New component interface is confusing

[Garret_H]

I am working in a hybrid design. I am attempting to create a new assembly component that I can use with multiple parts, like I did before.

Now the new "intent driven design" create assembly defaults to creating an external assembly with no option to create it internally within the hybrid design  that I am working in.

In order to create an assembly I have to first create a new part, and then create new parts within that part and it turns into an assembly.  When I create a new part I have the option to create that new part as internal or external, but not if I create an assembly.

There should be an option to create an internal assembly as there isn't a clear workflow to the user that they can just change their parts into an assembly.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@Garret_H wrote:

...

Now the new "intent driven design" create assembly defaults to creating an external assembly with no option to create it internally within the hybrid design  that I am working in.

...

---

When in the new component dialogue change the type to part.

That will allow you to create an internal component.

AFAIK, this will be changed in a future release to default back to internal parts for hybrid designs.

This was yet another update that released features to force new or otherwise inexperienced users to work with external components only.

Yet, again it was at the expense of experienced users. When I am under a tight timeline, the last thing I want to do is investigate how I get my workflow back or  find new workarounds.

[billbedford]

---

@Garret_H wrote:

Now the new "intent driven design" create assembly defaults to creating an external assembly with no option to create it internally within the hybrid design  that I am working in.

Err No

If you have your Default Design Type set to 'Hybrid', it will create a hybrid design, BUT the name for the new component is always "External1", which is more than a little confusing. 

[Garret_H]

Incorrect. Creating a new "hybrid" component immediately enters into a new external, linked component and edit-in-place mode.

[jhackney1972]

In the attached Animated GIF, I indicate that I am in Hybrid Design mode then I create a new component.  You will see in the New Component Dialog box I have an option to create an internal or external component, it is not mandatory to create an External component. 

[Garret_H]

No.

You are creating a new part, not a new assembly. I specifically stated the issue is that I cannot create a new assembly.

If you had selected assembly in the drop down you would see that the option to create internal disappears.  

Read the post.

[jhackney1972]

I only can read what you write and unless they spell assembly different in your part of the world...  

[TrippyLighting]

---

@Garret_H wrote:

No.

You are creating a new part, not a new assembly. I specifically stated the issue is that I cannot create a new assembly.

If you had selected assembly in the drop down you would see that the option to create internal disappears.  

Read the post.

---

Once you create an internal component/part as I described in my post, you can select that new internal component/part and create more internal components/parts in it.

Then that component/part becomes a component group, or an assembly.

There is no need to specifically create an internal assembly.

This isn't new, and all of these workflows were possible before.

Also,

If you want to reuse that assembly in other designs, you would create an external component part.

Then you would use EIP (edit in place) to create new internal components in that empty, external component, thus also making it an assembly.

[Garret_H]

Read my original post in full detail.  

[Garret_H]

Thanks. I totally get that creating a new part within a part automatically turns the parent part into an assembly representation, and that this behavior is consistent with previous releases.

The option we had previously with "create component" was to create a new part or assembly internally. I'd choose one or the other based on my intent, regardless of the fact that I could change it later.  Its a method to lay out intent in a design, I might just create several empty assemblies at a time for the sake of organization within my model tree. Its like I am bookmarking my intent on how the model will be structured.

The point of the post is that the new interface doesn't make it clear that you can create a new internal assembly at any time.

What's even more frustrating is that if I set my "default design type" to "hybrid design" then I need to navigate the new component type pulldown to select part, OR keep the default design type set to "part" and then every time I create a new design I have to request "Hybrid Design". 

Ugh. If I wanted Inventor workflows I would be using my Inventor license.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@Garret_H wrote:

...

Ugh. If I wanted Inventor workflows I would be using my Inventor license.

---

Yep, same here! At work I sit in front of a SolidWorks-equipped machine.

I don't even mind these changes if the defaults allowed us to continue working as usual. 

There is absolutely no way I could change over to working with external parts only! With Fusion, that is.

I can do that perfectly fine in SolidWorks because it is designed for that and allows a smooth workflow supporting it, among a lot of other features we have been asking for for 10 years.

I am considering changing back to it for the things I do in my day job. 

[billbedford]

---

@Garret_H wrote:

You are creating a new part, not a new assembly. I specifically stated the issue is that I cannot create a new assembly.

That's very odd, as I managed to create a new internal, i.e., not linked to anything, assembly just this afternoon. 

---

If you had selected assembly in the drop down you would see that the option to create internal disappears.  

The menu from the dropdown is a bit confusing. It has a rolling menu that allows the choice of the Type. A Location box, which, if selected, brings up a folder selector to allow the new assembly to be placed externally. It also has a Parent selection box, which allows the new assembly to be nested in other internal assemblies.

[lauri_barnhart]

Hi @Garret_H, thank you for your question.

Did the response provided by @TrippyLighting, @jhackney1972 or @billbedford help answer your question?

If yes, please mark the reply as the accepted solution.

This helps other users benefit from the shared solution.

If the issue persists, let us know with an update so we can assist further.

Thanks!

Lauri | Community Manager

[Garret_H]

No, their responses don't solve the fundamental problem with how the create component feature has been modified by Autodesk.

[Garret_H]

Lauri, I see that my thread is essentially pointing out the same issues as this thread: New Component 

My feelings wouldn't he hurt if this one was marked as accepted so that the previous longer thread takes precidence.

[graham_wideman]

This New Component situation is royally messed up.

The key to the problem is that the current default system does not cover an important use case, and the documentation is wildly incorrect and misdirecting.

Use case: 

• New Design type = Hybrid (so that it can contain subsidiary components)  <-- there is a default setting for this.
• AND within that project, new components default to type Part, and Internal.  There is no setting to make this the default.  Instead, the New Component dialog defaults to Hybrid, apparently following the setting for New Design?  If you manually change that to Part, the dialog currently defaults to Internal (favorable for my use case).  And oddly, those new Part type components can contain subsidiary components (unlike a Design of type Part).

So the immediately missing piece is some way to set New Component to default to Part -- Internal. (or External if you prefer that.)

But greatly undermining anyone's ability to understand this is the complete bollocks from Assistant (and presumably in turn from Help). In the following discussion with Assistant, my questions and comments are in blue and the text marked in red is incorrect info from Assistant, and directly blows up a user's ability to understand this system.

ME: Can a Part design have subsidiary components?

Assistant: Yes, but with an important limitation. Here's what the documentation says:

Part Design & Components
A Part design can only contain one component — the root/default component itself. Specifically:

You cannot create sub-components (internal child components) within a Part design.
You cannot insert external component files into a Part design — commands like Place or Insert Component are unavailable/greyed out.
The "Create Components from Bodies" right-click option is also missing in a Part design.

[...]

So in short: if your workflow requires subsidiary components, Hybrid is the most flexible choice — keeping in mind the trade-off we discussed earlier (all components within a Hybrid will be external).

(So the initial "Yes" is contradicted by the rest of the statement)

ME: How do I set defaults so that a new design is Hybrid, and new components within such a design are Internal?
Assistant:
Based on everything retrieved in our conversation, I need to give you a straightforward answer here:
That combination is not possible. The two goals are mutually exclusive in Fusion:

Goal	Required Design Type
New design defaults to Hybrid	Hybrid — set in Preferences > General > Default Design Type
New components default to Internal	Only works in Part design — not available in Hybrid

(but how do new components default to Internal if new components are supposedly not allowed in a Part design???)

As established earlier, any component created in a Hybrid design is always External — there is no setting that overrides this, because it's a fundamental characteristic of the Hybrid design type, not a preference.

Your Realistic Options

• If you want Internal components ? Set your default design type to Part. Accept that you cannot insert external component files.  (but Part designs don't allow subsidiary components)
• If you want Hybrid ? Accept that all components will be External, and plan your workflow around that (e.g., using Edit In Place to work on them in context).
• If you need both modelling AND internal components ? Consider whether your use case actually needs a Hybrid at all. A Part design with multiple bodies may achieve what you need without requiring components at all.

Would you like help thinking through which design type best fits your workflow?

ME: Then how do you explain that I just created a Hybrid design, then added a component, and in the new component dialog I can set the type to Part and Internal?

Assistant:
You are absolutely correct, and I apologise for the misinformation in my earlier responses. The official documentation confirms exactly what you observed:

The Correct Behaviour
In a Hybrid design, the New Component dialog gives you:

• Type = Part + External unchecked ? creates an Internal component inside the active design ?
• Type = Part + External checked ? creates an External component (saved as a separate file)
• Type = Assembly, Hybrid, Sheet Metal, or Linked PCB ? always creates an External component

So internal components are possible in a Hybrid design — you just need to set Type to Part and leave External unchecked.

To Answer Your Original Question
To default new components to Internal in a Hybrid design, when creating a new component simply ensure:

• Type is set to Part
• External is unchecked

The "External" checkbox is only available when Type is set to Part in a Hybrid design — and unchecking it is what makes the component internal.

I was relying on an outdated support article that did not reflect current Fusion behaviour. Thank you for correcting me.

ME: You now understand the behavior I want. But you didn't answer how to set this as the default: New design = Hybrid, and I want New component within such design to default to Part and Internal, without hvaving to fool around with its individual settings.

Assistant: Good point — let me search specifically for whether a default can be set for the New Component dialog settings.

There is a partial answer in the documentation, but not a complete one. Here's what it says:

"The new component type in this dialog defaults to the default design type defined in the Preferences."

This means:

• Default design type = Hybrid ? set in Preferences > General > Default Design Type [YES]
• Default component Type = Part ? set in Preferences > General > Default Design Type to Part, which then drives the Type field in the New Component dialog [YES]
• Default External = unchecked ? the documentation does not describe any preference or setting that controls the default state of the External checkbox

So the short answer is: there is no documented way to pre-set the External checkbox to unchecked by default. You can control the default design type (which influences the Type dropdown in the dialog), but the External checkbox does not appear to have its own default preference.

Given that your preferences are currently set to default to Part (which is why the component Type shows Part in the dialog), the External checkbox defaulting to checked is the gap — and based on the available documentation, there is no setting to change that default behaviour. (<--- Assistant misunderstood my settings, but no matter. )

This may be worth submitting as a feature request to Autodesk if it's a recurring friction point in your workflow.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Just trying to get to the bottom of the matter is exhausting.

@graham_wideman - this post has been edited due to Community Rules & Etiquette violation. 

[Sualp.Ozel]

i did not read the entire thread.  Sorry if the answer was already given before

I also use Hybrid design in my day to day Design / MFG workflows.

To make an assembly with internal components, I simply start making a sketch + extrusion and select  "new component".

But if you want to explicitly make a new internal component, and then activate it and then add sketches in it, here is how to do that:

Assemble panel: New Component: type = Part 

and you are done.

keep in mind , parent selection is also critical, choosing the correct parent is the difference between making new components vs new sub assemblies

[graham_wideman]

> To make an assembly with internal components,

Yes, this is the current way to proceed. It's great that you posted actual screen shots to help future readers of this thread.

The main point of my post is to show that this contradicts Assistant and Fusion documentation which claims that it is not possible to include Internal parts in a Hybrid design.   

Of course, it is indeed possible to include Internal Components (Parts) within a Hybrid design, as you showed. But users trying to figure out the changed UI might not get that far if they follow the docs or Assistant.  

[kevinwilcox46]

I'm a bit reluctant to say this because it's not very constructive, but I really do hate the new interface. It's very common for me to work on two or three files one after another and, to minimise the load on my PC, I have a habit of saving and closing the current file when I've done whatever I needed to do. Whereas old style, if I had no other file open this would take me back to an un-named file screen, with all my current projects listed on the LH side in the explorer. Now, it takes me to a screen listing of near everything I've ever worked on except, as far as I can see, I can't open a file from that screen. I have to create a new file just to get back to the old-style screen, or shut and restart Fusion. To me, this is a perfect example of fixing (breaking) something that wasn't broken. 

Even as a beginner, I don't think I would have benefitted from being forced to make decisions about hybrid, external, blah blah blah. In fact if I was a beginner now, I think I would find that bewildering and probably take another look at the alternatives.

@kevinwilcox46 - this post has been edited due to Community Rules & Etiquette violation.  

[kevinwilcox46]

Golly, I never would have thought the D word was considered profanity but I'm fine with the edit, I genuinely would not have wanted to cause anyone offence