[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:
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:
This is also well explained in this 6 minute video tutorial.
Fusion R.U.L.E #2
Name Your Stuff!
No explanation necessary...hopefully ![]()
@kgrunawalt : My understanding of the rule is: Instead of having multiple bodies in the root (or a manual created component) you should use (more) components. I'm pretty sure you'll find many post here that strictly vote against creating a component by default.
It boils down to this: What is an assembly? If you can answer that confidently and understand the answer, then you would already know what the real problem is: that these rules have been accepted as doctrine by new users, and unlearning something can be traumatic.
I think you should unstick this thread, Autodesk.
Right I confess that I have not read all of the posts. I should do that.
I'm curious if there are things that could change about Fusion that would reduce the love of this rule. We have some limits on restructuring for example. IMO, restructuring does not have to be a feature in the timeline -- but not doing that means reworking the timeline automatically and that needs to be done carefully.
We do have some attention being paid to assemblies that will hopefully improve parametric assembly workflows when released.
@kgrunawalt wrote:
As a adsk dev whose worked on assemblies, this rule really bothers me. Every design has a component from the start and if you are modeling something to insert into an assembly, creating a component under the root component just adds DOF and assembly where you don't want it.
I see the exception for designing something to insert. But it seems like you should almost always design something for inserting.
This ignores the design in place workflow. Also, don't forget personal license users can only have 10 active files.
ETFrench
AFAIK 10 active documents don't effect the number of references you're using. It only effects the number of documents "in Edit mode".
@Fully_Defined wrote:
It boils down to this: What is an assembly? If you can answer that confidently and understand the answer, then you would already what the real problem is: that these rules have been accepted as doctrine by new users, and unlearning something can be traumatic.
I think you should unstick this thread, Autodesk.
We can make that happen if you provide a better guideline ![]()
@kgrunawalt wrote:
… We have some limits on restructuring for example. IMO, restructuring does not have to be a feature in the timeline -- but not doing that means reworking the timeline automatically and that needs to be done carefully.
.
I am all ears!
just as a reminder , the initial post is from 2016 and as such is ancient. That does not mean, however, it is invalid. It was conceived to help new users over the first hurdles and that worked brilliantly!
That it has some undesirable side effects isn’t a fault of the rule.
The real problem with the rule is that folks don’t manage to read past the first sentence/paragraph. Unfortunately it is almost always only that first paragraph that is quoted.
It should be rather obvious that creating a new guideline for a workflow is required if you don't like Rule #1 and #2.
ETFrench
Yes, there are those opinions, but why? If we follow Rule 1 then it's the same as having a default component. And we've all failed to follow Rule 1 at some point and paid the price in awkward handling of the design. Failure to do so give you a lot of stuff in the root with no comprehensive way to transfer it all to a component. The only way I've found is to open another file and "include" the original in it as a component.
This is weirdly abstract given the relative orthogonality of the rest of the tool design.
I think the more relevant question is "what is the basic element in an assembly?". If it's a body then the current design method is fine, although clunky, as most higher level operations require components. If you choose components as the basic element then these problems vanish.
@randy wrote:
RULE #1 is an artifact of Fusion not coming up in a mode where it can be immediately useful....
... That this is required is simply unexplainable.
It can and already has been explained a number of times in this thread.
Working exclusively with external / linked components might be a better workflow for you as it also does not require component activation, which is also just as easy to forget as creating a component.
In my experience, however, that is also a slower workflow than creating an assembly design in a single Fusion 360 design/file. Pick your poison ![]()
@kgrunawalt wrote:
As a adsk dev whose worked on assemblies, this rule really bothers me.
@kgrunawalt I can understand that
I've had a conversation with @Fully_Defined about this before and also see his point.
The forum software now allows to edit even ancient posts (or so it seems). Please continue to provide feedback so we can create a better guideline.
A thought I had is: we break this rule into a 2-part post. A TLDR version and an extended version for those users who have the patience to read more than the first sentence. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I am still hoping that those select few users exist
I think your issue is unrelated to the implementation of Rule #1. I don't have any problems along the lines of what your describing. I suggest screen casting the steps your doing to create this problem, starting a new post, and posting the screen cast there.
laughing creek,
Thanks for the input. The fact that you mentioned having no problems essentially told me the problem must be somewhere else (like between my ears :-). Anyway, went home and tried same routine on my iMac - no problems. Presumably, problem is with Win11 machine at work; more precisely our network/server system's handling of the uploads. Will get it sorted. Thanks for the reply.
Fred
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.