Making a hole through two components which are linked and aligned in 3rd file.

[CLmoss]

How to make a hole through two components which are linked and aligned in 3rd file?  

Making the hole from the 3rd file. 

It looks like the extrude cannot see the blue part.

The first hole in the gray part was made at the linked file itself.  

Now I need that hole as a guide for the blue hole. 

The alignment is determined in the linked combination file.  

It looks like you cannot make holes in files where the components are linked.

[jeff_strater]

hi @CLmoss,

Your observation is correct:  Today, you cannot create a feature in a top-level design which affects a linked component.  From the point of view of the top-level design, all linked components are considered read-only.  This is something which is on our long-term roadmap to address, but is not there today.

One quick question to help guide us:  When you make this hole do you expect it to affect the linked component itself?  That is:  if you add other instances of that component, do you expect that hole to appear in all instances?  Or is this hole more of what we call an "assembly feature", meaning that it only affects one instance of the component?  This type of feature mimics an assembly process where the parts are assembled, and then one hole is drilled through both parts.

thanks,

Jeff

[CLmoss]

Hi Jeff.

you asked, "One quick question to help guide us:  When you make this hole do you expect it to affect the linked component itself?  That is:  if you add other instances of that component, do you expect that hole to appear in all instances? ".

Yes, that would be great.  Total fluidity.  If you want to protect an instance of a file, then the user should just make a copy with a different name.  Then this would not be effected by a higher level change or any change to that first instance's file name. You could make it selectable in the user's preferences.  

 Then you continued, "or is this hole more of what we call an "assembly feature", meaning that it only affects one instance of the component?"

Again, make it selectable for all projects in the user preferences if you like.  So, the thing is, sometimes it is only at the assembly level that you can make holes (as an example) relative to other components.  In my case it was about making holes, for screws, that would hold together 2 components that are positioned in space relative to each other until the screws are installed.  So the holes needed for this are more easily made when the two parts are in place.  

Now, since my post I figured out a work-around.  That was to break the links of part A and Part B from their original file, and the make the holes.  After this, I exported each part again and relinked them to the top level assembly file.  In my case, the two parts were of different shapes and sizes so to make a measurement from a single point, like the bottom edges, very tough.   I mean, if I make a change to the base file then it is inherited by the top level assembly file.  Why not make it work both ways. So, you are a programmer and you know that this is not how OO works in C++ for example.  You are right, but that is different in that you are not screwing classes together at a higher level.  Well, you could if you made a class that used a couple of subclasses within it.  (This is starting to sound like a college sociology class)   

This is the long way around the barn and I would suggest that you not make this the rule in your finished product... which you expect people to pay some $15k for.  

I would think you would want to follow, at least to some extent, how people think when building things by hand.  If you would like to see what I am talking about I could send you a file, but only in an email not to be published.   There is an autodesk person that I do that with.  He understand he is not to show anyone my work.  

By the way, my install has been crashing a lot lately, mostly when moving from work online to work offline and back again.  I find it much faster to work offline, then to update my online account once in awhile. 

Jim 

[TrippyLighting]

---

@CLmoss wrote:

Now, since my post I figured out a work-around.  

---

That's not a workaround.

It's how Fusion 360 was designed to work. Many users, new and experienced alike design with linked components when it is not necessary. That likely includes this case!

[CLmoss]

Sometimes I read very insightful and inspiring posts here on the forum.  

Then there are posts like your last one.  

I stand by my post above. 

[TrippyLighting]

I am sorry that my post did not inspire you. I am not surprised either as that was not the intention 😉

Fortunately I've been inspiring enough to enough others including the Fusion 360 team, who invited me to teach a class at Autodesk University last year. That class also included a section on when to use linked components and when not. I taught that class together with @jeff_strater who is the other participant in this thread.

Before I started with Fusion 360 I had worked with a variety of CAD systems and Computer graphics in professional environments incl. some programming for 27 years. I've worked with Solid Works for 14 years. I own a license of Geomagic design. I've worked in complex assemblies with well over 10000 components ( in SW ).

Based on that prior experience , when I started with Fusion 360 I also thought that there was a strong need for linked components and a number of ideas for improvements in working with linked components are mine. However, experience collected over 430 provided solutions here on the Forum and my own work has taught me differently. I collected my thoughts in that AU handout, because I see too many users using linked components and encounter limitations, when working with them is entirely unnecessary.

When I refer to not working with linked components as being the standard mode for Fusion 360 then that is based on forum posts and discussions I had with fusion 360 team members. incl. Jeff. When I started working wth Fusion 360 liked components didi not exist and the functionality was added later based on many user requests including my own. One of Fusions strong areas is really the design-in-place approach and that is best done not using linked components.

I am not disagreeing the feasibility of your proposal, however I am suggesting that it is not needed to solve your current design problem.