40x60 and SW was very slow.  I maybe was not using best practices when doing it.  I just felt there was no reason to go any farther.

I am now starting a new 60x60 barn and want to model it in fusion.  I want to stay parametric if possible and not turn off the timeline.  This would be a simple post frame barn.

Are there any modeling practices or feature organizational tips that would help in this?

I was thinking things like, create a component for each wall with sub-components for framing members etc....

All in one flat file and the timeline becomes too much for me to handle.

I know this is not necessarily the purpose of fusion and there are better products.  This is for personal use so buying a new product is likely not going to happen.    

[chrisplyler]

Ah. I was all about to ask you why the heck you would use Fusion for this. Then I read your final paragraph.

Guess I would organize it like you suggested... one high-level component for each category of item (foundation, framing, sheathing, roofing, finishes, etc). Sub-components if you want another level of organization (studs, joists, rafters, etc). Final level of sub-components for all the like items.

I would probably try to do each unique piece of rebar, or stud, or joist, only once...and then pattern them where possible. In that way, you can Suppress all the patterns while not needed, to keep performance from suffering as you continue to work.

But I'm warning you... you're not going to like it. I would run from this kind of project, right towards Revit or some other software package designed for this type of thing.

[Lonnie.Cady]

@chrisplyler Thanks.  That's what I was afraid of.

I was not looking for too much detail in the model.  Mainly framing.  Post, purlins, rafters, etc.....   Not really sheeting and such.  This will be a "Pole Barn" method of construction.

I did it once in Sketchup for our previous barn.  It was not bad but not parametric and without purchasing the Pro subscription of it you can't make any drawings.  Again not really needing drawings but a couple of details and dimensions here and there to carry out with me.

I was looking at Briscad Shape but don't want to learn a new piece of software just yet.

Thanks for your input!!

[laughingcreek]

I think fusion will handle the timber frame part just fine.  If you want it to fully parametric, I would follow a strictly top down approach though.  No cross component referencing.  This may be hard to wrap your head around when you start doing the joinery, but it's possible.

[Lonnie.Cady]

@laughingcreek 

You have me a little confused.  I thought that was the entire reason for top-down.  So you can reference part geometry off from another.  

How would I do a top-down without referencing other parts?  Are you saying just drawing every component in position without referencing other components?

I don't think I would have any issue creating the joinery independent of others since that would basically be how bottom-up would work which is what I am most familiar with.

Thank you for the info.

[laughingcreek]

I mean using skeleton sketches that reside one level up in the hierarchy.  I.E. -if a reference point is used by multiple components, then that reference point should be at least 1 level higher than the components.  This idea becomes important when you want a model that is somewhat complicated and you want it to be fully parametric with out constantly breaking.  If you follow this idea then you can delete (not remove, delete) any component and the model doesn't break.

I admit I regularly don't follow this principle, b/c can get tedious sometimes, and I'm not usually going for fully parametric.  

[Lonnie.Cady]

@laughingcreek thanks for clarifying.  I may give it a try and see how things go.  If things don't work out I will just go back to SketchUp since I already know it pretty well.