@rsamvelyan wrote:
OK, so if I create the very first sketch of that newly created component on its own origin plane then that component will be created somewhere away from where it's supposed to be in an assembly.
For example if I'm drawing a pulley, then it will have to be somehow moved to align say with the hole or the bolt.
Is that a normal practice?
And if I want to avoid Capture Position then is my only option to use a joint which will place that component to it's correct place in the assembly?
Is my reasoning wrong?
You are probably looking at a specific situation right now and wondering how you should approach it, and we are all giving you general advise on good modeling practices, which may or may not apply. So there's that.
One of the side effect of the flexibility fusion allows in how things are done, is that often what seems like the easiest way to do something is the worst way to achieve a robust parametric model. (the move command comes to mind). It's hard to know that without putting some thought in how models can be structured.
when it comes to positioning a component in a model relative to other models, there are only 2 ways to do it in fusion that would be good practice-
1-built in place (indicative of a top down modeling strategy. after and as-built joint or ridgid group can be applied if needed)
2-apply a standard joint between components (indicative of a bottom up modeling strategy)
that's it. no other way.
most of my own models are top-down designs (just because of the nature of my work. fusion excels at the top-down approach). As a rule of thumb, I try not to do any referencing across components at the same level in the browser hierarchy. references that are needed by more that one component live in the browser 1 or more levels up. exception to every rule, but this general approach will avoid the domino/cascading effect of multiple component failures resulting from 1 hard to find error (ie, keeps the mess contained). will also make the model easier to edit down the road. makes a robust model possible (still other things you can do screw it up).
now when I'm just trying to bang out an idea, I might do all sorts of crazy stuff, not giving a flip about good practice, just focusing on the form/function. but I do so with the full knowledge that I will need to start the model over at some point and build it right. I suspect most of the better modelers/designers do the same. You see a lot of comments here along the lines of "i've already put to much work in this, I can't start over". I can almost always build a model from scratch, using the fraked model as a reference, faster than I can "fix" a really screwed up model.
