Should Component Geometry depend on another Component?

[emphacy]

Hopefully the title is fairly descriptive here, but I'm somewhat confused as to when I really need a bunch of bodies and when I really need a bunch of components.

Let's say I'm designing something to be 3D printed. The design has no moving parts (hence no joints), but each part is mounted to the other part via bolts. Each part is therefore separate, but not completely independent as the geometry of all parts are closely related, if not completely shared (e.g. hole size and position in part A must match that in part B).

It's possible to place a sketch plane for component X onto component Y, utilising the geometry of Y to create X, but that seems odd because I feel that a component should be something self-contained, and independent of another component (like a gear, a spring or a bushing) Having said that, the whole design is made of individual parts, which are ultimately going to be assembled, so maybe I need an assembly of components.

So, you see the dilemma, or maybe that's just me. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Thanks! - Tom

[Beyondforce]

Hi @emphacy ,

Before I can answer your question, do you know the difference between a Body and a Component?

Cheers / Ben
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you find this reply helpful? If so please use the Accept as Solution or Kudos button below.

Check out my YouTube channel: Fusion 360: NewbiesPlus

[emphacy]

Hi @Beyondforce. I understand the following facts about bodies and components:

Bodies:

• A body is a single contiguous piece of 3D geometry.
• A body cannot have joints.
• All bodies in a component share the same world space.
• A single body can be constructed by combining multiple individual bodies.
• A body may be copied and modified without affecting the original body.

Components:

• A component is a container for sketches, bodies, other components and design history.
• Components can have joints.
• Components have their own world space.
• A component may be copied but changes to it may affect all other components (depending on copy method).

Yet knowing that information doesn't really answer my question. All of the parts in this design are static and fit together in only one way, so there's no requirement for joints or separate world spaces.

[TheCADWhisperer]

All depends.

On your Design Intent.

[Beyondforce]

So, a Component = a Part and everything that inside that component is belong to it!

Now, if you want to re-use an element from component A in component B, then you can "Project" it.

You can Project and keep the connection or you can Project without keeping the connection.

If you Project with a connection, then if something change with A will automatically will affect B.

If you need more help, then you will have to be more specific and add the file as well, so we can much better understand what exactly you are trying to do.

You can check out my YouTube channel to learn about Techniques.

Cheers / Ben.

[chrisplyler · Accepted solution]

Each item that can be considered a separate part prior to assembly should be a Component.

If something about one Component is dependent upon something about another Component, you can establish that dependency by some Projected sketch elements from the first one into the second one, or by each of them using the same User Parameter, or maybe by having a common Sketch further up the Project Browser hierarchy that they both are built from.

Here is an example of the third method I mentioned. In this example, the four corners of the tray will be 3D printer separately and assembled together. So it makes sense to have four Components within the top hierarchy, basically making the top hierarchy item an Assembly containing those four Components. And since each of them must match the others either in width or length, it makes sense to drive them all with one common Sketch, which I placed further up in the Assembly instead of in any one of the individual Components.

Just food for thought.

[TrippyLighting · Accepted solution]

If you build more complex things comprised of many discrete parts and also involve imported geometry then you'll have to work with components. Each Fusion 360 file/design is a component in itself.

You cannot generate a Bill of Materials from bodies only, for example

For your 3D printing use case it comes down to a matter of how to manage complexity. If you've only got a hand full of parts, these might also just be separate bodies, provided you can still navigate the timeline and determine which feature created/modified what body. Working with components greatly helps to organize and navigate an ever growing timeline. Based on your posts so far I am assuming you have familiarized yourself with Fusion 360's R.U.L.E #1.

I personally prefer to work with components, even if there are only a few. In my experience designs even if they start out simple, quickly can get complex and be comprised of very many timeline features because one tends to underestimate how many of those it takes when starting with a design.

[g-andresen]

Hi,

Please follow the forum rules and remove the advertisements.

günther