how to position parts so I can design between them in fusion

[ben.ruppel]

Hello, I've been asking some technical questions and I think I need to start at fundamentals.

I am trying to design a part that fits in an existing physical location.

I would like to use Fusion to model the existing location so that I can work out my design.

It would not make sense to model the existing location as a single part for complex reasons.

My guess is that I want to create components that represent my physical location.  In order to accomplish this, I would need to position them relative to each other.  It would also help my brain if I could orient them in a way that is intuitive to me. 

What is the best way to do this in fusion?  Am I on the right track with my guess?

Here is an example: I have a complex object, and a complex wall.  I want to design something that fits between the complex object and the complex wall. 

[g-andresen]

Hi,

file missing > try again

Please share the file.

File > export > save as f3d locally  > attach it to the next post.

günther

[davebYYPCU]

Not enough information, but, 

Construct the complex wall.

Construct the complex object.

At the time you make these the gap between them is dimensioned or

parametrised when making the joint.

Might help....

[ben.ruppel]

Dude it's a concept.  You want me to provide you with a part file that contains three components?  You don't need that to explain a concept.

[ben.ruppel]

Okay, I don't understand how this is not enough information.

How about this: 

Q: What do you need to know when you are designing a new part in order for it to fit it with other parts?

A: you need to know the locations and shapes of the other parts

I am trying to start with a goal, because I think I don't understand Fusion enough to provide any other starting points. 

If I suggest any starting point, I will get bogged down in the details of how to accomplish particular operations, but I won't even know if the operations make sense.

[davebYYPCU]

You know the size of the gap between the parts.

simulate that within Fusion with two parallel lines if that suits your design, but as with your other thread, your hypotheticals are difficult, to make responses on point.  When responses come in you move the goal posts.

[fusiondesigner]

Here is how I would do it in a similar situation. With a new design file, click create new component. I would choose the biggest/least likely to have to be moved around part (my guess is the wall in your case), and start by  designing that from the root origin. When this is done, then new component again in the same design file, and design the existing complex object in the correct relative location to the wall. I would not worry too much about component origins for both of these, because I will not be moving them around at all, they are static and will stay fixed in place where I designed them. It only needs to be visually and geometrically accurate as possible.

Then I would save this version of the file for future reference in case I need to roll back all the way to this point, or make a copy to try out different approaches.

When done, then "create new component" in the same file, and design the new part in place between the existing wall and object.

When completely satisfied, then if desired (for example to send only the individual part file somebody) I would save the new component as a completely separate design file by right clicking on its name and "Save Copy As".

[ben.ruppel]

No Dave.  Just No.  

I'm sorry if you have thinking problems.  It seems like the world is turning to "hold my hand on how to do a specific problem."   The result is you get an army of people who don't understand things, they just know a bunch of workflows.

I never moved my goal posts.  I had 2 questions in my other thread and an army of replies couldn't answer even the first question.  We never got to question 2.  But don't worry, the 2 sentences were right next to each other so they might have been hard to understand.

Do you know what happens when you move beyond hypotheticals?  You get answers that don't explain how things work.  You only get answers that work in one particular case.  Or you get people confused because they are bogged down in the details.

I've been in the industry for 18 years.  I have been to forums for Mathworks, Solidworks, AutoCad, Intel Fortran, and Tecplot.  This forum is by far the one where it is the most excruciatingly difficult to get a helpful response.  And this is on top of the tools Autodesk provides. 

I would have to guess the problems stem from language barriers, education levels, and experience in the field, but I'm not beyond pointing my finger at cultural issues and fanboyism.  After all, "this is not solidworks."  Maybe record and replay tools have conditioned everyone to solve problems using specific examples, and nobody is used to thinking.  Heaven forfend.

[davebYYPCU]

Your right there is a disconnect.

[etfrench]

The best way is to use a joint between the two or a joint between each of them to a third component.  The third component can simply be a sketch with joint origins defined for each of the other components. Grounding one of the components may be beneficial.  

I'm rather surprised the question needed to be asked.

[Ajay_Kumar_Reddy]

This can be easily done by projecting the sketch and then by knowing the dis b/w them.

Based on that you can decide what kind of thing you wanna design in b/w (clearance or interference).

Here's how you can do that,

1. Choose a plane such a way that, it is convenient and must show two objects properly.

2. Project the the two profiles that are close to each other

3. Inspect the distance 

4. Based on that just design what you desire.

[Claus_J]

I don’t need to answer because you already wrote it: Position the two parts relative to each other so it makes sense and design the third part in place if possible. What I don’t understand is how you expect these good and helpful people, who help me and many others out time after time, to keep trying when they are met with rudeness. Your general question can’t be answered with anything else than very general advice. You are much better off starting your project and turning back to the forum when you’re stuck on something.

[chrisplyler]

There are variables that prevent a specific best answer.

For example...if you have a wall with a simple enough shaped hole, you might just make Surfaces of the interior faces of that hole, make a final surface across the opening, stitch them all together into a solid body, then use Push/Pulls or  Offsets to produce a correctly shaped item that fits into the hole with a defined gap all around. But the complexity of the hole's shape might prevent that workflow, in which case you might need to start projecting things into sketches and manually defining the desired shape.

This is why people have asked for a model of your existing space and what your gap requirement is. We can then help you determine the most practical way to achieve your goal. Are you unable to model your existing space as a void in a single block of material?