i can explain.
i have a dish sink assembly. there is a cart and a basin. the bottom of the basin is usually 32 inches from the floor so it is modeled such that the XY or "top" origin plane is 32 inches from the bottom plane of the bottom of the basin. i also have a cart modeled such that the legs terminate at this same XY "top" origin plane as it represents the "floor" that the cart will stand on.
how do i join the two such that the "floor" origin plane of the cart and and the "floor" origin plane of the sink basin are coincident,
You will have to explain, why the floor in one model is not the floor in the other model, both of those floors, will have an origin, and you make them coincident.
Attach your data for the problem, turns off my crystal ball.
Might help....
planar mate, degrees of freedom are rotation about z axis and translation anywhere in the XY plane. it's a simple planar mate, normally you would do this between two faces, so that face of part A and face of part B are coincident and for the motion, lets say they're free to run and slide and slip past each other, (let's say for example, the way one might mate a hockey puck to an ice surface, that type of movement)
that, that type of mate... but using construction planes native to each component. so each component has origin geometry when it's empty. you model inside that component. then when you finish it, you want to join it to another component elsewhere in the model with a planar motion joint. instead of using 2 physical faces of two bodies of each component respectively, how would i use construction geometry (like the XY origin construction plane) of each component for the joint references?
that being said, because i was having trouble with this, i thought long and hard about it, modelling, then erasing, then remodelling then erasing with different orders of operation vis a vis bodies to components to more components and so on, and i came up with an alternate design flow strategy. its kind of a workaround but not really a work around. it ends each set of bodies turned into components then joined as modelled inside that component { so like a flange press-fit onto a bearing together joined as built rigid inside the flange-shaft assembly component [ yes, components all the way down (not unlike nested parentheses) ] } then the flange shaft assembly joined as built either rotary movement if whatever that part is going to bolt to hasn't been modelled yet, or joined as built rigid to the rotating component is it has been modeled.
there are 6 and a half ways to do everything inside fusion or SW or etc...
i like to think of the why. so like a flat sheet metal part, i model as a sketch including hole geometry in the sketch then thickened/extruded, for a round part, if it is a lathe turned part, ill use a profile with a revolve, if its just some DOM welded pipe, it's an extrude (or swrrp/pipe) so for the flat sheet metal part, including the holes in the sketch means only having one sketch to export as dxf if needed for CNC laser or plasma and for turned parts, one profile to export as dxf for CNC lathe (for manual lathe operator, the part would just be drawn and dimmed anyway...)
constantly deciding on and improving personal best practices, when i go to someplace new, i dont want to ask "how would you guys do this?" id rather say "here's how i do this and heres why i do it that way"
Sorry, you just broke my crystal ball.
Joint the floor of one component, with the floor of the second component, with Planar Joint, or the appropriate type of Joint.
There is no data, to tell you how to do that.
This absolutely boggles my mind that you have to make a point or some random sketch on a plane in order create a joint. I'm new to Fusion, but well versed in SolidWorks, so it is very difficult for me to understand why this simple operation is omitted from the software.
In SW, you could simply define mates with origin planes between components allowing you to appropriately constrain the components if that's what made the most sense for that mate. It is almost always better to constrain origin planes, especially for symmetrical components, and more so for those components that are part of a large assembly.
Obviously, this can't be done in Fusion. So, what is the best practice for joining planes. It can't be that creating a random sketch or point is correct. Is it?
@ryanlgrice wrote:It can't be that creating a random sketch or point is correct. Is it?
Create purposeful geometry, not random geometry.
Can you File>Export your *.f3d file to your local drive and then Attach it here to a Reply?
Hi Mr RyanLgrice,
It seems you are another Frustrated Fussing to Fusion User (FFFU) adding to the continuation of now the very mature post.
Please consider following:
Please find attached ... perhaps the simplest F360 design I ever created.
Good Luck with Your F-adventure
Regards
MichaelT
Fusion 360... "We do it differently simply because we just refuse to do it the way Solidworks does, even when that would have been far better."
"Constraints" as you termed Solidworks implementation (actually called "mates") is essentially the exact same thing as "joints" except that the way that Solidworks implements the idea is far, far more intuitive and easier to grasp.
@jeffwPP4JQ wrote:Fusion 360... "We do it differently simply because we just refuse to do it the way Solidworks does, even when that would have been far better."
Autodesk Inventor Professional has both Assembly Constraints (Mates) and Joints. SolidWorks and Fusion functionality.