How do Fusion 360 experts build an assembly like this without using joints?

[mgianzero]

So I've gotten fairly good at some drawings using F360.  However, now I was thinking of designing and building my own 3D printer using Fusion.  I've seen a few completed models like this one (https://gallery.autodesk.com/fusion360/projects/97840/voron-1?searched=) on the Fusion 360 gallery.  But how to they position parts like the frame and all the parts without using joints? 

I'm fairly new to assembly using rigid joints, but I don't see that they did this in this example or others I've seen.  It would seem like a really tedious job to do if they did.  So how does one create such a parametric model and place all those parts exactly where they want them?

Marc G.

[mgianzero]

"Personally I rarely use any joints until my assembly is completed unless I need to figure out motion of an assembly, then I assign Joints only where I need them until the end."

Good point.  Nice to know that I don't need to overcomplicate a drawing unless need be.  I was simply designing a 3D printer - it's only for me and wanted to see how my other parts would fit in place and what my size constraints would be.  Not designing anything near the complexity of a car.

"In the beginning of this thread you contradicted yourself based on what you said you wanted to do and what you expect to happen.

 For instance you said "But how to they position parts like the frame and all the parts without using joints?"

I answered this with the move tool and align tool.

 Second you said "So how does one create such a parametric model and place all those parts exactly where they want them?""

Perhaps I am not fully understanding the definition of "parametric modeling" - as I do confess that I consider myself a newbie to CAD design in general and might be using terminology inappropriately.  Again, I've been trying to learn all this using more respected and regular instructors on the web who teach F360.  Here's one screencast that talks about the "parametric features" of Move/Copy  here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EejRr-Y3174 (he mentions this at 11:15 time if anyone wishes to see).

"In short what you should do depends on what you plan to do with the assembly. If you never plan to do anything past a static model or if you plan to export to another CAD system then the move and alignment tools work. On the other hand if you need parametrics or motion in your assembly you need joints."

I think this about sums up my thoughts on this whole learning process  ...  "keep things simple and know your audience".  There's no need to get into an area that one doesn't really need to be unless there are definite advantages or options that one couldn't do without.  This reminds me of my son's robotics competition where a parent and his child on our team insisted on over-engineering his robot for the task at hand.  Ended up that we spent way more time building and tweaking something that was not really needed.  Robot ended up crashing and breaking far more often than our home one we built.  Turns out that my son had more time to practice driving his robot than his teammate did and truly came out ahead in the competition.

[mgianzero]

Let me say that I really, really do not mean to insult anyone here as I am very appreciative of everyone's time on this forum.  I am just asking questions, probably because I still wanted to know why some chose one way of doing something rather than another's.  We come to this forum to learn and grow from other's expertise and insight on all things F360.  That being said, I just wanted to respond to other's comments, while, hopefully, not getting people upset with me.  

"From the perspective of a CAD software it is irrelevant whether you are a hobbyist or a professional. You also need to realize that when you ask question here on the forum it is hard to as to what you personally want to do with the given project and even that might be irrelevant. Even if you are only want to create a rendering it is a good idea to use the software properly."

Again, not sure I fully agree with this statement.  I think it DOES matter if you're a hobbyist or a professional and, more importantly, why am I making this model?  If I were teaching a course in F360 (which I am waaaaay under-qualified to do) I would probably like to know the purpose or goal of my audience.  I shared with everyone at the beginning of my thread that a model of a 3D printer that I wanted to emulate.  Not a particularly complicated model to replicate I would think, but I would probably build it different ways according to my purpose.  As an example, even AutoDesk instructors on their own website talk about distributed designs vs multi-body designs and the possibilities with each.  Why not entertain using joints vs Move/Copy and align?  It's nice to know there are more than one way of doing things with F360 and what are the advantages and limitations of each.

[Anonymous]

---

@mgianzero wrote:

  It's nice to know there are more than one way of doing things with F360 and what are the advantages and limitations of each.

---

Coming from one of the "traditional parametric 3D-CAD systems" (Inventor), at the beginning I was confused (and a bit annoyed) by the variety of possible Fusion 360 workflows to tackle a problem:

- parametric or direct modeling (or both)

- all in one file or linked components (or both)

- joints or move (or both)

- create in place or move/joint (or both)

And to make things worse, you can mix-and-match all this options - so you have a good chance to do things wrong. But - you also have the chance to make things much better than with "traditional systems". 

Now I´m convinced that Fusion 360 can be seen as a "liberation tool" - allowing the users mind to throw away the limitations of "modeling paradigmas". Free your mind from dogmas.

Then it just comes down to "be smart". Know (and define) your task, know the possibilities of Fusion 360, be aware of the consequences - and choose the most efficient way to achive your specific goal.  Your human brain makes the difference. Not a bad thing.

Manfred

[PhilProcarioJr]

@mgianzero

I don't think you have upset anyone, definitely not me. 🙂 @TrippyLighting is a grumpy old German guy but he means well and just doesn't want you to fall into one of many of Fusion's black holes.

At the end of the day people like yourself come here to get answers and people like @TrippyLighting and myself come here to try and answer them. None of us would be here if we didn't want to receive help from others or give help to others.

Cheers

Phil

[TrippyLighting]

@mgianzero No, you're not insulting anyone, this is a good discussion.

At the present time you don't have enough experience to start simplifying your workflow . We can explain pro's and con's but those theoretical concepts will not stick if you don't go through the motions and create a project using one of these approaches, whether direct modeling (no parametrics) or Timeline mode (parametrics).

Don't expect your first project to go smoothly and expect having to re-do some or all of it.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@PhilProcarioJr wrote:

 @TrippyLighting is a grumpy old German guy but he means well and just doesn't want you to fall into one of many of Fusion's black holes.

---

Engineer, please! In my experience that magnifies the grumpyness factor by about 10 😉

[mgianzero]

"At the end of the day people like yourself come here to get answers and people like @TrippyLighting and myself come here to try and answer them. None of us would be here if we didn't want to receive help from others or give help to others."

"@mgianzero No, you're not insulting anyone, this is a good discussion."

"Don't expect your first project to go smoothly and expect having to re-do some or all of it."

Thanks guys.  I agree with most everything here.  I do admit that having so many options when designing in an F360 environment can be overwhelming at times.  But programs such as Fusion 360 never really existed when I was in mechanical engineering school.  But then I took a sharp turn and now I'm a physician.  It's nice to be able to come full circle back to engineering to do "fun" projects and exercise my mind with ideas that I've wanted to do. 

But stumbling (or not making all the right decisions) is part of the learning process.  I'm teaching my 11 year-old that we, as engineers, learn more and can become even better engineers by our failures, than succeeding the first time!  I'm hoping I can draw him into F360 with his ideas as he wants "to be an inventor" when he grows up!"  

My son already experienced working with grumpy engineers (myself, as well as another kid on his robotics team and his dad - who claimed they knew all the answers).  It teaches him to be open-minded and listen to others.  Forums like this really help for guys like us to learn and advance very quickly without having to sit in a boring class all day.

[mgianzero]

So my learning continues   ...  I'm not sure if I should continue with this thread or start a new one since it's my same project, but now I'm using joints.

Here's my partial assembly -- notice how I was successful in creating the frame.  However, how does one join two (or even three parts together) for this assembly?

More specifically, how do I assemble my three parts ... my linear bearing (LM8UU), my Y carriage clamp, and join them both to my Y rod?

[mgianzero]

I'm going to submit this as another question as it's something new.  Don't know how to delete my previous post though.

[Anonymous]

I found that I could put pieces together without using joints by using the align feature. Seems to work quite nicely.

[TrippyLighting · Accepted solution]

One more thing ...

[mgianzero]

Peter  -

Once again, this is awesome!  Your screencasts shows me everything I need to know.

Just to confirm I understand your points here, you showed me several things:

1)  Break the links as a linked components is not good practice when making such a model.  You really answered this in another thread I had started.  Thank you for that clarification.

2)  You showed me that it is best practice to create instances of your components by using the Copy command.  I think I had import the same component multiple times as a linked item which is not the same (I assume).  The reason for this is if you edit your components in Direct Modeling mode, you essentially update ALL copies of these components at once.  Is that correct?

3)  You minimized my use of joints by realizing the symmetry of the box and so you copied a "sub-assembly" (not sure that's the correct term here) and rotated and joined it.

4)  I am also realizing that sometimes when you joint components, you can use the flip command to orient it correctly.  I forgot about that option.

Thanks again.

Marc.