Is there a way to tell if a copied component is linked or not?

[atherisinnovations]

Hi,

I have to go back and edit a file I did sometime in the past year and I can't remember if some of the multiple copies of components are linked (paste) or if they are independent (paste new), is there a quick way for me to be able to tell or do I have to go edit some sketches and see if anything changes?

I am working in parametric mode, if that helps. Thanks!

-Stephen

[TrippyLighting · Accepted solution]

Components that are linked into the file you want to edit have a little chin link symbol to the right of their name in the browser.

Not sure that answers your question. If not maybe share some more details.

[lichtzeichenanlage · Accepted solution]

If I look in the browser and have components with the same name but increasing counter behind the colon I know that they are created by some kind of copy/paste (BaseSquare). Copy/Paste new will create a new component, increases the name before the colon but will reset the instance counter (BaseTriangel)

Does this make sense? 

[atherisinnovations]

Thanks guys, this makes sense, I just need to make better notes about what bodies and components are linked to what sketches and where.. 

BTW, is there a 'notes' function in the workspace anywhere? That would make it easy for me to keep record of how some of my components/bodies come to be..

[laughingcreek]

No, there isn't a notes section (like Rhino).  I made an idea station request for it a while back here, but it didn't get any traction, maybe if it got a few more votes.

[lichtzeichenanlage]

In the bottom / left you can find a commenting tool. But ... you'll see 😉 However - you can comment on an component and a point

[lichtzeichenanlage]

@laughingcreek: Vote +1

[lichtzeichenanlage]

Things are less confusing, if you first create a component and than create the sketches inside the component. I tend to name sketches like "Sketch Case Bottom", Bodies and components "Case bottom", Planes "Plane Case bottom" and Joints "Joint case bottom case top" etc. 

That should eliminate some need for documentation.

[laughingcreek]

The names of entites in my design is a very small fraction of what I keep notes on.

[lichtzeichenanlage]

@laughingcreek: I can imagine this. My comment was in the context of "What sketch drives wich body / component" I totally agree that better notes should be a must in F360. Also they should be searchable / filterable by tags. Like "TODO" "DELETE" "REDO" etc.  

[atherisinnovations]

@laughingcreek

Yeah, a notes feature should be a part of each file.. I often run different configurations of essentially the body (or component) and there simply isn't enough space to title each with the relevant info..

@lichtzeichenanlage

I will play around with the comment feature you pointed out, thanks

[lichtzeichenanlage · Accepted solution]

@atherisinnovations

Wouldn't branches solve this problem? Or are those different configurations to small for branches?

---

@atherisinnovations wrote:

I often run different configurations of essentially the body (or component) and there simply isn't enough space to title each with the relevant info..

---

[atherisinnovations]

---

@lichtzeichenanlage wrote:

@atherisinnovations

Wouldn't branches solve this problem? Or are those different configurations to small for branches?

---

@atherisinnovations wrote:

I often run different configurations of essentially the body (or component) and there simply isn't enough space to title each with the relevant info..

---

---

@lichtzeichenanlage: I thought the Branch & Merge functionality had been disabled? Otherwise, yeah, using branches would be a useful strategy..

[lichtzeichenanlage]

AFAIK AutoCAD has closed the preview. My expectation is that it some day
will trickle down into a release.