Having trouble making complex hinges function
@chrisplyler yes, that is the usual approach, however it can be improved upon.
I personally avoid importing assemblies directly into my design, because then that assembly is a timeline based design.
I download this as a separate step file and do NOT enable the timeline. Timeline based designs are up to 3 times the file size of a DM design and that makes a difference in how fast an assembly is.
Then I organize the bodies into groups of fixed vs. moving. In this case there are only 4 components with 2 of them containing multiple bodies. This I then assemble using normal joints (as built joints are not available in DM mode) .
All that will keep the linked component very lightweight and in larger assemblies that will make a significant difference even when you break the link. Making a component from a body adds overhead and that should only be done when necessary.
Then I noticed that they modeled this poorly. The upper link, where it wraps around the upper pin, interferes with door-side mortise cup.
@chrisplyler So here's proof that one should verify what one was told 😉
I tested what I said on an assembly imported from a STEP file :
This can be exported from other CAD systems as an assembly and when imported into Fusion 360 it is imported as an assembly with components.
But I also exported it from as a part and in that case Fusion 360 imports it as bodies in a flat structure.
Then I. exported it as a . f3d once with the timeline enabled and once without, males 4 files with different file sizes.
With components and no timeline 1.1 MB
With bodies only and no timeline 2.6MB
With components and with timeline 2.4MB
With bodies only and with timeline 5.5MB
While simply enabling the timeline more than doubles the file size, using bodies instead of components - at least in terms of file size - also clearly has a detrimental effect.
If that also results in detrimental effects when actually working in an assembly I cannot say at this time.
@Phil.E @schneik-adsk would you have any comments on the performance aspect of this ?
@TrippyLighting can you share these two files?
"With components and no timeline 1.1 MB
With bodies only and no timeline 2.6MB"
Thanks,
Phil Eichmiller
Software Engineer
Quality Assurance
Autodesk, Inc.
@TrippyLighting: Phil shared your designs with me, thanks for sending them. The reason why the "components" version of the model is smaller is because that version uses component instancing. Not all, but some components in that design have more than one instance. In these cases, the geometry just exists in one place for all instances. In the "bodies" version, there are no component instances. So, each usage of a component is a complete copy.
As to why a parametric version of an imported design is larger, that has to do with the nature of the timeline and imported geometry. Fusion keep a cached version of the body in the Base Feature for each body. This is because, when editing the Base Feature, you are actually interacting with the direct modeling version of that body, and once you exit the Base Feature, you are interacting with the parametric version of that body. It's a bit of an internal detail, but that is why the parametric version is larger.
Hope that helps to explain the file size differences.
Jeff Strater
Engineering Director
@jeff_strater wrote:
@TrippyLighting: Phil shared your designs with me, thanks for sending them. The reason why the "components" version of the model is smaller is because that version uses component instancing.
Doh! Of course! How did I miss that ?
But, here is another question. STEP is a generic format so it would have to take care of the instancing. Are there formats that don't support instancing ?
Anyway, tank you very much @jeff_strater& @Phil.E
It seems only logical that the parametric versions are larger.
