Fusion R.U.L.E #1 and #2

[TrippyLighting]

[Post modified to remove "360"]

Fusion R.U.L.E #1
When in doubt, before doing anything, create a component and make sure it's activated.

All objects created after activating the component such as sketches, bodies, construction geometry, joint origins, etc.  are created in that component.

This has several advantages:

1. On activation the timeline is filtered to show only those items in the timeline that pertain to that component. That will make the quickly growing timeline much easier to work with.
2. If a component is exported to the data panel with "save as" this will also export the complete parametric design history.
3. The joints in the "Assemble menu only work with components.
   Drawings can only be created from components
4. Only components show on the BOM.
5. Only components can be added to selection sets.
6. Only components can be isolated.

When another component needs to be edited for example to add geometry, it should be activated before doing so.

the above points apply to assemblies as well.

Exceptions to R.U.L.E #1

There are a number of other workflows that are  perfectly valid but the first step would not be creating a component. For the most part these are top-down design workflows:

1. When you create a skeleton sketch that carries features of several parts of the design and is used to extrude or otherwise create several bodies that then are turned into components. That conversion into a component, however, should happen as soon as possible because features added to a body contained in a component are all added to that components design history.
2. When the design starts with a T-Spline for example the exterior shell of a product that is then split int one or more bodies. Here also conversion into a component should happen as soon as the bodies are created.
3. A design for a single part to be used as an external, linked component (X-REF) in other designs. No component creation is necessary in this case as that design when inserted into another design is inserted as as a component.

 This is also well explained in this 6 minute video tutorial.

Fusion R.U.L.E #2
Name Your Stuff!

No explanation necessary...hopefully 😉

[j_d_olsen7]

Regarding Rule #1:  Several dozen hours into Fusion, I just learned that when you a convert a sketch, body, etc, to a component, that the sketch, body etc, is still contained within that component haha!  I was not understanding why you'd change to compnents because I felt that you could no longer make edits/ add features.  🤡  Until recently, I've mainly only been doing simple one off bodies for milling/ 3d printing.

[TimelesslyTiredYouth]

That's great, alwys good to start positive practices early on as it is harder to come out of habbits that you've done for a long time!

[Fully_Defined]

In simple, single-body projects, you should just stick to using the top level. There is no benefit to converting anything into a component, when the project is limited to one body, because there's nothing to convert - it's already a component! Every design starts out as a component.

I am firmly against Rule #1, because it demands that 100% of all projects are assemblies, which is nonsense. However, I am not against assemblies at all. Fusion is getting better and better, and I think it's long since past the time that Fusion started pushing the concept of joints and components being inseparable, because if you have one, you MUST have the other. I don't see that, though.

---

@j_d_olsen7 wrote:

Regarding Rule #1:  Several dozen hours into Fusion, I just learned that when you a convert a sketch, body, etc, to a component, that the sketch, body etc, is still contained within that component haha!  I was not understanding why you'd change to compnents because I felt that you could no longer make edits/ add features.  🤡  Until recently, I've mainly only been doing simple one off bodies for milling/ 3d printing.

---

[lichtzeichenanlage]

The root  is a component. Stated kind of early in the thread here. BTW: It's not only for assemblies, re-usability and even performance (e.g. for patterning) do also profit from components.

[Fully_Defined]

---

@lichtzeichenanlage wrote:

The root  is a component. Stated kind of early in the thread here. BTW: It's not only for assemblies, re-usability and even performance (e.g. for patterning) do also profit from components.

---

Components that are jointed. One requires the other.

[lichtzeichenanlage]

One requires the other? Nope. You're right that you only can use joint on components. But you can have components without joint. 

[laughingcreek]

the first 3 words always seem to be overlooked when folks come here and complain about the rule.  WHEN IN DOUBT.  this rule would seem to mainly apply to the multitudes of NEW folks who find themselves 5 bodies into a design, and then realized they needed to do somethings that required using components.  at some point (hopefully early in our learning journey) doubt goes away and the rule no longer applies.

[Fully_Defined]

---

@lichtzeichenanlage wrote:

One requires the other? Nope. You're right that you only can use joint on components. But you can have components without joint. 

---

How is a component useful without a joint?

[TrippyLighting]

---

@laughingcreek wrote:

the first 3 words always seem to be overlooked when folks come here and complain about the rule.  WHEN IN DOUBT.  this rule would seem to mainly apply to the multitudes of NEW folks who find themselves 5 bodies into a design, and then realized they needed to do somethings that required using components.  at some point (hopefully early in our learning journey) doubt goes away and the rule no longer applies.

---

Thank you!

That is precisely the purpose of the initial post!

[Fully_Defined]

---

@laughingcreek wrote:

the first 3 words always seem to be overlooked when folks come here and complain about the rule.  WHEN IN DOUBT.  this rule would seem to mainly apply to the multitudes of NEW folks who find themselves 5 bodies into a design, and then realized they needed to do somethings that required using components.  at some point (hopefully early in our learning journey) doubt goes away and the rule no longer applies.

---

No one is complaining here. I think the rule is dumb; I am happy to share why, but I am not complaining.

I have seen beginners with zero experience falter in Fusion, first hand - not just on forums - and they don't have enough of a command of the software or workflow to even understand what a component is or why the concept even exists. They all have doubt! Just teaching them sketch constraints and dimensioning is often over their heads. Trying to inject a silly rule into their mental workflow when they don't even know what it's for is just training bad habits into people that are harder to remove later.

Teach the idea of assemblies. Teach the idea of motion and joints, and even rigid joints. Introducing the idea of independent components is the exact same concept as introducing the idea of joints - they cannot exist without the other. I don't see joints being pushed on these beginners on forums like this, but a component without a joint is just dust blowing in the wind. It can exist anywhere in 3D space, in any orientation, and still be the thing someone thought they were designing.

This is why I think multibody parts are actually just fine for a lot of applications. Not for everything, of course, but there plenty of use cases for it, like a weldment. I also think it's a good place to start, as long as no motion joints are required in the design. It also provides some contrast when teaching what an assembly is, versus a multibody part, and gives context to why you would want an assembly with joints.

[Fully_Defined]

---

@TrippyLighting wrote:

That is precisely the purpose of the initial post!

---

All beginners have doubt. You guys are making circular arguments here.

[Drewpan]

Hi,

One of the main reasons I wrote RULE #0 was to try to address these deficiencies of RULE #1 and #2 on their own.

The tutorials that are embedded within the documentation take the user step by step through doing certain tasks

and show them the correct workflow while doing so. The Self Paced Learning is the same. The YouTube videos from

the Fusion Channel that are actually aimed at beginners also try to do this. None of these learning paths are perfect,

but they do get beginners onto the right track. The biggest problem with many learners is that they try to do too

much before they have mastered the basics. That is where the forum comes in so that the Gurus can guide them

in the right direction.

Cheers

Andrew

[TrippyLighting]

---

I have seen beginners with zero experience falter in Fusion, first hand - not just on forums - and they don't have enough of a command of the software or workflow to even understand what a component is or why the concept even exists.

---

And you attribute that to this thread? LOL

I have seen many beginners making excellent use of the rule and understanding its application, limitations, and exceptions. 

Of course, I don't know what users you are interfacing with (and I am afraid to ask), but based on over 10 years on this forum and feedback from many users and members of the Fusion team, this rule has helped a lot of people.

[lichtzeichenanlage]

I was one of the users with zero CAD experience and it helped me a lot.

[Fully_Defined]

@TrippyLighting wrote:

And you attribute that to this thread? LOL

I have seen many beginners making excellent use of the rule and understanding its application, limitations, and exceptions. 

Of course, I don't know what users you are interfacing with (and I am afraid to ask), but based on over 10 years on this forum and feedback from many users and members of the Fusion team, this rule has helped a lot of people.

---

I have seen just as many single components within single components within single components, with zero joints - the component-ception flopping in the wind.

[TimelesslyTiredYouth]

Well that's how people learn, from their mistakes, beginners make mistakes, the autodesk engineers have made mistakes in fusion, there's you...

We're human you can't expect everyone to get it right on their first try...

The point of threads like these is to be able to make sure they can get perfection, even if it isn't on their first try...

And I'll ask the question that @TrippyLighting , who the heck are the users your interfacing with? - under 15's begginers? - Are you a teacher? - What user is making single components within bloomin single components, that kinda concerning...

Even then components are one of the most beginner steps to learning fusion...

Sleepy Regards

Ricky🤣

[TimelesslyTiredYouth]

---

@TrippyLighting wrote:

And you attribute that to this thread? LOL

---

2024, Can't help but seriously, like, very concerningly seriously question how old you actually are?

Kind regards

Ricky

[Fully_Defined]

I am a engineering student, after having been a CNC machinist/programmer for the last ten years. I used to be a soldier.

Just for fun, here is a sketch submitted by a colleague for a group project, earlier this week.

Separately, I was involved in modeling a musical instrument featured on a popular YouTube channel, and someone pivotal to the project had an invention he wanted me to look at. The sketches had the exact same kind of quilt pattern, and the exact same awful design workflow, where it was impossible to modify anything after the fact. Everything all in one sketch is a pretty popular strategy, and it is scary how many folks think this okay.

These are the kinds of fundamentals that need to be addressed. Basic, parametric design, early on. Focusing on tangents like creating components where they don't need to exist, not talking about joints in the same breath, and then not talking about the dog's breakfast below, is the problem.

[TimelesslyTiredYouth]

---

@Fully_Defined wrote:

I used to be a soldier.

Everything all in one sketch is a pretty popular strategy, and it is scary how many folks think this okay.

These are the kinds of fundamentals that need to be addressed. Basic, parametric design, early on. Focusing on tangents like creating components where they don't need to exist, not talking about joints in the same breath, and then not talking about the dog's breakfast below, is the problem.

---

 I respect that you used to be a soldier, a very respectable title.

Now back to the point.

Yes, it is scary how many folks think this is okay. But a lot of these folks also don't take designs as far or deep as professionals do, like @TrippyLighting @Drewpan (I'll stop there, as this is the definition of misusing the @ command), where they'll need to do something like using the change parameter tool later on.

A VERY LARGE degree of understanding needs to be attained on your behalf right now.

People AREN'T PERFECT; you can't expect everyone to understand these concepts no matter how basic they are to people like you and me and others.

I have plenty of experience of seeing people around me, my age, start with unconstrained sketches, not starting with components, and making dumb mistakes.

However, I do give them hints in the right direction; they don't get it on the first try. HUMANS AREN'T PERFECT; it takes time for people to learn and adjust from old methods.

You're right. These kinds of fundamentals do need to be addressed, and that's the point of us, the fusion community, and YouTube (maybe not the cowboys) and the Reddit community for F360. There are measures in place to help these people, and those willing to learn will learn from these platforms. Those who aren't willing to learn and put the time in can go cry themselves to sleep cuz I don't care...

If you look over the past 10 years, many conversations have been had about sketches and other fundamentals in Fusion 360, and a difference is being made slowly.

So even though users are still making comparable to a 13-14 year old (PETER D IF YOU SEE THIS, DON'T YOU DARE SAY IT, I'M DIFFERENT). They will learn from their mistakes and learn slowly.

Laziness is one of humans greatest skills; without laziness, we would still be drawing on paper, and no one would make software like F360, as people didn't want to keep working on paper. I'm not saying that people will stop old habbits, like with how elevator was invented people still used stairs with elevators, but it will slowly drag people to the right direction, so if people don't seek for help and are stubborn, let them be, they will learn slowly in their own way. I'm sure people like 

@TrippyLighting , @laughingcreek @TimelesslyTiredYouth made pieces like that dog's breakfast at the beggining, but they learnt, and it's proof that people can learn and take initiative. it just depends on the person.

kind regards 

Ricky

[TimelesslyTiredYouth]

...