Re-Order Parameters

[Lonnie.Cady]

Is there any method to change the order of parameters?

I have many that I want to fill in to control geometry.  I forgot one and now it falls at the end of the list.  It would make more sense in my workflow it was in sequence with the others for that piece of geometry.

[jeff_strater · Accepted solution]

@Lonnie.Cady - no, unfortunately, today there is no way to sort the parameters.  That is part of a set of enhancements we'd like to make to the parameter dialog, including searching, etc., but that project has not been scheduled yet.

[Lonnie.Cady]

@jeff_strater Thank you.  I just need to plan a little better. 😁

[Scoox]

So it's been almost two years and we are still unable to sort parameters and filter the list to only show parameters that match a certain text string. This is not a problem if you are just designing a simple object like a table top or a coffee mug, but I'd like to know how anyone can handle even medium-complexity projects with potentially hundreds of user-defined parameters whilst remaining sane.

I'm guessing Autodesk are deliberately refusing to implement this, because it seems like the kind of feature that'd be relatively easy to implement compared with all the other much harder stuff that they've done. Sure, who am I to complain when I'm using the free version? But that's not the point. You are marketing Fusion 360 as a professional tool, and it doesn't live up to your marketing hype because it does not deliver on some really basic features.

[jeff_strater]

"I'm guessing Autodesk are deliberately refusing to implement this"

No.  That is neither accurate nor fair.  We are not "refusing" to implement anything.  It is purely and simply a matter of limited resources, and a nearly-infinite list of things to do, so we have to triage and prioritize.  This is a perfectly valid request.  It is on our list.  It is even pretty high on the list.  However, it just has not yet risen to the top of that list yet.  When might it?   I don't know.  I personally hope it is soon.  I, too, would like this.

"So it's been almost two years"

I feel like I say this about once a month:  The length of time a requested enhancement has been out there does not factor into the prioritization at all.  And, I don't believe it should.  A request should be evaluated on its merits, number of requests, whether a workflow is completely blocked by the lack of it, how it fits into our overall product strategy, and other factors, not by its age.  We have requests that are nearly 8 years old, at this point.  But, if we prioritized those just because they were asked for a long time ago, it would mean that we would not have resources for other things that would benefit more customers, unblock workflows, and so on.

I'm sorry we haven't gotten to this one yet.

[Scoox]

@jeff_straterThanks for replying.

"A request should be evaluated on its merits, number of requests, whether a workflow is completely blocked by the lack of it, how it fits into our overall product strategy, and other factors, not by its age."

I agree a request should be evaluated on its merits, but not always on the number of people requesting it. Obviously, a feature that's requested by many users is more likely to be implemented first, but there are many small "quality-of-life" features that people just don't bother to request. I really wonder how many users have actually requested this. This thread specifically hasn't attracted much attention, which indicates either users don't mind not being able to sort the list or, more likely, that it has crossed their mind but they didn't bother to voice their opinion and choose to live with the small annoyances.

Autodesk may disagree but I think the Parameters feature is half-baked and the ability to sort the list should have been an integral part of the original "overall product strategy". It's not something users should have to come asking for, in fact, it is not even a feature request, it's users pointing out an obvious oversight.

I'm just looking a the latest "What's New". Things like "We created a new post processor for Haas Desktop Mill machine and for Syil machines" surely are a lot harder to implement that sorting a list, but that's not the point, the point is that features like that only benefit a relatively small percentage of your user base (I didn't even know that there was such a thing as a Haas Desktop Mill), while being able to sort the list would benefit all of your users so, regardless of how many people have requested this, I'd say it's higher priority that some of the features that are being implemented.

In my particular case, there has not been a single project where I didn't wish I could sort the list, and there have been exactly zero projects where I wished Fusion had a new post processor for Hass Desktop Mill machine.

[jeff_strater]

"I agree a request should be evaluated on its merits, but not always on the number of people requesting it."

I agree.  It's not the only metric used, definitely.  One of the most-voted IdeaStation (when we had IdeaStation...) requests was for a Linux version, and there are several threads out there with very passionate people pleading for it.  But, I don't think that we will ever implement that one, because the revenue to effort ratio would be very low.  And yes, we do get requests for sorting and filtering in the parameter dialog, but it is just not an overwhelming flood.  So, it will stay in the queue until we have the resources to get around to it.  Again, no one is saying "never" to this one.  It's just a priority question.

"Autodesk may disagree but I think the Parameters feature is half-baked and the ability to sort the list should have been an integral part of the original "overall product strategy""

I might evaluate it more as "3/4 baked" 🙂.  Could it be improved?  Definitely.  But, many, many people use it successfully.  Should sorting have been included in R1?  Probably so, but at some point, you have to stop, or you never release R1.  So, we had to make tradeoffs.  There was 5 years of stuff that "should have been in R1", but that would have made R1 5 years later.  Would that have been the right Product Management call?  I don't think so.

I see threads like this nearly every day.  For you, it's parameters.  For others, it is using driven dimensions in equations.  For others, it is the way STL export works with units, or configurations, or assembly features, or tangency to splines in the middle of the curve, or "mates", or offset of offset in sketch, or sketch blocks, or sketching by entering coordinates, or lame error messages, and so on.  Lots of people have their own favorite "quality of life" issue, about which they are extremely passionate.  Have you seen the debates around the "eyeball" vs the "light bulb" in the browser?  As a member of the Fusion team, I am both happy and frustrated by this level of passion.  I am happy that people like Fusion enough to be passionate about it.  But, man, sometimes it gets hard to wade through the daily grind of outrage...

Those posts start one of two ways:  "It is x years later and we STILL don't have y", or "I can't believe that Fusion does not have z - every other CAD product has z".  None of those requests are invalid, but, not to sound like a broken record, but the resources are finite, and we just can't do everything. It does keep me up at night, FWIW...

"We created a new post processor for Haas Desktop Mill machine", "In my particular case, there has not been a single project where I didn't wish I could sort the list, and there have been exactly zero projects where I wished Fusion had a new post processor for Hass Desktop Mill machine"

This gets to another aspect of the finite resources.  Not everyone on the Fusion team can do every job.  The development team that developed that post-processor does not have the knowledge needed to implement sorting in the parameter dialog.  Could they be trained?  Yes, but it might take longer to get that training than it is worth, and then, someone wants a new post-processor.  In a construction crew, you have plumbers, and you have electricians.  I'm not sure I'd want to live in a building where the plumbing was installed by the electrical crew.  Not only is the Fusion team finite, it is also not "fungible" (I hate that word).  So, yes, from outside of the sausage machine, it might be fair to say that developing a new post-processor should be less important than parameter sorting, but that is a bit of a false tradeoff.

Anyway, good discussion, and if I sound defensive, I probably am, but hopefully that is understandable, just as I understand the passion around this, and any other similar quality-of-life issue.

[Scoox]

"I see threads like this nearly every day. For you, it's parameters. For others, it is using driven dimensions in equations. For others, it is the way STL export works with units, or configurations, or assembly features, or tangency to splines in the middle of the curve, or "mates", or offset of offset in sketch, or sketch blocks, or sketching by entering coordinates, or lame error messages, and so on. Lots of people have their own favorite "quality of life" issue, about which they are extremely passionate. Have you seen the debates around the "eyeball" vs the "light bulb" in the browser?"

@jeff_strater I appreciate you handling my complaint with professionalism 🙂 and I see your points. I wouldn't refer to this particular feature as a personal preference, something I happen to want but not everybody else thinks they need. You have listed a few requests you see frequently, but I'll argue none of those features affects everyone, yet I'm confident the inability to sort user params affects each and everyone of the users that requested those features, unless they are designing something inherently simple such as a table top or an ashtray, which I highly doubt since those sound like the sort of requests experienced users might make.

In deciding what gets done first, if I was Autodesk I would ask myself the following questions:

1. Will this feature benefit a large number of users?
2. Will it significantly improve the usability of the software?
3. Can we do it?
4. Is it profitable?

The fact that many users are requesting a feature can be an indication that it will, indeed, benefit a large group. However, software companies frequently implement new, innovative, features that nobody has requested but which they feel or hope will improve the workflow for a lot of users. My experience with this and other software packages is that most users don't really know what they need or want, and when they do, they don't have the time or will to get on the forum and voice their opinion (they usually prefer to up-vote someone else's request). It's only when a feature is added that they start using it and then they can't live without it. Some users go as far as to vehemently defend objectively poorly implemented or missing features, as if they were part of some kiss-butt cult. I find this to be particularly common among users of music production software who've only ever used one such software package and yet, in their view, it is the best package and therefore anyone who criticizes it must is an enemy.

Feasability might be an issue if, for example, the company has a strict policy of not breaking backward compatibility, which may prevent certain features from being implemented. Profitability is usually a side effect of poings 1 and 2.

As regards sorting the user params list, the answer to all four questions would be 'yes'. It's obvious many users would benefit from this feature becasue it has been requested and up-voted numerous times and one (now locked) request on IdeaStation has 355 votes under the belt. The answer to question two is a matter of opinion. Whether the improvement will be 'significant' depends on whether or not a user relies heavily on user parameters. For me it would be a great timer-saver because I do, and trying to locate a variable by name when the list isn't sorted is time-consuming. I imagine this only gets worse when you are collaborating with other designers on one project, which is supposedly Fusion 360's forte. 'Can we do it?' obviously the answer is 'yes' and this one in particular doesn't seem hard, assuming the time and human resources are available. 'Is it profitable?' probably not immediately or directly but intuitive user-friendly software generally makes users want to stick with it and recommend it, which, in turn, leads to profit down the line.

I know this won't make any difference but here are some links to threads where users have requested this feature (sorted in ascending chronological order—see what I did there? wink wink):

Just for context: Fusion 360 released (Sep 2013)
How do I reorder parameters? (31 Mar 2015, 4 likes) << First requested shortly after Fusion 360 launch

Alphabetical order of parameters (26 Mar 2016, 0 likes)

Re-ordering for User Parameters (25 Jul 2017, 355 votes)

Parameters sorting (25 Jul 2018, 96 votes)
How to use the Parameter window? (25 Feb 2019, 0 likes)

Method to sort / order User Parameters (14 Sep 2019, 6 votes)

Re-Order Parameters (12 Dec 2016, 0 likes)

Thoughts on parameters in Fusion 360 (1y ago, 31 up-votes on Reddit)

Support Request: Provide way to reorder user parameters (15 Apr 2021, 2 likes)

Autodesk are obviously aware of this since they provided an almost solution and even a link to the 2017 IdeaStation thread:

While the existing parameters cannot be reordered, you can use the "Favorites" option to place important parameters at the top of the list. To add a parameter to the "Favorites", click the star next to the parameter. The idea to allow parameters to be reordered has been presented at the Fusion 360 Ideastation - please give a vote to the post linked here. The comments in this post also provide screenshots of how to add a parameter to the favorites list.

This aligns with your (@jeff_strater 's) remarks.

Anyway, that's enough writing. This feature should be top of the to-do list. Fusion 360 is parametric modelling software. If parameters are not the most important thing, I don't know what is!

[maula006]

Just wanna give my input as well:

I have the following set of parameters, and realize that I probably could have had a fifth wheel too.

What do I do?

Am I just screwed and forced to stuff all the 5th-wheel stuff down to the bottom?

For how simple as this feature is and how incredibly helpful in can be for complex projects... 

It's abhorrent how it has never been implemented, or is perhaps in the bottom of their priority list.

[etfrench]

Make it a Favorite, then it will be at the top of the list.

[etfrench]

p.s. You can reorder parameters using the Parameter IO Add-in.  Unfortunately, you also have to delete all of the parameters in the middle of the process😌

[maula006]

Wait so...

This is something Autodesk could've done all this time??????

Autodesk was busy screwing with userbase with a subscription plan and reduced featureset for the personal version... and they couldn't do something this simple 😐

Smh

Edit: oop was looking at the wrong thing

[Scoox]

Of course Autodesk need to monetize their work, but adding limitations is something that should be done once everyone's hooked on the software, which hasn't happened yet because the software fails to deliver on what many consider essential features. Users want to be able to save files locally and to re-order the parameters list. I really can't imagine a professional engineer using Fusion 360. Hindering the user experience by limiting the number of editable documents before the software is ready for prime time only ensures Fusion 360 continues to be the de facto poorman's 3D modelling software. Nobody will pay for this until such absurdly basic functionality as sorting parameters is implemented. Feel free to waste resources implementing more limitations... you'll just drive more users away.

[Scoox]

Any news on this FR? Happy Easter 🙂

[kazkeb]

Wow. It kind of blows my mind that this hasn't been done yet. I, along with the others, deem this as an essential feature.  Plus, it's some fairly low hanging fruit.

At least make it so that the parameters can be sorted/re-ordered alphabetically.  This would take minimal programming, especially on the UI side of things.  Moreover, with a simple alphabetical sorting feature, users could hack their own sorting method by adding prefixes to their parameters (ie 'aBoxLength', 'bBoxWidth', 'cBoxHeight'), sorting alphabetically, and then removing the prefixes.

[baptiste.manson]

The position or the unit of a parameter are not editable in the add-in API. Deleting and recreating the parameter list via the API may not work - parameters aren't weak references based on names.
The Autodesk developer who made the parameter I/O add-in got surprised we couldn't do this, looking at the code. 

We cannot either derive with different parameters, defeating one of the top reasons to use parametric design - to efficiently maintain a family of parts.

I consider the parametric design a proof of concept with lots of potential, but definitely not a tool I can use for ambitious projects. And that's fine, I'll use FreeCAD for this which has proper configurations management.

It is coming to Fusion360 - albeit no ETA yet.

[Scoox]

I've never used FreeCAD, is it as easy to learn as Fusion 360? It's come up in my searches a lot recently, I guess I should check it out.

[baptiste.manson]

I’m not an expert, but I know of 2 companies here of 20+ engineers using
freecad now and being super happy. It works and it’s fast and has
parametric modelling. Again im not an expert.

[morganwablekeene]

I'm somewhat confused as to why this hasn't already been implemented. It's preposterous. Sorting and reordering user-defined parameters should be considered part of the bare minimum of functionality for a parametric design application.

Can we please get an ETA on this? What's the deal? Like many others have said, it's been one of the more popular (and mission-critical) requests for years.

[Scoox]

Not being able to sort user parameters is frustrating. The other thing I think that I find highly counterproductive is the timeline. It's a monolithic one-dimensional list of every action. As soon as a design grows in complexity, it is impossible to keep track of things in the timeline. If I create, say, a screw, I would like the screw to have its own self-contained environment with its own mini timeline—all contained in one folder, neatly hidden from view when no longer needed (and yes, timeline groups are the second worst feature in F360). Currently the suggested workflow is to create the component outside the project and import it, but this workflow is inconvenient, mainly because it relies on cloud storage which is slow and requires users to "get latest" manually. Duh. The "file explorer" is slow, clunky and too basic. The UX just keeps getting worse. Fusion 360 updates itself every now and then but I don't see any tangible improvement. What good are all the new fancy features when you can't get the basics right?? This is too frustrating.