Modify inserted component not possible without breaking link?

[mroek]

Coming from Onshape, I've become used to have the possibility to derive a part/component from a different document (or even part studio). This derived component can be modified to my hearts contents, and if the parent component is modified, the derived version gets those changes too. This may or may not break any of the edits to the derived part, but that's not the point here.

Is there a way to achieve this in F360? I've tried inserting a component from a different document, but that inserted copy isn't modifiable without breaking the link, which defeats the purpose of what I want.

In this specific case, what I am trying to do is to have one base component that I need to make modifications to in one specific area in several copies of this component. The base component may change in other areas, so I'd like to avoid replicating this change in multiple copies.

I believe this is not possible in F360, but I could have missed it, so I am asking to make sure.

[TrippyLighting · Accepted solution]

No,not from within the design you've instead it into.

You'll have to open the file separately.

However, there is a good chance that you are working with a linked component when not needed.

Fusion 360 does not separate between assembly and component  files so a complex assembly with the required assembly and subassembly structure can be built in one single file.

As such the need for linked components is relatively rare.

[mroek]

Thanks for answering!

I am aware of the possibility for multiple components (and copies of components) in one singe file, but I still don't think I can achieve what I want.

If I have linked (within one document) copies of one component, then they all change if one instance is changed. What I want is a one-way relationship, where I can modify the base component, and the "derived" instances separately, but the changes go only from the base component to the derived instances.

But I am still going to mark your answer as a solution, because it really isn't possible to replicate the behaviour I want (which is possible in other systems).

[TrippyLighting]

That can also be achieved without a linked component.

When you copy and paste a component and then edit anything in either of the components, whether it is the original r any of the instances, you are editing the original data set, because there is really only one dataset. So in essence, you are traveling back to the point in the timeline when the first dataset was created.

Copy-Paste new created independent copy, so basically the original dataset is copied.

What you are describing sounds like a feature se that is called "Configurations" in other CAD systems, e.g. Solid Woks, Geomagic design etc.

You want a base component and want to create variations of it, but still want to be able to modify the common features in the base components hand have those propagate to al the variants, if I understand this correctly.

That can also be done very easily but is not easy to discover.

1. Create an empty component #1 and make sure it’s activated. -> Base Component
2. Create a sketch and then body #1 that holds all the common/shared features.
3. Create an empty component #2 and make sure it’s activated.
4. Copy/paster the  body #1 from component #1 into component #2.
5. Add the additional features to the body  in component #2 -> Configuration #1
6. Create an empty component #3 and make sure it’s activated.
7. Copy/paste the  body #1 form component #1 into component #3.
8. Add the additional features to the body  in component #3 -> Configuration #2
9. ….

To edit common features use the timeline or browser to access the features.

If features need to be added to the base component that you want to see in al the derived components, you need to roll back the timeline marker to before the copy/paste operation and also, make sure you activate components before adding stuff.

[mroek]

Thanks a bunch for that explanation! You understood what I wanted, and even though the solution is a bit convoluted, it will work for what I need, at least in my current project!

[mroek]

I took a look at the example project/archive you attached, and I guess I'm a bit dense, but I can't make it work as described.

I wanted to try adding a small feature to the base component and have it propagate to the other two components, so I rolled back the history to right after the base component body was extruded, and made sure that component was activated. I then created a sketch on top of it (just a small circle at the center), and extruded a small cylindrical cutout in the component.

After doing this, I rolled the history back to the end, but now it all becomes a mess with all three components on top of each other. Why?

[Anonymous]

I find this a bit frustrating as well. I prefer making complex parts or assemblies in a separate file which can be reused for other projects as well. Something like Arduinos, motors, Raspberry Pis, sensors, custom boards etc. Trying to search and dig through old projects for some part is tedious.

So the best way is to make a repository of often used parts and link them in current project. But then I cannot modify it  per project basis. For example, I modeled a completely 3D printed battery holder and linked it in a project. But I need to add a hole for screw in it just for this design. I don't want to add it in the main file as it will be propagated to all the other projects using it. The only option is to break the link. But if tomorrow, I add some detailing to main file(for example, improved tolerance for battery fitting or battery direction markings), it will not be available in the design with broken link.

Is this an incorrect way of handling design in Fusion 360? Is there a way around this to design in a modular way instead of per project manner?

[davebYYPCU]

Since the original question was dealt with, Fusion has been upgraded.

Derive - the parent component into the current file, changes to the original flow downstream, but changes to the child, do not flow back to the parent.

Might help.....

[Anonymous]

Wow thanks a lot! I tried out the derive feature and it is just what I was looking for. Fits my requirement perfectly.

You just saved me hours of head banging.