Modeling without sketching - Enjoy!

[Beyondforce]

Hey All,

This is just something I decided to do for fun. The whole idea is was to create a model without a single sketch. This is a result of 20 min. work, but obviously I could have spend more time on the small details.

I also wanted to prove that in Fusion 360, you can accomplish a lot without so much effort. If you like it and want to know how I did it or the file, please let me know.

Cheers / Ben
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you find this reply helpful ? If so please use the Accept as Solution or Kudos button below.

Check out my YouTube channel: Fusion 360: Newbies+

[kb9ydn]

---

@michallach81 wrote:

It depends on many things. Here's a model for my NoSketch contest, It's almost done. Model is fully parametric:

---

You must post this model, or at least describe how you made it fully parametric.  

C|

[Beyondforce]

@kb9ydn,

I thought about creating an idea and ask for more primitiv shapes options, like a Center Box and not only 2 point box (which is really annoying).

But, I have a feeling that it will take a long time anyway!

[TrippyLighting]

@kb9ydn

I believe there is releive in shight in terms of the move command. There was recently a great thread of what AD is proposing to do. It received great feedback and suggestions.

Just hold tight 😉

[TrippyLighting]

That ain't no model. That's an animated gif. We need the model 🙂

[daniel_lyall]

@kb9ydn you can use design intent.

With the model I did the part that all the arm attach to because of the cut outs were just to lighten the model and have less to print changing the size of it was making the cutout's go nananan.

What I had to do was make the cutouts bigger in length and width then bring it in and leveing it longer and wider than what was needed by have the cut sticking out the sides of it, it stop it collapsing then just the fillets would fail.

So the intent was to make a floating arm what was adjustable with no sketches, and it worked.

You just have to spend the time working out the fails in any mode, once you know the fails you know what works then the sky is the limit.

What @Beyondforce has done is open another way to use fusion that has it's places just like any modeling has.

[kb9ydn]

---

@TrippyLighting wrote:

@kb9ydn

I believe there is releive in shight in terms of the move command. There was recently a great thread of what AD is proposing to do. It received great feedback and suggestions.

Just hold tight 😉

---

Yes, I remember that thread and found it very interesting.  From what I understood it was mostly related to non-history based modeling though(?)  I need to go back and read it again.

C|

[michallach81]

Be patient, in two days the contest will be ready.

[Beyondforce]

I know how you did it! 😛

[jeff_strater]

I have been following this thread very intently.  Some amazing sketch-free models here.  The part of the thread that is most interesting to me is the "parametricity" (not a word, but it should be!) of the models, or lack thereof.  Since a lot of these sketch-free models rely on solid primitives, the core of the "is it parametric" question comes from the fact that you cannot accurately constrain the sketches that are used to build Box, Cylinder, Torus.  So, if you alter the face that, say, a Cylinder was placed on, there is nothing that will keep it "in the right place" after the update.

Ironically, the solution that has been discussed within the team is:  ...   Keep the sketch around!  We use sketch tools to place the initial geometry.  You can tell that from the UI.  But, to keep primitives simple, once the primitive is created, we discard the sketch, so it does not complicate the timeline, etc.  The goal was to keep Primitives primitive.  But, the loss of editability (you cannot change the plane a Primitive is placed on, for instance, or change the origin position of a Cylinder, and parametric nature of the Primitives means they are less useful.

So, I am interested, for those that claim these designs are fully parametric, how you were able to achieve that.  Or, is it just a question of "what kind of parametrics?"?  And also, going forward, where should we go with Primitives?  Make them more parametric (meaning, probably, keeping the sketch and allowing it to be edited), or keep their current "sketch-free" (kind of) nature?

Jeff

[daniel_lyall]

It would be good to have it like how a hole can be positioned, once I got that down the hole's where moving with changing size of the box's where the holes where.

The part that took time to sort was when useing a box to cut a chunk out you had to have one or 2 sides outside the model and just move the part of the box what was inside the model to do the cut,

so if you need to change the size of the body it would still work,

if you had the box that was doing the cut positioned on the edge of the body to do the cut and you made the body bigger, you would be left with a hole not a cut out then you would have to go back and change the size of the box used to cut the chunk out.

If you made the box go from outside to inside from the start when you changed the size of the body the cutout will still be a cutout.

If you could position a box, cylinder, sphere the torus and the pipe like you can with a hole that would make it way better.

And fix the fillets

[cekuhnen]

@jeff_strater

That is an interesting question.

There are from my point of view to options.

1. keep the sketch. The problem I see there is , do we need a sketch in the first place? Just a sketch for a cylinder is kinda wasteful!

2. Just really make a 3D object with a pivot point. Many cad and 3D apps use that from Alias to Maya to Blender.

The advantage is that this way the cylinder is an object and I can also move or position it freely. Fusion ideally in this

case should be able to allow me to at Z 10mm Y 0 and x 25mm create a cylinder with along Y axis with a 45 Degree rotation.

The resulting feature currently allows the change of the radius and length of the cylinder but not the position.

Personally I would shoot for something like 2 because while it might break with the strict parametric 2D sketch based thinking

option 2 offers a much better approach with being object based. One feature does it all!

While I highly enjoy 2D sketches they are sometimes also a big pain. Ideally the question would be what workflow would be the most efficient.

[Beyondforce]

@jeff_strater,

The way I see it, is like this:

Manual Transmission - Sketches

Automatic Transmission - Primitives

Semi-automatic Transmission - Primitives - Parametric 

It will be nice to have Some parametric control in the Primitives. I don't want/need to create a sketch for everything, it doesn't make sense. There are many simple parts which can be done without a sketch. It will be almost like, combining Direct & History base modeling together. Why can we get the option to save the Timeline when changing between the two modes? I want to start with the Timeline and then move to Direct without loosing the history. It could just be a check box, where you can choose to save Timeline history or not.

Back to the Primitives - Why should we have them if we don't have basic parametric control. Ask yourself, from all the F360 users, how many of them are using the Primitives? I'm guessing 5% the most.

I started this post in order to show the potential of Primitives and how much you can do with basic simple shapes and simple tools. Imagine what could we do, if we had just a little more parametric control!

Cheers / Ben.

[michallach81]

Claim? Oh, you little of faith...

I can't show or explain more because it would spoil the contest.

(To get rid of any confusion by fully parametric I mean equally parametric as designs with sketches)

[TrippyLighting]

I believe the word parametric needs better definition because it is quite apparent that it means different things to different people.  As one of the software architects of Fusion 360 I think @jeff_strater should explain the understanding of what parametric means, so we al have a common foundation to base out discussions on.

If I do use primitives, I don't want another sketch cluttering up the timeline, because in that case I may as well not use a primitive. What primitives would need to be used more widely need is a better way of positioning them in reference to each other, but I believe an updated, more parametric move tool is on the horizon.

[michallach81]

Don't worry Peter, I do understand a meaning of parametric, feature and all other terms. Prismatic designs we can "fully" parametrise (articulate design intent). Also a bit beyond prismatic, but just slightly. Primitives losing reference is just UI problem, and it can be addressed.

[TrippyLighting]

Hi Michal, my reply was not aimed at you in specific 😉 But then I cannot really reply to the group as a whole, I have to pick one post to reply to, so I picked the last one in the list.

My statement was aimed at the group, because it is very clear to me that ther are varying intepretations of parametric. Your understanding of is just one iterpretation of it based on your experince and background. This is not unusual and I've found this as well in other conversations.

[cekuhnen]

@TrippyLighting

Yeah I know what you mean. Whats the difference between parametric and generative or design/construction history ...

I think the term parametric fits pretty well to the overall concept of the ability to model with the ability to adjust later your steps.

Difference is how programs implement it.

Alias uses a construction history that is per object based so not time based

It can also on a per object be applied - removing the interactive modeling ability

SolidThinking creates a tree with features as a surface modeler

Fusion 360 has a linear timeline with features

In Fusion sketches can drive geometry.

In Alias ST curves also drive modeling commands.

[O.Tan]

Looking at how this conversation is going, what you're all talking about is actually closer to 3D PMI where the user is able to "attach" dimensions to particular surfaces and edit those surface value from the dimensions.

Though I'm pretty sure implementing 3D PMI will be a huge project in Fusion, one that I doubt they'll do since there's a huge backlog of big projects. 

[cekuhnen]

@O.Tan

Yes and no.

If your design allows being constructed out of primitives you can use them and then refine the design with modeling tools.

I think the idea of this thread is making models without using sketches mainly.

Specifically with the upcoming Update users will be able to use the move command with more parameters and I think this

will even more make the timeline very usable (close to interactive direct modeling).

There are always many ways to lead to Rom!

[Beyondforce]

Guys, the conversation is really interesting, but from now on, if you want to say something you have to Put-Out something!

Yes, there are challenges with Primitive shapes, but that doesn't mean you cannot create parts and models. It's all about techniques, creativity and imagination.

We may not able to create a direct relationship between parts, but I like to think of it as if the parts were imported and I'm using the joints to make the connection. Not all models or parts must have the ability to resize. Just keep it simple and if the AD team want to expend on those Primitive, then by all means!

So guys don't be shy and show us what you are made of 😉

Ben.