Joint Assembly Method Sucks

[Anonymous]

I am coming to Fusion from 10 years of SolidWorks.  The most annoying thing I have found with this program is the mating process.  The Joint method is pretty handy if you are doing something simple but add minor complexity and the process becomes very cumbersome.  

1. Process:  Add a Joint origin to the part, add another JO to the mating feature, then make the joint.  That work flow is more time consuming than just picking the relationships for the two part directly (and skipping the final joint step).  
2. If you are using Joint Origins in an assembly the JO can not be in be selected if it is within the space of a second body.  You have to hide the offending body to select the JO.
3. If the JO is in the middle of a body, you must spin the model so that your cursor selects it, otherwise it will select a default JO.  Why doesn't the JO have priority over the default targets?  I went to the trouble of creating it.

Suggestion:

Allow for direct mating as well as Joint Assembly.  Let the user decide what method of assembly is best for their needs.

[TMC.Engineering · Accepted solution]

I think you need to spend a little more time understanding joints and how they work.  I almost never use joint origins, not needed.

step by step

videos

If you have a specific issue just attach your file and someone will give a hand.

[Anonymous]

I am sure your are correct.  I am experiencing frustration with a new tool.  Thanks for the links.

[TrippyLighting]

I am glad you came here. It will take a little while to get used to the joint system in Fusion 360. I have not worked in a few years with Solid Works but stared with it in 1998, building automation machinery.

• Make sure you understand the difference between  bodies and components in Fusion 360
• Afterwards familiarize yourself with Fusion 360's R.U.L.E #1. it will save you a lot of headaches when your designs start getting more complex.
• To select a body in the viewport you can single-left-click on any 3D object, a vertex, an eye or a face selects a body.
• To select a component you need to double-left-click on a 3D object. the highlighting of the component will be different in the viewport as well as in the browser. 
• Think twice about moving a body, because you may just want to move the component.

The Learn section has a section aimed a people coming from Solid Works (scroll all the way to the end).

[Anonymous]

Rule #1 is the way to go.  Totally agreed.  That made my work a lot easier.  Good to know, thanks.

[geogod2066]

I agree. Mating to origins is helpful in Solidworks, but using the joint feature in Fusion is a much better choice in most circumstances.

[chrisplyler]

---

@geogod2066 wrote:

I agree. Mating to origins is helpful in Solidworks, but using the joint feature in Fusion is a much better choice in most circumstances. Heck, I'm good at it, and I still think it sucks too.

---

---

---

I dunno If I would go THAT far.

[Lonnie.Cady]

To me it feels like joints could be a great thing but seems like development or advancement on them has stalled.

I still have yet to come up with a good joint for keeping parts tangent.

[davebYYPCU]

There are ways, until you need tangent to a Spline.  

We still can’t do that accurately in a sketch. 

[jhackney1972]

---

@Lonnie.Cady wrote:

I still have yet to come up with a good joint for keeping parts tangent.

---

If you are interested in creating Tangent Joints is Fusion 360 assemblies, take a look at these two blog articles and videos.  It is a little work but it will give you a good joint to keep components tangent.  The first one is on how to create Tangent Joints in Fusion 360 and the second is just an application of the technique.

[jhackney1972]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

1. If you are using Joint Origins in an assembly the JO can not be in be selected if it is within the space of a second body.  You have to hide the offending body to select the JO.
2. If the JO is in the middle of a body, you must spin the model so that your cursor selects it, otherwise it will select a default JO.  Why doesn't the JO have priority over the default targets?  I went to the trouble of creating it.

---

Joint Origins are a lot easier to select, in some situations, from the Joint Origin folder under the Component instead of from the graphic display when creating your assembly.

[Lonnie.Cady]

@jhackney1972 Thank you.   That is an interesting solution you have came up with.

I still think they need tangent joint 😀

[TrippyLighting]

---

@Lonnie.Cady wrote:

... I still think they need tangent joint 😀

---

I totally agree and the Fusion 360 team is totally aware of it. In fact, I had a Zoom conference on exactly that topic with "them" (well, one of them)  just last week. 

[chrisplyler]

Did you bring up a slider that follows a path? Path with guide rail too?

Did they say why Chad hasn't done any work on the Joint system in forever?

Did you mention that fleshing out the Joint system is probably more useful than UI enhancements?

[TrippyLighting]

@chrisplyler My sincere apologies that I did not consult with you beforehand. LOL

But ...

---

@chrisplyler wrote:

Did you bring up a slider that follows a path? Path with guide rail too?

---

Yep, I sure did!

---

@chrisplyler wrote:

Did you mention that fleshing out the Joint system is probably more useful than UI enhancements?

---

I did not prase it that way but I fully agree with the sentiment. In the CAD world or at least the part of it I had contact with, the joint system in Fusion 360 is very unique, a refreshing and very functional departure from old conventions. These 3-4 missing joint types will make it fully functional so workaround such as the ones posted here will be obsolete.

---

@chrisplyler wrote:

Did they say why Chad hasn't done any work on the Joint system in forever?

---

Obviously, I did not talk about Chad 😉

However, this Zoom conference,  another one a couple of months back, and recent EE meetings reminded me that we deal with very intelligent, motivated, and driven people who are eager to perform. CAD is a complex subject and while it is often easy to verbalize a feature more often than not it is magnitudes more difficult to actually implement it.

[chrisplyler]

---

@TrippyLighting wrote:
Obviously, I did not talk about Chad 😉 However, this Zoom conference,  another one a couple of months back, and recent EE meetings reminded me that we deal with very intelligent, motivated, and driven people who are eager to perform. CAD is a complex subject and while it is often easy to verbalize a feature more often than not it is magnitudes more difficult to actually implement it.

---

What a great politician you would make.

I've never done any programming/coding, but I do understand the nature of information logic and interoperability challenges. I definitely realize how modification in one area can cause cascading difficulties in many other areas.

This is exactly why I want all those very intelligent, motivated people to do two things:

1. Prioritize basic functionality and completeness of its feature sets (like the Joint system) above glitter.

2. Hire some help for Chad.

[Salient1492]

Agree: the joint command and all the tutorials I can find are for  1 part + 1 part. I am older than 12years - so I have an entire sub-assembly = Component [Which I made Ridgid] and after creating a pivot joint - it ONLY pivots the part contacting the piviot point - and detachs it from its' Component sub-assembly!,

Why Fusion cannot 'understand' to pivot the 'Component' [BTW: I've made it RIGID].

What's frustrating is how constrained 'Components' are in some operations - but then the pivot function completely disregards this relationship!.

[jeff_strater]

I don't in these pictures where the sub-assembly is detaching.  But, if you made it rigid, using Rigid Joints, or  Rigid Group, it will maintain that rigidity.  A couple of points to know:

1. The preview in the Joint command only shows one component moving - that is a performance optimization - the rest will come along when you hit OK.
2. Don't select a sub-assembly in the browser for a joint.  Select the actual component you want to join to.  A sub-assembly can move independently of its child components, unless you include the root component in your Rigid Group.

If you want to share the model here, and a video of what you are trying to do, someone here can illustrate using your own model.

[Salient1492]

Jeff,

Thanks -to clarify this is how the sub-assembly should pivot entirely about the pivot. I have included the model - can you please show how this is done?

I am attempting to use CAD to determine the spacing of the assemblies required to obtain a 15' angle.

Sadly - I had to resort to a 'Move - rotate' which is dissappointing IMO.

So I tried what I undertand you instructed, on a very simple 3-part clean drawing - it did NOT work - then magically - I checked it again and it DID work.

Which only deepens my dissappointment. It's CAD not quantum Physics...

Fusion has a chronic fault to wiping menu selection options - when other options are selected. For example: the Move - Copy Command *only* works if you select Move - Copy - then the offset coordiates. If you select Move - Drag - the Copy - it wipes out the other options.

[TrippyLighting]

Your subassemblies are not joined properly and an assembly deign such as this one should not include any position capture features.

If the Cube assembly, for example, was exported as a complete assembly from Solid Works, all you need to do in that assembly is to create a rigid group joint at the top level.

You also don't need to enable the timeline to do that. When you import components or assemblies from other sources  I would only turn the timeline on if parametric changes changes need to be performed on such assemblies/components.