Rigid Joint discrepancy in maintaining spacial relationships when resizing component.
yes, what @davebYYPCU said is correct. This is fully expected behavior. The entire difference between Joint and As-Built Joint is that the latter does not require you to select geometry in order to create the Rigid Joint. It assumes that the components are in the correct position at the time the command is executed. So, because changing the geometry does not change that position, the As-Built Joint cannot react to that geometry change. Regular Joints, though, because you select geometry, can "track" that geometry and respond when that geometry has moved.
Jeff Strater
Engineering Director
It appears as if the as-built joint is attaching to the other two components. When you select the second component for the as-built operation the rigid icon appears on the other two components. (The action is at the 3:01 mark)
That's looks to be a bug.
Can you confirm the components through the browser tree?
@davidpbest wrote:
I would suggest that in the As Built operation pull-down, the term "Rigid" be relabeled something like "Connected" or "Stationary" - pick something descriptive that is not "rigid". That would certainly clear up the confusion and create a meaningful distinction between the two different joint type characteristics.
There are a number of abstract concepts such as the difference between "delete" and "remove" or the "as-built joint", that do not exist in that form in other CAD systems. As such a simple relabeling does not really explain that abstraction or the behavior that you see.
In a top down design where everything is designed in place, the as built rigid joint is extremely efficient and rock-solid.
@davidpbest wrote:
I don't really understand why people keep piling on in this thread with unrelated commentary.
I responded directly to one of your statements, which I quoted in my post. How is that unrelated ?
@TrippyLighting wrote:There are a number of abstract concepts such as the difference between "delete" and "remove" or the "as-built joint", that do not exist in that form in other CAD systems.
In a top down design where everything is designed in place...
There is no concept being discussed in this thread that isn't essentially the equivalent in other history based parametric CAD systems. Bodies/Components/top-down/bottom-up/Constraints/Joints it is all the same at the logic level. Geometry is geometry. Coordinate systems are coordinate systems. Origins are origins.
Now one program might have a macro assigned to a glyph of a certain name that automates a bunch of stuff (Joints as one example) that might require more (or different) steps than in another program, but in the background they have to follow the same logic. There is no "new math" here.
Unless we are talking about t-Splines or Generative Design or converting triangular faceted mesh to b-rep, there is nothing unique about Fusion 360 compared to other CAD softwares. An understanding of geometry and logic helps get past the assigned names. That is why we do CAD rather than merely write a paragraph about our Design Intent.
If necessary, I can create a video about the original Rigid Joint question and show how it is logically the same in other CAD programs (the OP mentioned SOLIDWORKS), but unless requested - I need to get some yard work done instead while the rain has stopped for a bit.
BTW - I demonstrated top-down, bottom-up and xref of 3D CAD in AutoCAD in the last century for the interview process to secure my current position. Other than parametric history rather than direct editing, pretty much the same logic. 🤔
I think we've beating a dead horse here.
