'OVER CONSTRAINED GEOM....' ---- "Wait..What?!"

[admaiora]

Can you help me understanding this behavior?

The geometry is not and it shouldn't be considered over constrained.

Please solve this.

[mavigogun]

I've just got to say it- the paralleled view of some other program made for a real pain trying to see what was going on in Fusion.    No help what so ever.   Besides- you had room to incorporate a couple more programs- say, Q-Bert and The Walking Dead- talk about a half hearted effort.

The length of the Offset line is being defined by the parent- so, no, you can't backwards drive the parent by Dimensioning the Offset.   Dimension the parent and it will work, no problem.

[admaiora]

I will keep note of that. Thanks.

If you will open the video full screen you will be able to see enough with no problems.

Let me know.

I know that I can dimension the parent, the point is that there is no sense, or need, for that.

Geometrically, it 's not over constrained.

[mavigogun]

---

@admaiora wrote:

If you will open the video full screen you will be able to see enough with no problems.

Ya... enlarging the playback is the natural first impulse. The feedback is based on the blurry video running full screen.

I don't apprehend an unresolved question. Attempting to Dimension an Offset will return an Over Constraint- that doesn't mean you can't attach a Dimension to the element, only that you can't use it to drive the parent.   If you're complaint is that another program with different capacities can't do something Fusion can do but can do something else... well, experience suggests you won't be find solace or satisfaction from wishing it were otherwise.    I imagine there are folks in Development who share your values- you could always ask -but don't you think it will just go into the pile of  that-would-be-nice-but-there-is-already-another-way-to-get-the-job-done-so-how-about-no-for-now?

[admaiora]

We are writing here to make Fusion a better software.

Here I have posted a simple question. Do you have a simple answer?

Why is it an over constrained geometry?

That doesn't occur in other parametric softwares. Is there a real need to have that behavior?

A company asked me that this week, I didn't have an answer.

I can see with no problem the video, enough to catch the point.

Have you set the correct resolution in the Youtube setting?

[mavigogun]

---

@admaiora wrote:

Have you set the correct resolution in the Youtube setting?

---

Max out the resolution, turn your monitor upside down so that your prior knowledge doesn't fill-in-the-blanks, and try and read text.     It ain't a debate- it's fine to you, a problem for me.    It just feels a bit like an actor on stage telling the audience they can hear him just fine.

I get where you're coming from with improvement- I kinda spoke to that in a late edit to my last post:

" I imagine there are folks in Development who share your values- you could always ask -but don't you think it will just go into the pile of  that-would-be-nice-but-there-is-already-another-way-to-get-the-job-done-so-how-about-no-for-now?"

Really, though- where do you see making this change in the great scheme of things?    Critical enough to campaign for Idea Station votes? 

[lichtzeichenanlage]

The geometry is overconstrained, because the offset is defined by the offset distance. In Fusion 360 you've to define the source (in your case the inner part).

It would be much nicer, if you finally would start using AD's screencast tool. 

IMHO this section of the forum is to help users with their designs not. Making Fusion 360 better might be a side effect. But to be honest, your hidden agenda looks much more, that you just want that Fusion 360 works the way Inventor works. 

---

@admaiora wrote:

We are writing here to make Fusion a better software.

Here I have posted a simple question. Do you have a simple answer?

Why is it an over constrained geometry?

That doesn't occur in other parametric softwares. Is there a real need to have that behavior?

A company asked me that this week, I didn't have an answer.

I can see with no problem the video, enough to catch the point.

Have you set the correct resolution in the Youtube setting?

---

[admaiora]

Thanks.

Inventor should be  a good starting point for Fusion.

The answer in this case is: "there is not  a real reason for this behavior". 

Not really interested in workaround, just in logic.

In this case I can apply a dimension where i want.

This can be improved, and the user have  a better experience.

Thanks for the advice about screencast, I will think about that, but I believe I will continue to use Youtube.

[mavigogun]

---

@admaiora wrote:

The answer in this case is: "there is not  a real reason for this behavior". 

Not really interested in workaround, just in logic.

I just read a clear reason/logic provided my Wilkov. The semantic denial doesn't seem productive.

Thanks for the advice about screencast, I will think about that, but I believe I will continue to use Youtube.

An unfortunate choice for the viewer. Scaled image clarity with inputs logged and clearly delineated in a timeline makes for a much better communication tool.

[melvinbrian3d]

The length of the Offset line is being defined by the parent

the first rectangle is not Fully defined with all dimension's, i saw you apply an equal constraints and then you make an offset rectangle and add a distance between rectangles... then the issue is when you re trying to apply dimension to the Outer rectangle without fully defining the inner one.

[chrisplyler]

I don't know why everyone else is giving you crap about this.

Sure, the video blows, but it's good enough to get the idea from.

You are right, it is not geometrically over-constrained. But obviously it is "Fusion" over-constrained. So we can only deduce that Fusion obviously has some coding logic that tells it an Offset is only driven by its parent, and can't handle the reverse situation like some other software can.

You could make the outer square the parent and Offset it inwards to produce the child, but you don't need to be told the work-around possibilities.

[admaiora]

Thank you Chris, and I agree with your words.

Totally.

[TrippyLighting]

The offset tool does require a few workarounds, because in essence it is quite broken.

[mavigogun]

---

@TrippyLighting wrote:

The offset tool does require a few workarounds, because in essence it is quite broken.

---

Could you offer a brief summation of those necessities for the uninitiated?

[TrippyLighting]

No, not really. I just find other avenues if I determine the offset tool is the culprit in a given situation.

[kb9ydn]

The offset tool is indeed broken, and has been complained about in the past.

You can tell it's broken by doing the same exercise manually without the offset tool.  Draw the first rectangle and set it's sides equal.  Draw a second rectangle on the same center and dimension two sides off of the first rectangle to define the offset.  Now you can dimension a side of either the outer or inner rectangle as you would expect.

Having the offset tool only work in one direction doesn't make any sense.  I think it's safe to assume this will be fixed eventually, but when that will be is up to Autodesk.

C|