Missing Join after Pattern Operation prevents many Fully Parametric Designs

[Amyoqzy]

Parametric design empowers creators by enabling them to adapt and fine-tune their projects swiftly with just a few parameter adjustments. However, in my journey with Fusion360, I've noticed a gap in its capabilities that could significantly streamline the parametric design process, a feature that its contemporaries often already possess.

What intrigues me is the seeming simplicity behind implementing such a feature. It appears that the only reason for its absence might be that it has yet to be brought to the developers' attention.

I want to highlight a particular missing function that stands out because of its potential to simplify the creation of parametric designs. Addressing this could greatly enhance Fusion360's flexibility and efficiency.

Case in Point: The Painter's Prism

To illustrate this, I've shared the LR2374 Painter's Prism.f3d file, where you can observe the issue at various stages of the design timeline. This file is available under the Creative Commons 4.0 International License Attribution-ShareAlike.

The Challenge with Pattern Operations

Despite best efforts, the design's parametric nature hits a snag due to the pattern operations it employs. By examining the history marker post the initial rectangular pattern operation, you encounter the crux of the issue.

Ideally, all entities produced by the pattern operation should merge into a singular new object. Since the number of objects is parameter-driven, they vary with the design's dimensions.

This scenario is common in designs with repeatable elements whose numbers are dimension-dependent.

The Core Issue

Currently, Fusion360 allows manual joining of objects, or via extrusion as demonstrated in this design. Nonetheless, this method has an intrinsic limitation.

Fusion360 maintains a static list of bodies included in the join operation. This list doesn't dynamically update when design parameters, like object length, change. Consequently, if you extend the length from 100 mm to 200 mm, the pattern operation generates additional objects. However, the join operation's list remains unaltered, disrupting the design since only the originally joined bodies form a new object, causing subsequent operations to malfunction. To rectify this, one must tediously update the join operation manually.

A Straightforward and Practical Solution

Should pattern operations possess an integrated 'join' feature, akin to what is available for mirroring, the output would consistently be a single body, safeguarding the continuity of the parametric design.

An Alternative Approach

A "Join All" function could offer a simple remedy, amalgamating all component bodies, with a "Join All, Except..." variant for selective joining all except selected ones, which would greatly advance Fusion360's parametric design capabilities. Such enhancements would not only save me countless hours but would also refine the design experience significantly.

On the Need for Workarounds

While I'm aware of certain 'hacks' and alternative methods to circumvent these issues, these should not be a substitute for foundational features that should be inherent within CAD software.

This design demonstrates such a hack, joining bodies via extrusion to avoid the cumbersome task of manually selecting a multitude of bodies. Integrating a "Join All" function or embedding the join feature within pattern operations would be a substantial improvement.

Conclusion

In conclusion, addressing the highlighted feature gap in Fusion360 could vastly improve the user experience by reducing manual adjustments and fostering a more intuitive, dynamic parametric design environment. It's an opportunity to evolve the software, with little effort required by the developers.

[TheCADWhisperer]

@Amyoqzy 

Whoever modeled this could benefit from training.

But you are right - there should be a Join option in any Pattern.

[jeff_strater]

"It appears that the only reason for its absence might be that it has yet to be brought to the developers' attention."

No, that is not the case.  This workflow is well known within the team.  It has just not yet risen to the level of importance to get funded.

In addition to @TheCADWhisperer 's suggestion, we've discussed having some commands, including Combine, consume features as input, instead of bodies, so if the feature is modified to produce more/fewer bodies, the consumption will pick up all of them.  That is more general than a "join all bodies", because there may be other bodies in the design that you don't want consumed.  This, IMO, better captures design intent.

[Amyoqzy]

Hey @jeff_strater ,

Thanks for shedding light on the current understanding of the workflow within the development team. It's indeed puzzling from a user's perspective why a feature that seems so fundamental for fully parametric designs hasn't been prioritized for implementation yet. Features that are central to the parametric design workflow, such as the one in question, would be expected to garner significant attention given their potential impact on the design process.

Absolutely, resorting to "extrude to join" operations is a clear sign that users are in need of more streamlined ways to manage dynamic bodies resulting from pattern changes. These workarounds are clever, but they're just that—workarounds. They're not the seamless solution that would come from having the right features built directly into the tool.

I'm on the same page with the idea that allowing boolean operations to select feature results rather than bodies would be a huge leap forward. It's a solution that seems to elegantly capture the design intent without causing the unintended consequences of joining unrelated bodies.

It's reassuring to hear that the development team is aware of this feature gap. Knowing that there's recognition of the issue gives hope that it might be addressed in future updates, unlocking the full potential for truly parametric designs. Looking forward to seeing how this evolves and the improvements it could bring to the workflow.

It really gets me wondering what it would take to make management fully aware of the importance of this feature. It seems like if they could see the day-to-day impact on workflow efficiency and the potential for innovation that's being held back, they might reconsider their prioritization.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@jeff_strater wrote:

...

No, that is not the case.  This workflow is well known within the team.  It has just not yet risen to the level of importance to get funded.

...

---

That is truly unfortunate! It has even become more prevalent need with the implementation of the Configurations functionality. At this point in time this is basic functionality for a parametric CAD software!

[TrippyLighting]

---

@Amyoqzy wrote:

What intrigues me is the seeming simplicity behind implementing such a feature. It appears that the only reason for its absence might be that it has yet to be brought to the developers' attention.

I felt the need to add one more response to this thread.

I am not sure this is easy to implement. Frankly, I really don't care whether or not it is easy. It is essential functionality that should have been in the product years ago. Period! End of story!

I can definitely say that the developers are aware of this, because I've highlighted the need so many ties here on the forum, on the Fusion 360 Slack channel and in video conferences with developers, it isn't even funny anymore!

Thank you for providing me with another chance to highlight this essential  need!

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@TrippyLighting wrote:

should have been in the product years ago. Period! End of story!

---

Ditto and full stop.

It isn’t merely silly that it doesn’t exist - it is plain stupid.