Remove Joint feature - feature requst

[khokeson]

If Joints are a feature in the Timeline (which I would argue doesn't make sense), then should there be a Remove Joint feature similar to the Remove Bodies feature?

Case in point - I have components that are still being developed, I join Component A with Component B, I build out some new features on Component A, which reference Component B. This instigates a position change on Component B, but if I delete the joint, I lose the reference which defined the features. This is basically the same use case as multiple bodies.

Alternatively, joints just shouldn't be in the timeline. If I redefine features to which a joint is mated, it should recognize if those features have changed, and prompt me to reassociate the joint features. 

[Drewpan]

Hi,

It sounds to me that you have a problem with standards and that maybe you should be using configurations in your

designs. I understand that you may be developing the different parts still, but I find it strange that you are going

back and seemingly throwing away a design that you are not happy with and trying again. I don't know what you

are designing but it is common to make changes to a design but a major design change really should be managed

with a configuration, partly to avoid what you are describing, ie things breaking because of the changes. If the

changes are minor then a standard joint should not break.

This leads to standards. It doesn't matter if an individual or different design teams develop the parts, there should

always be robust standards at the interfaces that include measurements, clearances and geometric limits. If one

part breaks the standard at an interface then it will almost certainly lead to issues that you describe that breaks

the joints.

I disagree that joints should not be in the timeline. Joints just don't simply exist they can also be modified. An

example might be changing joint limits to accommodate a clearance. The fact that they don't ask me to update and

re-associate each and every time saves me time and effort. I think that this particular request is a workflow

preference that works fine for you but may not be suitable for the majority of users. Maybe it could be a setup

option the devs might consider. Joints are operations that are in the timeline to specifically roll back and forth to

use the timeline to go back and forth in time and is one of the features that makes fusion so powerful.

Cheers

Andrew

[khokeson]

---

---

I find it strange that you are going back and seemingly throwing away a design that you are not happy 

---

That's not at all what I am a saying. You may use a joint to position a component (Component A), then use that component at that stage in time to develop features on another component (Component B). Now you wish to mate Component A in a different location for whatever reason, it really doesn't matter. If I delete the joint, it messes up the history, I lose a bunch of references, things break.

Just like with multi-body operations. You may use a body as a tool to create features through things like boolean unions. When you are done, you likely want to get rid of this body - again for whatever reason, that doesn't matter. There's a difference between delete (which deletes the feature that created the body), and Remove, which recognizes that you still want all the features that happened since creating the body, and thus adds a new feature to remove the body, preserving the history.

If Fusion insists on making Joints features (which is atypical, I've never seen another CAD that does it that way), then you should be able Remove Joint as a feature, thus preserving all the history that has happened since creating the joint, but removing the joint so you can go do fun stuff with that component again.

[g-andresen]

Hi,

Please demonstrate such a process in a screencast for a better understanding.

günther