Is there really no way to rotate a construction plane?

[Helmi74]

I'm just curious and maybe it's just me but i just wanted to rotate a construction plane and noticed it isn't possible.

What i wanted to do: Creating a sketch in relation to an existing body. That sketch should be a defined distance from the existing body and then rotated backwards by 30 degrees.

I though doing this with a construction plane would be the way to go but then i assume i would have to add one or more additional geometry to create this construction plane to. Why not just enable me to rotate the offset plane? All i seem to be able to do is to make it offset to an existing face.

Any hint? Probably i'm just totally missing something!?

[Oceanconcepts]

Hi Frank.  In direct modeling anyway, I am able to move either a sketch or a construction plane pretty much as any other object, including rotating. I believe that ability may be constrained in the parametric environment- maybe create a new base feature?

[Anonymous]

I guess an offset plane is offset from a face in the direction of the surface normal, but does not have a refference point in X Y space, so it would be defined what it has to rotate about. And in the case of the rotaded construction plane it only knows the axis of rotation, so it you also want to offset it, it has no refference for which direction to offset in.

As for your modelling challenge, one way I could think of is to offset a construction plane, project include the edge of the base geometry that you want to rotate about, then create a rotated construdtion plane through that edge, but leave the angle at 0 at first.  project include the face that you want to base your sketch on. When the sketch is done, break the link with of the project included lines, then edit the angle of the construction plane. 

Niels

[jeff_strater]

Yeah, @Oceanconcepts is right - that feature is there in direct modeling, but not yet in parametric designs.  There is nothing really blocking us doing that, (except time and higher priorities), it just hasn't bubbled to the top of the heap yet.  Same with sketches themselves - there is no way to translate the entire sketch.  Both are useful features, I agree.  Are these on the ideastation?  Not that they have to be, but it helps us to make the case for things like this, if they are there and get lots of votes.

thanks,

Jeff Strater (Fusion development)

[Helmi74]

Thanks, Jeff.

I've just put it there so go and cast your votes, guys 🙂

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/fusion-360-ideastation-request-a/idb-p/125/tab/most-recent

[Anonymous]

July, 2015. Five years, still no action. This concept that this or that feature would be useful in Sketch begs the point. Every feature would be "useful." Sketch is so short of "useful features," and so long on the need for work arounds that I can honestly say I spend about 2/3 of my time finding ways to pry what I need out of the program and only about 1/3 of my time actually developing design. F360 Sketch is a disaster, some of the most infuriating software I have ever encountered. And all that work you're pouring into T-splines, well programs like Rhino and even Blender do it better. Not sticking to your knitting is how you lost to Desault 25 years ago. Such a shame.

[arspin]

Yeah, very frustrating... That would be very useful

[Oceanconcepts]

A workaround- at least my understanding of the OP's question- would be to create a sketch line at the necessary distance from the object, and use the Plane At Angle tool to create a plane at the desired angle, then create the sketch based on this plane.

In the timeline is is possible to redefine the sketch plane for any sketch. And if your sketch is based on a plane you can edit that in the timeline. Practically this has limitations, but it can be very helpful. It'a a good reason to base sketches on planes referenced to an origin rather than object geometry, at least for designs that you want to be flexible without creating errors in the timeline. 

[TrippyLighting]

The workaround to create a construction plane that can be rotated - with the timeline enabled! - is to create a base feature, add the construction plane in the base feature, and then rotate it there. Then finish the base feature.

It isn't parametric in the sense that the angle of rotation is kept as a parameter, but for most use cases that should be fine.

[ljleewa]

I have the same problem now and it won't work or it does and takes all other construction planes with it? any ideas?

[g-andresen]

Hi,

Just this:
In more than 6 years and numerous designs, I have never had the need to turn a plane.

günther

[TrippyLighting]

---

@g-andresen wrote:

Hi,

Just this:
In more than 6 years and numerous designs, I have never had the need to turn a plane.

günther

---

If you work a lot with freeform surface modeling, the ability to freely place and orient a construction plane can be extremely helpful, even liberating.

But my post already explains how to do that.

The problem is that in a timeline design even that takes some forethought.

@ljleewa once you have created a construction plane  in a timeline design, it cannot be rotated. In a timeline based design the constriction planes have a type/function associated with them that cannot be changed after the fact.

[stiller.design]

I think its possible using "plane at angle" the angle itself can be parametric, it can be based on an axis or a sketch.

 

[TrippyLighting]

---

@stiller.design wrote:

I think its possible using "plane at angle" the angle itself can be parametric, it can be based on an axis or a sketch.

 

---

Yep, that is true, but there are two "limitations".

The first one being that you have to have a sketch line, an edge or an axis to create that plane on. Secondly you have to know ahead of time that you want to rotate that particular plane later. The latter will become much easier with some more experience using Fusion 360.

One could of course work without a timeline, but for beginners I would not recommend that at all!

[stiller.design]

true, but at least its workable. best way I learn is to 3d model twice to figure out the best and most stable design strategy

[1155175229]

I had a similar problem another day when I extruded from a sketch on the x-y plane, then made a construction plane on the top face of that object. For some reason, the plane is rotated 180 degree so the positive x and y direction is different from everything in that file. I couldn't even copy some sketches into that plane without messing it up, because some dimensions would suddenly need a negative sign. I did my sketch anyway with the xy axis in the wrong direction but still, I would appreciate a rotation feature

[ken6T5RE]

I recently ran into exactly this problem while remastering something from FreeCAD. I created a plane to split a body. I made it parallel to the body's YZ, when it should have been oriented 5deg off of it. In FreeCAD, I could edit the plane and type in the rotation even dozens of steps later. All associated geometry was reoriented with it. In Fusion, I can't do that. I found my error 10 steps later in the timeline and had to purge it all and create a new split plane. 

[jlarsonLP454]

2024 - still missing this basic functionality. 

[TrippyLighting]

If you create a base feature first and then the construction plane within the base feature, you can move and rotate it to your liking. It just won't remember its previous orientation or location.

[jlarsonLP454]

Understood. I'll add it to my list of the 10,000 workarounds required to use Fusion. 

(sorry for the snarky comment, I appreciate your help, just very frustrated that nothing can be done in Fusion without a workaround for basic functionality)