Gotta get better organized!

[robpage]

I've got to find a better way to stay organized in my browser window.  I came from Cinema 4D and in that program—and I'm sure others—you can create a "null" object (in essence, a folder) and put stuff in it.  I get that doesn't really work in Fusion 360 because of the (awesome!) time machine-like ability to go back and re-edit a feature.  That's a killer function, but I'm finding it so difficult to keep everything straight in my ever growing browser window, I question if it's worth it.  Is there a solution I'm missing?

I'm not knocking Fusion, I'm utterly blown away by this program, it's power and Autodesk's incredible generosity to provide an "enthusiast" license for hobbyists like me!  Thx

[JamieGilchrist]

hi robpage,

thanks for the nice words.  Yes we know that browser organization is important, especially as your start to put more and more stuff in your designs.  We will be accommodating for user created browser folders, we currently allow you to do this in history free, or direct modeling, mode, but are still hashing our the details on the behavior for parametric models.  Rest assured, this capability is coming in the not too distant future, I don't have a specific timeframe when it may show up in Fusion, but it is in our purview to support.

[Brady_Fulton]

Are you using "New Component"? This was a game changer for me.

Another tip that made me more efficient is "Shift-N" Component Color Cycling, have to be using the first tip 😉

The other crucial organizing tip I can give is to make sure you're clicking on the bullet to the right of your components to activate them before your make edits.

Can you expand on what you mean by "organized"? Are you working on an assembly with lots of unique components?

[robpage]

Can't wait!  

I don't actually know what "direct modeling, mode" is (that's how much a rookie I am!).  But I gather something as simple as "new folder..." then naming it and dragging what you want into it is the yet-to-come feature you mentioned?  Does it work like that in "history free?"

[robpage]

I'm actually still pretty confused by what a component even is.  I thought that might be my solution at first but...  I figured out how to "create a new component" but I can't drag any bodies into it.  I can select a bunch of bodies and "create components from bodies" but instead of grouping those bodies in a single component, it duplicates each item as a new component!  I have to dive into the manual/tutorials to learn how to use the color coding of components.  Haven't done that yet.  I can see how that could really help.

Right now I'm just modeling things around my desk to learn.  Currently modeling a tom tom from a drum set.  So in this case, I want to group, for example, all six of the tension rods that ring the drum.  In Cinema I'd just create a "null" (new folder), and drag all the rods into it, label it "tension rods" and close it up.  Done.  Outta sight.  That's the functionality I really need otherwise I feel like I'm drowning.

[JamieGilchrist]

direct modeling and history free can be used interchangeably.   if you are in a history free model you can create groups within the bodies folder to organize your various bodies.

hope this helps.

[robpage]

Ah, so if I'm understanding correctly, I can click "do not capture design history" (what I'm understanding to be "history free"), make a bunch of groups and drag things in then switch back to "capture design history" (using them interchangeably) and things will be grouped but I'll get my entire history back and still be able to modify things I'd created earlier?  I must be misunderstanding you, that doesn't seem possible.  Sorry to be so dense.

[Anonymous]

Could a component be called a folder, maybe the pro’s could answer that one?

You don’t need to drag bodies into folders, when you create a new component that component becomes active, so any objects created while the component is active will be placed into that component.

When you create a new component it becomes active, rename it tension rods and then model your tension rods and they will be placed into that component.

When you create another component it becomes active, rename it legs and then when you model the legs they will be placed into that component and so on.

[robpage]

Ah!  Yes, I'm following that.  But one has to get in the habit of creating the component first - if you forget and create a bunch of lugs (in this case) first, you can't then drag them into a component...if I'm understanding correctly.  Still, seems like a workaround for sure.  Thx, I'll try that.

[Anonymous · Accepted solution]

Forget about dragging the lugs into the component, make the component active, then create the lugs and they will be placed into that component.

Many of us struggled with this component/body system but I have come to understand that it is really quite clever.

When you create a component anything related to the parts in that component are stored in that component, which makes complete sense in computer modelling.

If you move a component everything moves together, all the sketches, modifications, etc move as one item and so there’s less room for objects going astray.

[robpage]

Got it.  Yes that all makes sense and super helpful!  (As long as you don't forget to make the component first...that's key.) Thanks!

[HughesTooling]

Have you seen this thread on Rule#1. And yes you can use a component just as a container for other components, here's an example mould tool, you can see I have a component HascoPlts then subcomponents FixedHalf and MovingHalf that contain the actual components with their sketches and bodies. 

Mark

[robpage]

I had not seen that thread or even heard of Rule #1 - again, a noob...  Very helpful, thanks a mil.

[JamieGilchrist]

 robpage,

so be very careful here.  Clicking "Do not capture design history" is a one way ticket out of parametric modeling.  You can go back to capturing design history, however the history captured up to the point where you stopped capturing history will be lost.

Cx2 suggestion is a good method to use.

One big thing you'll have to think about is what your final output is going to be used for.  For instance, if you are looking to actually make or manufacture your design, you'll likely want to model each component individually.  In other words each component represents one part (in a bill of materials) that you'll: machine, 3D print, buy, injection mold, thermoform, assemble to something else, etc...  If your end goal is not actually fabricating your design, you can be a little less restrictive here.

an example of this:

Here I have the "Main Carriage" which is a sub assembly of the "Barn Door Hardware" (the top level design) and then a component for each "part" in this sub assembly (i.e. Wheel carriage 1 and 2, Bolt, Wheel x 4, etc.)

in this particular example, the carriage is a purchased part, but I modeled it as if it was a "kit of parts" I was going to put together myself where each component in the model corresponds to one part in the "kit".  (note that this is a direct model, but the logic of the structure would follow in a parametric model are well.)

hope this helps.

[robpage]

Ah, I get it, the lights are coming on.  So if I were intending to cut out my model using a CNC router, I'd need each separate part to exist as it's own component before I could generate the—uh, "g-code" I think it's called?...have I got that straight?  But what if I had two or more components that I wanted the router to cut out of a single sheet of material?  Is there a way to generate g-code from two or more components?  (I'm getting way ahead of myself, I have plenty of modeling experience to get under my belt before I get into CNC routing...)

[Brady_Fulton]

Once you have components, you then have a couple options:

1. Apply joints to arrange the components in a sheet like layout

2. Create a new file and insert the existing components into this file so you don't lose your assembled configuration in the original file.

Southwest Human Development
Brady Fulton
ADAPT Shop Fabricator
Assistive Technology
(602) 266-5976 Main
(602) 327-6035 Cell
(602) 633-8786 Fax
BFulton@swhd.org
2850 N 24th StreetPhoenix, AZ85008
Newsletter Signup
FacebookTwitter
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender by email, delete and destroy this message and its attachments.

[robpage]

got it.  Okay, that makes total sense.  Thanks everyone!

[HughesTooling]

Here's a link to help on assemblies.

http://help.autodesk.com/view/fusion360/ENU/?guid=GUID-38F2A3B4-CE01-4375-A21D-4CC9A743B2A1

If you are machining individual parts you can create a setup orientated to the component, no need to move from where you designed it. If you want to machine several parts at the same time you might find the second option @Brady_Fulton the easiest to work with. How many parts are you going to be working with?

Mark

[robpage]

thanks Brady, that's really helpful.  I have no immediate need for CNC-ing, I'm just learning the software.  At some point down the line I'll get into that aspect though.  PS: I grew up in Phoenix.

[Noah_Katz]

 > Yes we know that browser organization is important, especially as your start to put more and more stuff in your designs.

I'm also a new user and just bumped up against this today.

After copying a component after having inserted other ones, I tried dragging it to be adjacent to its clone, and vice versa.

No can do; I mentioned this in another thread and was told the browser is in chronological order like the timeline, which seems redundant.

This will get very messy very quickly, what with copies of the same component scattered all over. Fasteners - OMG.

In my previous CAD s/w all like instances would appear together, and could be compressed so that instead of 20 entries for Comp_7, it would say Comp7(20).

Any plans for something like that?