Material versus appearance ?

[CapGuy]

Hello,

I probably missed something, but why 2 different options for "material" and "appearance" in Fusion 360 ?

I wonder why the appearance is not linked in the same option with the material, as in the real life...

Is there any explanation of this somewhere ?

Thanks in advance for all kind of runway helping me to understand this !

Cdly,
Guy

[wersy]

That's what I was wondering too.
It could be that you don't like the physical material so much when you're working.
Maybe other material is better suited for rendering?

Michael

[lichtzeichenanlage]

That's my conclusion:

• Material -> physical properties -> used in simulations or weight calculations
• Appearance -> just the visual properties (color, texture etc.) -> used in renderings

[mavigogun]

---

@lichtzeichenanlage wrote:

That's my conclusion:

• Material -> physical properties -> used in simulations or weight calculations
• Appearance -> just the visual properties (color, texture etc.) -> used in renderings

---

Exactly- in this way, we can build, say, an aluminum bike frame, determine its weight and run simulations, while also seeing how it will look with a coat of paint.    To invert Tolkien, "all that glitters is not gold".

[CapGuy]

Of course @lichtzeichenanlage and @mavigogun, I also thought this was the reason, but this does not explain why 2 branches of same setting...

It could be possible - it should be ? - to chose material for material simulation reasons, *and* in the same way the possible appearances of *this* material.

In your example, this could sound make no sens for instance to simulate on steel, and look like transparent glass... This seems to be more accurate to let us chose the appearance linked with the material (say : steel can be painted, but not transparente in my previous sample).

If we need to simulate on steel *and* on glass for instance, this make more sens to work on an other duplicated design, IMHO.

Am I the only one to think like this ?

Cdly,
Guy

[lichtzeichenanlage]

I'll, you're the only one. Linking them would elemintae the possibility to
quickly load / create different appearances from other sources. Rendering
and simulations are different parts of the program and only share the name
of materials. And if users configure such nonsense... Garbage in, garbage
out...

[CapGuy]

IMHO exactly the reason why it is so absurd, if I do not miss something.
Linking would eliminate the possibility to make both steel material *and* transparent appearance.
I guess, if I'm really the only one to think like this, I'm just the only one to think ! 😉

More seriously, I would like to ear an official thinking from Autodesk Fusion team about that.

Cdly,
Guy

[lichtzeichenanlage]

No, linking would force everyone to choose proper material, even if they don't have any needs to do simulations.

[TheCADWhisperer]

I need my bike frame to have aluminum physical properties, but I want to visualize it with different color appearances.

So logical!

Where I see beginners get into trouble is trying to apply - say an appearance of gold and then trying to sell their product at the price of gold.  Making something appear to be gold does not make it gold.

[CapGuy]

This body is

material = steel

AND

appearance = glass...

Nobody is quite intrigued by this possibility ?

[TheCADWhisperer]

CAD operator must use logic in design. 

Perhaps the CAD operator simply wants to show internal components in design. 

An example might be to show the motion of a piston inside of an engine.

Common use of appearances.

I will post examples of this logic as used be my students later today.

[lichtzeichenanlage]

Nope - I don't see the reason to disable the possibility to temporarily apply a glas appearance to an part to have it still kind of visible in an rendering to show of some internal parts. So the paint texture should be available to all the materials? Why wouldn't you allow to have a plastic material with a copper plating? Why...

It's just a f++++++ rendering 😉

[CapGuy]

Ok folks, I understand transparency can help to show interiors of mechanical, for instance.

I understand the use, and I agree with you, it can be useful.

But it stays out of the real usage, and even it can be useful, it is not so obvious.

It would be more logical to have materials, with option for appearance, and not a different setting for the appearance than for the material.

Maybe I'm not English fluent enough to explain to you what is my thought on this subject, I just hope some Autodesk friends will take a look at this logical behavior.

Best Regards,
Guy

[TheCADWhisperer · Accepted solution]

---

@CapGuy wrote:
..

1. It would be more logical to have materials, with option for appearance, ...

2. Autodesk friends will take a look at this logical behavior.

---

1. Material Editor absolutely does have option for Appearance.

But I recommend that you give it a try (with several Appearances) - then I think you will understand the logic.

2. Inventor and SolidWorks and Creo use the same logic.  Maybe Autodesk friends got the behavior from them.

...

[lichtzeichenanlage]

I do understand what you mean. But I just don't see it as necessary.I'm 3d printing most of my parts. Simulation is not more than an indication, because there is no option to differ between FDM, SLS or SLA printers. It's not possible to define layer directions or infill types. But with the right post processing it might want to add wood, paint, plastic or metal appearances. So it should be linked to everything? Same goes with metal. Have you ever sketch a 100 x 100 x 5mm body and applied an Steel Hexagon Mesh appearance? The result looks like this and it's not taken into account in simulations. It just should visualize something.

In my opinion a link between those areas would either limit things or would make them unnecessary complicated. 

[mavigogun]

---

@CapGuy wrote:

*snip* I just hope some Autodesk friends will take a look at this logical behavior.

---

And I very much hope they do not.    As of this moment, you can do as YOU please, I can do as I please- what you're asking for is for my hands to be tied for no other purpose than to satisfy an arbitrary reflection of your regard for haecceity.

---

@lichtzeichenanlage wrote:

 Why wouldn't you allow to have a plastic material with a copper plating? Why...

It's just a f++++++ rendering 😉

---

Or, in the case of electroforming  and plating, an integral manufacturing step that has been in use for over a century and persists to produce such things as large optics and the very machines that we are all fixated on at this very moment!

Were we confined to the limits of one person's imagination, we'd be using tools designed to the limits and capacity of that imagination.

[CapGuy]

Ok, thanks to all for the time you spend to try to explain to me.

I hope I begin to understand all this in a right way... Well, in fact you are not immune forever for future questions about that from I, but for the moment I guess (I hope) you are 🙂

Cdly,
Guy

[mavigogun]

I'm often wrong- something my spouse suggest we always keep in consideration.    That said, it seems to me the insight provided in post # 14 above, from @TheCADWhisperer, is about as close to a "solution" as you're going to get, warrants recognition.

[CapGuy]

Yes @mavigogun, done.
And thanks for this good suggestion too 🙂