Mirror body as "modify" instead of creating a new body and removing the original

[deutirium]

I do both design and manufacturing for shoe soles on Fusion 360. For each right side, there is a left side which is an exact mirror except for the text, which should not be mirrored but may have to be moved in laterally in XY. 

This means that, after doing CAD and CAM for the right side side, I go halfway back through the timeline, do a mirror body, remove the original, and use the mirrored body for subsequent features/operations.

This works, but is incredibly tedious and redundant. Using the mirrored body and removing the original breaks all subsequent links and relationships. For example an extrude feature of the text breaks because it has lost its reference starting plane. The bigger issue is in the manufacturing workspace, where some toolpaths require tedious selection (for example selecting fillet faces in a complex pocket for a 3D contour). It feels like half of my workflow needs to be done twice (once for the left side and once for the right).

Considering I do at least 5 sizes for each design, it's even way more redundant than that.

I think a simple mirror command under the modify panel should do the trick, or even a checkbox in the current mirror command. I'm also open to any suggestions for improving my workflow using the current capabilites of Fusion

[TrippyLighting]

If you can share a model, that will help!

[deutirium]

Hello, I could try anonymizing a model and uploading it later if that helps, but the issue I'm speaking of is rather general: I've got a CAD and CAM operation on a single body/component where features/toolpaths/commands are relational and I'd like to mirror the body halfway through my timeline without having to reestablish all these relationships. For example:

1. Having to reselect faces/chains when choosing toolpath geometry

2. Having to redefine toolpath start height

3. Having to redefine sketch plane for a sketch that was based on the original body before mirroring

4.Having to reselect a face used as reference for an extrude command

5. Having to redo an offset in a sketch based off of the original body's geometry

[Christoph_360]

Hello

---

@deutirium wrote:

I think a simple mirror command under the modify panel should do the trick, or even a checkbox in the current mirror command.

---

A possible way?

Thanks

Christoph

[billbedford]

---

@deutirium wrote:

I do both design and manufacturing for shoe soles on Fusion 360. For each right side, there is a left side which is an exact mirror except for the text, which should not be mirrored but may have to be moved in laterally in XY. 

The solution is relatively simple. Add the text after the design is nearly complete and mirrored. There should be two sketches for the text, one for each shoe. The first can be copied and pasted into the second with the image rotated through 180º. 

To check the layout, the sketch for the text on the initial design can be added before the mirror, but any extrusion derived from it needs to be suppressed before the mirror. 

[deutirium]

Thank you for taking the time to explain and make a file. I really appreciate it! However I believe you may have misunderstood my issue unfortunately. There's plenty of stuff that needs to be done after mirroring, the text is just the most straightforward example. I still need to create a mold out of the design, which requires creating rectangular block and doing a combine cut, and of course after the design there's the entirety of CAM in the manufacturing workspace which also breaks down. I wish there was a way any of this coulld be done before mirroring but it's not possible, meaning that I'm still forced to duplicate the duplicate the effort of doing any selection for any process and as far as I'm aware you haven't proposed a method to mitigate this. I've attached 2 files that show this issue. File 1 is what I make originally, then I create a copy from it to make file 2, which is the left side. The only differences between them should be that the original body is mirrored and the text positioning adjusted, but as you can see there are a lot of steps that need to be redone after the mirroring, especially in CAM. File 2 is saved after I've already done some of the adjustments required to fix the file.

Also tagging @Christoph_360 and @TrippyLighting. I haven't worked with configurations before but I believe it will still require a duplication of effort, will it not? It has saved me the hassle of creating 2 seperate files, but all the selections still need to be done twice, no?

I hope this clears the issue I am facing and better explains my proposed fix that could be implemented.

I'd like you to imagine if the mirror feature was a "modify" like for example the "scale" feature, instead of creating a new body. None of these issues would arise. The design would recalculate accordingly, and a simple regeneration of the toolpaths would mean I'm done.

[billbedford]

---

@deutirium wrote:

Thank you for taking the time to explain and make a file. I really appreciate it! However I believe you may have misunderstood my issue unfortunately. There's plenty of stuff that needs to be done after mirroring, the text is just the most straightforward example. I still need to create a mold out of the design, which requires creating rectangular block and doing a combine cut, and of course after the design there's the entirety of CAM in the manufacturing workspace which also breaks down. I wish there was a way any of this coulld be done before mirroring but it's not possible, meaning that I'm still forced to duplicate the duplicate the effort of doing any selection for any process and as far as I'm aware you haven't proposed a method to mitigate this. I've attached 2 files that show this issue. File 1 is what I make originally, then I create a copy from it to make file 2, which is the left side. The only differences between them should be that the original body is mirrored and the text positioning adjusted, but as you can see there are a lot of steps that need to be redone after the mirroring, especially in CAM. File 2 is saved after I've already done some of the adjustments required to fix the file.

Also tagging @Christoph_360 and @TrippyLighting. I haven't worked with configurations before but I believe it will still require a duplication of effort, will it not? It has saved me the hassle of creating 2 seperate files, but all the selections still need to be done twice, no?

I hope this clears the issue I am facing and better explains my proposed fix that could be implemented.

I'd like you to imagine if the mirror feature was a "modify" like for example the "scale" feature, instead of creating a new body. None of these issues would arise. The design would recalculate accordingly, and a simple regeneration of the toolpaths would mean I'm done.

---

You do the moulds using the same principle as I showed you. Cut the shoe sole from a mould block, mirror the mould and then add the text to each side of the mould. If all of your sketches were to be properly constrained, it should be relatively easy to match the placement of the text. 
As for the CAM, I found this that may help https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZg8J0B26Qw , but since CAM is way beyond my pay grade, I'll let someone else sort it for you. 

[Christoph_360 · Accepted solution]

Hello

A possible variant

---

@deutirium wrote:

I'd like you to imagine if the mirror feature was a "modify" like for example the "scale" feature, instead of creating a new body. None of these issues would arise. The design would recalculate accordingly, and a simple regeneration of the toolpaths would mean I'm done.

---

Mirroring an existing body is done with the Scale feature, where you have to enter -1 for the corresponding axis.

Thanks

Christoph

[deutirium]

Thank you so much! This is exactly what I've been looking for. It hadn't occured to me to use a negative scale factor, despite using it as an example ironically. I initially couldn't input a negative value for the scale but searched and found another thread that explains it. It's a very weird workaround which I hope would one day be implemented but thought I'd repeat it here for anyone else who might see this later. Please correct me if there is now an easier way that you have done this. Anyway, the method is:

1. Create a dimensionless parameter (set to a value of 1)

2. Create a scale feature, use the dimensionless parameter - this should yield no change yet

3. Go to the parameters table and change the value to -1

This is all needed because you can't directly input a negative number for scaling. I hope the devs get to implement this one day. @seth.madore (tagging you specifically because you've been so helpful with this sort of stuff before!)

[Christoph_360]

Hello

---

@deutirium wrote:

Thank you so much! This is exactly what I've been looking for. It hadn't occured to me to use a negative scale factor, despite using it as an example ironically. I initially couldn't input a negative value for the scale but searched and found another thread that explains it. It's a very weird workaround which I hope would one day be implemented.

---

Yes, it really is a weird workaround.  Luckily, an expert recommended this ingenious workaround.

Configured Design - Create a Left and Right Assembly with Mirror and Configurations

I gave this simple example because I knew that you would certainly ask for clarification if anything was unclear.

Thanks

Christoph

[Christoph_360]

Hello

---

@deutirium wrote:

I haven't worked with configurations before.

---

You can also solve it without configurations with a parameter. The disadvantage is, if you switch from right to left you have to generate the cam again.

Thanks

Christoph