"Learn" section tutorials need rather urgent updates.

[TrippyLighting]

After reading another thread/post from a user about joints where he's refering to the "Assembly" tutorial I watched it. I was convinced I had done so before, but this time I noticed content that is pretty misleading.

Over the last weeks and months I've seen so many designs here on the forum that used linked components, sometimes excessively and in the vast majority of cases entirely unnecessary. At no place in these otherwise well done videos is it explained in an way when and when not to use linked conponents.

Right from the start, and this is repeated several times throughout the video, there is a distinction made between distributed design and top-down design. That is the wrong distinction and it is even more wrong given Fusion 360 abilities and also it's limiations.

The distinction by all means should be between Top-down and Bottom-up design. A bottom up design in Fusion 360 can perfectly fine live without any linked components simply because Fusion 360 does not make a distction between component and assembly files. In Fusion 360 a component can perfectly fine coexist or be part of an assembly all  in the same file.

A distributd design requires linked components, but the need for a linked component is not really that common. A linked component should only be created when:

1. It is to be re-used in another design AND
2. Modifications to it are expected AND
3. when the design is mature/complete at least in the originating design it was conceived for/in.

For example there is absolutely no need to keep purchased parts linked at all, if they are not modified.

The link can be broken immediately (before saving the file it was inserted to).
Parts that are unique to the design don't need to be linked, ther is no benefit to it, only headaches down the road.

Here are three of the headaches when working wth linked components:

1. Currently designing with linked components is rather cumbersome and slow, even more so when linked parts are nested ( a assembly contains a linked subassembly that contains linked components). A multistep approch miust be taken to update these components to the lowest level (unless one of the most recent updates fixed that limitation).
2. When a linked components is inserted and then in a leater version it's not needed anymore it cannot be deleted from the project, because it is still linked to a prior version (well, it can but currntly only with a risky workaround that deletes the version history).
3.  The most annoying thing is that currently the only object that can be hidden/shown in a linked component/assembly is a joint origin. Trying to use hidden objects in a linked component in the design it as inserted to results in numerous edit/save/update cyles which not only  slows the workflow but results in an excessive and unnecessary number of design

There is an excellent Autodesk University class detailling the difference between Top-down and Bottom-Up design by @Phil.E and Sachlene Singh.

Please also include Fusion 360 R.U.L.E #1 right into the first video about sketching because that is the stage most everyone starts with and where so many new users, CAD newbies as well as CAD vetereans alike stumble right into the first trap and get off track, sometimes the only recourse being to having to re-start the design from scratch. That is really a shame!

[PhilProcarioJr]

@michallach81

I'm in, I would love to work on a wiki for users. I have been trying to show the capabilities of Fusion to new people and time and time again they just get frustrated with current documentation and videos. Shortly after that they quit using it and that's a shame because Fusion does things that no other CAD app does. Sure it's not perfect and it's not the be all end all of CAD but it deserves a place in the tool bag and personally I really enjoy working in it. So anyways hit me up with a PM and we can start planning this out, I have a lot of respect for your CAD knowledge and think we could put together some great info for new people and get them to where they want to be and fast.

Cheers 

[daniel_lyall]

@Phil.E OK fear point, but should the employee's who do vids do it correctly, then users will see this time and time again then by nature they will just start doing it.

us user who do vids just need to make sure we do it correctly our self, then with the employee's doing it, it will have a snow ball effect.

it's called learning by visual learning it does not work for everyone but most people learn this way.

@PhilProcarioJr and @michallach81  sounds like a good idea I have learn't most of the fusion stuff from you boy's and a couple other people. 

[TrippyLighting]

I am replying to the last post in this thread, simpy beause it's convenient and I want to adress several thing that have been said.

Before I do so, however, I must say that it is very cool that we as users can discuss these topics directly with the folks that are creating this content. That is very unusual and I very much appreciate and respect that opportunity!

I had hoped that searching the Forum 360 rule for R.U.L.E #1 would clarify that point quickly. I've used it many times this year with that exact spelling and upon copy/pasting it into the Forum search bar the Forum suggests a number of thread that provide an explanation of what that rule is. It also provides a little overview of how often I've actually used that exact spelling just this year 😉

I do not agree that the concept of a component is an advanced training topic. I can take the littel Aluminum falshlight here on my desk apart and explain how a physical object has properties and attributes and a how a more complesx shape was created from a few basic shapes etc. That can tehn be extrapoleted to a Fusion 360 component. In general a good approach to many things in life and in traing to begin in with the end in mind, the purpose.

Most users come to Fusion 360 for a purpose. That purpose is not sketching, or assembly, or simulation. These are just tools to fulfill that purpose.

Very often that purpose is to end up making something physical.

This thread might serve as a good example. The user has actually gotten quite far in her design but has hit a road block or two. As her project is a design to be made from plywood, routed on a shopbot or similar machine using Fusion 360 CAM functionality she does what many folks do, icluding myself, she tries to find a tutorial with that subject. Plywood projects are fairly popular with Fusion 360 users. She finds this tutorial video and while it is otherwise well done it also approaches the creation of components too late in the process as the components are created from  bodies. That same tutorial is apparently good enough for the shopbot folks to link on their site and so the prolifertaion of not recommended work practices continues.

One might wonder why!

Back to the Tutorial videos. I just watched these again with this thread in mind. Can anyone of the participants point out in which video a component is actually created ?

"Sketch" shows components in the browser in the beginning but avoids using the word.

"Model" avoids any mention of the word as the design is destined to be inserted into another design.

"Assemble" uses the term component frequently as that is what is assembled.

However, the actual step of when in the design process and how to create a component is entirely skipped and it is left entirely to the user to figure out how to do it. NOo that the user knows how to create bodies, righ-clicking on those in the browser and creating components from them seems the natural way things meant to be.

The user I mentioned above, assuming that she watched these video's, was not equipped to follow a better workflow after watching them. In the linked threds that user had no problems understanding the concept of components and what was explained in the threads. That sort of user deserves help!

[daniel_lyall]

@TrippyLighting I made the mistake of watching that video and doing it that way, well it was a wast of time, it was a broken not very useful item, so I whent and found another one to see how the hell to do it so it just works without it turning inside out, and it was you, Claas Kuhnen and Jesse Urban I learnt from how to do cabinet's properly, and some of what @PhilProcarioJr did in his post's.

It was one big moment of anger spending time trying to learn how to do something that was wrong, I do it correctly now and have no problems as you can see from the last lot of vids I did, one cabinet that can be made into any type of cabinet, bookshelf, shelf and it's driven and full of parameter's that just work all the time. why it's done with a driving component, the other components are just body's yes but that is fine as they still work with the parameter's. the components could be done with a sketch to go with the body but it's not needed and it works and does not fail.

so should new user's be shown this yes they should, you don't need to bombard the new user's with it, just have it there so they can see it, have a BASIC instructions on how to do something and call it that and say it does not have the best practise in it (RULE ONE), then have a second set of instruction that has in it all the best ways of doing it, then you will have a progression from basic to not basic.

then the people who have used this sort of program before go to the second set and skips the basic instructions and have some fun instead of being told sorry but that is the wrong way to do it and giving the big rant and going to something else.

[Anonymous]

@Aaron.Magnin:

>>> "

While I agree that this is a good approach to assembly design in Fusion 360,

I'm not sure this workflow is required for a new user to implement on

their first sketch....which is really what the video we're discussing was made for.

In the video, the end result is a very simple single body and I feel that if we

started by creating a component and activating it, we're adding uncessessary
steps that could add confusion for a new user.

More advanced training videos are being deveolped,

and this is the type of tip that would be beneficial in that context. "

I am a new user.

What you are saying has unintended consequences.

But the effect is dumbing down of a new user's learning capability.

It seems the intended action of dumbing down tutorials is poor quality tutorials.

Low expectation of users reflects poorly on F360 as shown by the poor quality tutorials.

Even if it is very simple video, teaching proper work flow and completeness of tutorials are important.

I have been using tutorials from this area:

http://help.autodesk.com/cloudhelp/ENU/Fusion-Model/files/GUID-1A035B66-90D0-4E00-BF7C-56E8B6C79EC3....

and I have a lot of frustrations.... 

I assume from reading the posts on this thread by experienced CAD users,

component must be part of the work flow.

Poor coaching trains poor quality athletes.  The same goes for training F360 users.

They will be frustrated and even move on to competitor's CAD.

From what I have seen so far, there is also a sense

of subpar F360 tutorials as good enough.

It is about pushing quantity and speed of work, not quality of work.

It feels like doing good tutorial is not part of DevOps.

I believe (excellant and detail) tutorials are and must be as critical as pushing code to cloud.

It is the only way to grow a customer base.

Adding a REQUIRED workflow tutorial in every  F360 tutorial

will add more work and takes more time.

It slows the Autodesk's tutorial employee's work...

So the boss asked what you have done, and you have done less than what he thinks.

It looks bad on you even when you are producing good tutorials since it takes more time.

So the path to looking good is to produce poor quality tutorials and produce many of them fast! 

But the boss is actually sobotaging future AutoDesk revenue .....

with this kinds of employee performance metrics.

The unintended effect of producing poor quality tutorial is causing

hidden lost of revenue.  That cannot be measured since it is hidden.

But it can be inferred that bad teaching cause bad outcomes for all involved,

AutoDesk wallet (revenue) included.

Not knowing the tutorials are causing unintended damages,

the boss and boss of bosses think all is good!

So everyone congratulates each other....  🙂

Hope this makes sense to all.

[TrippyLighting]

While I appreciate the support and agree with the first part of your post, please let's not make assumptions and blame people or organizations. I am fortunate enough to be part of the Fusion 360 Customer Advisory Board and have met some of the folks here on the Forum personally when travelling to Autodesk for meetings. The Fusion 360 Team is comprised of very experienced folks that are dedicated to provide the best possible user experience and they are passionate about their work.

Getting back to the first part of your post, that of course does not always mean that they are correct and I am delighted that we can have this discssion directly with the people invloved in creating this content.

Assuming that a new user is intelligent, curious and willing to learn is generally a good approach. Having references to more in-depth stuff right in the first introductory video without going into detail and referring to anothe in-depth tutorial perhaps in written form supports that and provides the user with an oporunity do investigate further without getting off track and/or slowing down the pace of the instructions. I am personally not a friend onf attempting not to overload new users, because that can easlily lead to aim at the least common denominator. Not showing how to create a component and not even mentoing the important role it plays in designs, removes the opportuinty from a user to investigate further.

Also, I'd like to point again to the initial topic of this post. Here is another thread that points to a problem with linked comonents. It's easy enough to find out what posts a user has made and what problems he reports. Doing so and looking at the screencast one can eaasily that all the componets in that design are linked components. This is probably completely unnecessary and I would not be surprised at all if that's the reason he cannot properly assemble/join the components he want's to.

Potnt in case here being the same. The training materials did not equip him with the proper workflow to do so!

Don't be shy of trying to explain a moderately complex topic to a user. If they have questions, they can ask. This forum is incredibly responsive and they usually don;t have to wait long to get an answer.

I personally like answering these question much more than having to tell a user, sorry, you should have created a component at the beginnig. Go and redo it all 😉

It also provides a much more positive exprience for a user.

[kb9ydn]

---

@TrippyLighting wrote:

Assuming that a new user is intelligent, curious and willing to learn is generally a good approach. Having references to more in-depth stuff right in the first introductory video without going into detail and referring to anothe in-depth tutorial perhaps in written form supports that and provides the user with an oporunity do investigate further without getting off track and/or slowing down the pace of the instructions. I am personally not a friend onf attempting not to overload new users, because that can easlily lead to aim at the least common denominator. Not showing how to create a component and not even mentoing the important role it plays in designs, removes the opportuinty from a user to investigate further.

Also, I'd like to point again to the initial topic of this post. Here is another thread that points to a problem with linked comonents. It's easy enough to find out what posts a user has made and what problems he reports. Doing so and looking at the screencast one can eaasily that all the componets in that design are linked components. This is probably completely unnecessary and I would not be surprised at all if that's the reason he cannot properly assemble/join the components he want's to.

Potnt in case here being the same. The training materials did not equip him with the proper workflow to do so!

Don't be shy of trying to explain a moderately complex topic to a user. If they have questions, they can ask. This forum is incredibly responsive and they usually don;t have to wait long to get an answer.

I personally like answering these question much more than having to tell a user, sorry, you should have created a component at the beginnig. Go and redo it all 😉

It also provides a much more positive exprience for a user.

---

I have to fully agree with @TrippyLighting here.  Too many times in trying to learn a new software tool I've tried searching for something (help files, videos, whatever...) that describes from a high level the whats and whys of using the software, only to find nothing.  Before using any complex software tool, such as Fusion 360, you ABSOLUTELY need to have a basic understanding of what the major working concepts are BEFORE you actually start using it.  For example:

What is a sketch and why do we need them?

What is a body and why do we need them?

What is a surface and why do we need them?

What is a component and why do we need them?

What are top down and bottom up design and why do we need them?

You don't need to go into all the gory details of how they are used, you just need to introduce the concepts to describe what they do and why they are important.  It wouldn't need to be any more than a 10 minute overview.  From here you could then branch out into more detailed instruction about how to use each one of them.

And it doesn't stop there.  What are extrusions, revolves, sweeps, lofts, ribs, webs, construction primitives, etc. and why do we use them?  (Some of this may already be covered.  I haven't looked at the Fusion Tutorials for awhile.)

I would also stress that the whys are just as important, possibly more so, than the hows of a particular subject.  When trying out a new program it's very tempting to just dive right in and start doing things (e.g. creating a sketch, extruding to a body, etc.) without having a good idea of how your project should be structured overall.  This is where the whys come in.  You need to understand these so that you don't model yourself into a corner that you can't get out of later.

Finally I will also say that Fusion has come a long way in regard to learning material since I started using it (there was basically nothing).  So major kudos for the continual effort towards creating a better learning experience, and a better design software!

C|

[daniel_lyall]

 example:

What is a sketch and why do we need them?

What is a body and why do we need them?

What is a surface and why do we need them?

What is a component and why do we need them?

What are top down and bottom up design and why do we need them?

these topic could be easyly adedd to a paper what comes with the instructions have it as part of the learning material, the 4th has been done it just needs added to the material as a link that can't be to hard to do. I have started to post it to youtubers 

[Phil.E]

Then there is all the stuff that gets created for Autodesk University...

[daniel_lyall]

@Phil.E yep not many people know about that ADSK uni stuff or even where it is, but that paper breaks rule 1, there is a lot of good stuff in it but rule 1 broken again.

you don't need to have rule 1 in basic stuff, it is the next step up but the images do and the vid do need it.

just show it in the basic stuff, then have a paper for people to look at at the end off the basic stuff, so they can turn around and go back through the basic stuff doing it with rule 1, then they have the foundation to move up to the next level without getting pist off by being told sorry that's wrong, you need to do it this way.

it is basic teaching you get the foundation correct then you step through the different levels.

take your job a new person comes in and you get told to train them up to replace you as you are getting a promotion to run pier 9 (dream are free), would you show them how to do it to the level you work at or would you half arse it, it's a sarcastic question yes but you would do it correctly other wise you will be in the poop.

the advanced user as I can don't mind correcting new user's but they do get the odd rant, I am not a advanced user so I rely on the advanced users give the correct info out so I can get done what I need to get done. take Mark as a example he has done so much for the fusion user's that ADSK reward him for it. ADSK need another class for user like Mark with out people like him ADSK would be going broke.

[TrippyLighting]

That paper goes with the class given by Phil and Sachlene and Autodesk University. Any student new or expereinced will understand 5 miuntes into the class that these are experts on the subject matter.

There are a number of good reasons not to follow Rule #1. Chances are, however if you understand these reasons you know what you doing and you don't have the "componet problem" to begin with. A design that starts with one, or more skeleton sketches is a good example. By definition you first create a sekleton, or master sketch that is not going to be part of a component.

But that's not stuff you start with. That continuing education 😉

This material could easily be grouped under "Further study material on the topic". Currently this stuff is spread around in too many places without any references to it in a central place. 

I like @michallach81's idea of a WiKi. Count me in. I don't have the skills for initial set-up and with two Kids and a side business don't have the time to learn that stuff either, but I'd love to help providing content. There are some good tutorials in the Gallery as well. 

[daniel_lyall]

---

@TrippyLighting wrote:

That paper goes with the class given by Phil and Sachlene and Autodesk University. Any student new or expereinced will understand 5 miuntes into the class that these are experts on the subject matter.

There are a number of good reasons not to follow Rule #1. Chances are, however if you understand these reasons you know what you doing and you don't have the "componet problem" to begin with. A design that starts with one, or more skeleton sketches is a good example. By definition you first create a sekleton, or master sketch that is not going to be part of a component.

But that's not stuff you start with. That continuing education 😉

yep defintly I have to print that paper out, it's good. yep some time components are not needed or just one, it takes time to get that, it's not a new user thing 

@Phil.E can that paper be added to the learning section, I am going to look at the other papers and added them to my youtube vids as links

[Phil.E]

@daniel_lyall

The document is already out of date, I would need to update the Component section to include the new New Component command workflows, which would only further cement the idea of Rule #1.

But to be fair, in the paper there are two early mentions of Rule #1, just not calling it that. 🙂

Page 5: (under Bodies section, making it clear that you should consider whether you are making one component or an assembly very early)

"Workflow:

•  If your intent is to model a single part that has one body, after initially creating your first body, continue by using the Join option in commands like Extrude, or make more bodies and join them later with commands like Combine.
•  If instead your intent is to create an assembly of components, it is best to create components first, and then add bodies inside the components they belong to from the start. Use Activate Component before creating bodies.

Page 6: (under Components section, making it clear that Rule #1 aka "Activate Component Workflow" is critical for parametric modeling and design reuse)

Active Component Workflow:

IMPORTANT: This workflow ensures the parametric history of the component will be completely stored inside the component. Any copy of the component will be parametrically complete, excluding references to other components.

• Right click the top browser node, pick New Component.
• Activate the new component. VIDEO
• Create the sketches and bodies of the component while it’s active.
• Always make the component active when adding more geometry to it.

[Aaron.Magnin]

@TrippyLighting BTW, the gears are in motion to make the suggested change to the assembly video. Thank you for bringing that to our attention (and for teaching me about Rule #1). 

There is a little delay becasue the smooth-talkin' voice actor (haha) is out of the country. 

[robcohee]

Your smooth talking voice actor lost his voice in Berlin this week. No worries though, I'll be on the mend by Monday on my return to the office.

I also want to thank everyone for their honest feedback and direct input on how we can improve. Please keep the requests coming.

-Rob

[daniel_lyall]

@Phil.E yep, it still is a good paper, not to be to rude there is not much better out there. most of it is usable so up date good idea get a intern to do it, it will test the metal of a intern. i would do it my self but I dont have a pdf editor 

[daniel_lyall]

@Phil.E, @TrippyLighting I use this post for a references now, I have had some good wins getting people who do fusion vids to read this and change there ways.

just a sugestion 

rule one start a component and name it 

rule two save and name the file.

[TrippyLighting]

He He. Rule # 2 is already taken 😉

Rule #2: Name your Stuff

All it takes is some discipline. It can already be done and does not require any new features or workaronds. I don't always do it myself, but once I notice that I am hunting through components, sketches joints, etc. to find something specific I'll name the things that I go back to often for edits and adjustments.

[daniel_lyall]

same here rule 3 then, have a look at noa vid on the adafruit youtube chanell he say how silly it was the way he was doing it. he goes into why it is better to have components compered to a page full of actions, it's quite funny

[Phil.E]

You guys have it nailed and I totally agree.

I have a simple rule about naming things and capturing views: You don't have to name everything up front, but rather do it on a need to know basis.

• If I have to look for it once, I'll have to look again. Name it so next time you can find the sketch/body/component/parameter/etc.
• Same with Named Views: If I have to take the time to put the camera on a specific detail of my design, better capture it while I'm there.
• Same with Paramters in the table: looking for it once amongst all the other parameters, might as well name it and make it favorite. It's easy enough to remove from the favorites later.

These are just good habits born of endless hours editing models.