Physical Material and Appearance issue with Fusion (June Update)

[kevinwatts]

I have found problems with Physical Material and Appearances using the new June when working with .fla files and exporting STEP/IGES/STP. This seems to affect all existing projects and new projects. Please, we need a rapid fix.

1. I have opened an existing Fusion project file with both materials and appearances applied. The pop-up dialogue boxes show all materials and appearances for the whole project file, not just the body selected. In the examples below I hovered over the icon to show the material/appearance type. The applied is not obvious to identify dialogue box. Very confusing! How are we to know what is applied?
2. When fla is exported to STEP it drops applied and replaces with another default (not in my default settings) Steel/Steel – Satin. I am doing a hand off for fabrication and supplier needs to know the material and appearances for each component. Pricing is calculated on the material and volume. We need this to export correctly!

The material and appliances dropping along with file corruption, is mentioned in my thread on Friday just prior to the June update:

STEP File Corruption when imported in to SolidWorks

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/design-and-documentation/step-file-corruption-when-imported-in-to-soli...

Please see test example with screen shots attached.

Original file: test pin.fla

Physical Material: Plastic

Appearance Material: Plastic – Glossy (Red) [note: default Plastic Glossy (white), also shows although not applied to body or faces)

Export Component as STEP file format.

Notice that the applied Material and Appearance have changed during Translation.

Material: Steel

Appearance: [was Plastic – Glossy (red). It looks red in STEP/STP/IGES exports, but it does not show up in the materials assigned interface. Instead two appearances show Generic and Steel - Satin

[keqingsong]

Thanks for the detailed post - we are looking into this. Will keep you posted as we figure out a fix. 

[Phil.E]

Kevin,

What you have found is as-designed in all cases. I'll send an email to the team asking about STEP export output, whether or not it can carry color and physical material information.

Specifically:

1. The Appearance and Physical materials dialog shows what is in the design, all of it. Some of the swatches in the In This Design area remain from parametric history.

If you want to know what a specific body has applied to it, use Properties. (RMB on the body in the browser > Properties)

2. Currently, as far as I can tell, Fusion does not export physical materials with STEP. This is what I will ask about, is it possible. If so, we cannot possibly fix this in the next couple of days.

Is it possible you can have a conversation/email/contract/drawing between you and your vendor concerning the materials and appearance of each part? This will be necessary for the time being until Fusion can create STEP files with the right color appearance and physical material properties built into the CAD model.

The "corruption" you mention in your other email was also as-designed. Prior to this weekend's update, STEP files would export non-visible bodies. It simply exported everything in the file. The solution, and it should be working well, is to export only the visible bodies. We made this change to STEP export and tested it for the update. Please let us know if it's not working.

Thanks,

[kevinwatts]

Hi Phil,

I appreciate your reply. Corruption of the body component is the main issue! Materials applied, affect the job costing programs that automatically calculate weight, volumes of materials used. I also need export to Autodesk Simulator programs. Materials are important for testing and results.

Here is what I have found so far:

BODY COMPONENT CORRUPTED ON EXPORT
I have run some new exports using both STEP and IGES and am waiting for feedback.

There seems to be at least two problems: 1) hidden bodies are exported and 2) some surface faces are missing, corrupted or even added. This is not evident in Fusion or when importing the STEP files back into Fusion. However, they do show up when importing into SolidWorks.

I think that the hidden body being exported, as you mentioned, has been resolved with the June update. The file size indicates that. I need to confirm.

Surface faces missing, corrupted or even added is another issue that is the most important! I have asked for screen shots to show what I saw on Friday when importing to Solidworks. I found a post by Claas Kuhnen, with screen shots of what he found regarding this problem.

STEP export bugged
http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/design-and-documentation/step-export-bugged/m-p/5473787#M13253

My export was done from the Browser within Fusion. Notice the missing rear car body faces/panels. The recommended work around suggested is to use IGES files to retain the correct geometry.

MATERIALS & APPEARANCES
I could be that Fusion is importing using the AP214 but exporting with AP203. While imported appearances may be different than native Fusion, I think that we should be cross compatibility with all other Autodesk programs and support AP214.

Yes, you should also provide a material listing for all components with details such as material, colour and finish, etc.

A simple explanation:
https://grabcad.com/questions/what-is-the-difference-between-step-files-format-203-and-214

AP203 defines the geometry, topology, and configuration management data of solid models for mechanical parts and assemblies. This file type does not manage Colors and Layers.

AP214 has everything a AP203 file includes, but adds colors, layers, geometric dimensioning and tolerance, and design intent. AP214 is considered an extension of AP203.

Additional Related Threads:
Exported STEP Model Wrong Color
http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/design-and-documentation/exported-step-model-wrong-color/m-p/5572759/h...

Default materials vs part appearance in assemblies and exporting
http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/design-and-documentation/default-materials-vs-part-appearance-in-assem...

AppearanceExport
https://screencast.autodesk.com/Main/Details/c3c25fb3-821d-4d6c-9de3-d335bfdddd40?t=2m22.30000000000...
This last post shows a workaround by applying Appearances to individual faces rather than bodies. This tells me that the data is being retained in the Fusion code but it is not being

Mapped correctly in the Export Translator.

I also found an area that is very non-intuitive with the new Material Library. I work in Modeling Mode to apply most materials and appearances. “Opaque Prism-126” How would anyone know what Prism-126 is, unless they have a prism color chart. Most engineering people will not. A better description would be helpful. And a better way to identify where they are applied. As you mentioned you can check the Properties of a body but that does not help if we are taking Faces or internals of a body.

[O.Tan]

Where did you find Prism-126? I wish they would add a search function for the appearance and materials, it gets hard to find sometimes.

[kevinwatts]

Re. Prism-126

I had selected basic defaults when I first started Fusion but was not able to get in to the preferences to edit without crashing after one of the updates. So I had just left it alone. Now I can and select a Cattegory but the Name is an input field that, in my case, has already been automaticaly completed. You will see options like when look at your Fusion 360 - Preferences-General-Material

Physical Material Name

Material Name

I think the intent is to allow custom materials and colours and allow the assigning of unique naming conventions.

[kevinwatts · Accepted solution]

I think that we should be cross compatible with all other Autodesk programs and support the industry standard AP214. That is what other Autodesk users are expecting. It is not time/cost affective to have to reapply after exporting. It also increases the “human error” factor if done wrong. Understandably, STEP translation mapping for appearance material between programs can be a challenge and the results different unless you can also export the relative appearance file (we do that in Adobe programs which also support creation of custom appearances/texture files). In my case there are three key reasons that I feel that exported files should incorporate applied materials (and appearances): 1) Autodesk Simulation Software – To run simulations for our project, applied materials and their values are needed within some of the Autodesk Simulation Software. We have access to the simulation software and need to be able to directly export from Fusion 360 in to these applications. Other companies are also running simulations with other programs (sound) and having pre-assigned materials will be important. 2) Cross Compatibility with all other Autodesk Programs - We are going to be exporting the assets developed in Fusion 360 directly to AutoCAD for production. That is the program that all of our international component suppliers are using. While we include written specifications and tables that include materials, surfaces and finishes they are expecting our files to have these already applied to faces/bodies. 3) We need a work flow that is practical, economical and reduces the element of “human error.” We are working across several languages and the need to reduce the possibility for confusion and miscommunication is important. 4) We are also exporting these files to marketing companies as the bases for their advertising and artwork.