The difference between Copy/Paste and Copy/PasteNEW

[RogerInHawaii]

I need some clarification on the difference between Copy/Paste and Copy/PasteNEW.

When you do a Copy/Paste the copy that you end up with is identical to the original but is, kind of behind the scenes, "linked" to the underlying definition of the object. A side effect of that is that, no matter which one you might later make some change to BOTH the original and the copy get changed, and that's because you're actually making a change to that common, underlying definition. RIGHT?

But when you do a Copy/PasteNEW what you get is a full and complete copy of the original, INCLUDING a copy of that underlying definition. The original and the copy are NOT linked by a common definition. And if you make a change to either the original or the copy the change only applies to the one that you changed, the other one remains unchanged. RIGHT?

BUT!  TIMELINE !!

Now, if you have an original and a subsequently-created copy which is created with a Copy/PasteNEW operation, and sometime after that go back and make a change to the ORIGINAL such as editing some Sketch that it was based on then, because you effectively went BACK IN THE TIMELINE to do the change, when the model gets re-drawn it will first redraw the changed original and when it gets to the subsequent Copy/PasteNEW operation in the timeline it will Copy/PasteNEW that CHANGED original, meaning that, at that point in the timeline, the copy will indeed be identical to that changed original? RIGHT?

The reason I ask is because I'm doing exactly that last-described series of operations and the copied object does NOT seem to be incorporating the changes that were made to the original. Rather, it sill looks like the one created by the first, unchanged, version of the original.

[HughesTooling]

Paste new creates a totally independent copy no link to the original at all, none. The copy does not know it's a copy, no history to the copy so changes before the copy don't propagate. The way paste new works is useful and the way poste works is as well, what you want is a derived copy.

For a derived copy, what I do is use Boundary Fill set to new component to create a copy. The copy will work like you want, roll the timeline before the boundary fill and make modification to the original will propagate to the copy, mods after boundary fill will be independent. You could just copy the body into a new component instead of using boundary fill but the copy can break and there's no way to fix a broken copy.

Mark

[RogerInHawaii]

I would swear that, a few months back, someone in the forum discussed Copy/Paste and Copy/PasteNew and said that each one is indeed a form of linkage between the original and the copy, with Copy/Paste being a link to an underlying description and Copy/PasteNEW being a timeline type of linkage such that a change made to the original, back in the timeline where the original was initially made, would indeed propagate time-wise into the PasteNEW copy. So, for example, you could select to edit the Sketch that was initially used to create the original. That would roll the timeline back to right after the Sketch object in the timeline, you'd do your edits to it, and when done it would effectively re-run the timeline from that point up to the end, such that the PasteNEW would get re-done and thereby incorporate  the changes that had been made to the original sketch.

But now that appears not to be the case. 😞 Yet I've got dozens and dozens of both Pastes and Paste/NEWs that I really need to change (basically a minor change to the Sketch used on the original Component) but even i f I make the change back in the timeline where the Sketch was made, it will have no effect on the Paste/NEW-created components. [ sigh ]

You mentioned using Boundary Fill to accomplish what I had expected PasteNEW to do, but after just now having viewed a few videos on Boundary Fill, I don't see how it accomplishes that. Boundary Fill is used for creating a body out of Faces. How is that related to creating a "derived copy"?

Maybe there needs to be THREE types of Copies:

Paste for explicitly linked copies,

PasteNEW for a copy that gets created but has no link either via an underlying definition nor a time-line type link,

and

PasteDERIVED for a copy that's linked to the original but which can also have unique modifications to it. There would definitely need to be limitations on this type because you could conceivably make changes to the original that would make impossible some of the unique changes that had been made to the copy, like eliminating a Face from the original that is used as a plane for a new sketch in the copy. But that might be not much different from situations in which you attempt to delete something and you get a warning that "something further down the timeline depends on that".

[HughesTooling]

Have you just tried out boundary? Create a component with a body, when the component is at a stage you want to derive a copy run boundary fill, set it to New Component, select the body then select the cell, there should only be one and OK.

Yes there could be 3 types of copy but 2 seems to confuse most people so not sure. I only use boundary file because  a copy created using the copy command can not be edited or fixed if an edit breaks it.

Your third option of a derived copy is basically automating copying a body into a component and what boundary fill does is pretty much doing.

As for going back to your old designs, I'm afraid once a copy has been made that's it no way to make independent later. Same goes for Paste New, once created that's it, if it's just dimensional changes you could edit the sketches and link the dimensions so updating one updates the other\s but that all.

Really what's needed is configuration. One day we'll get them but if you really need them you'll need to move on to something like Inventor.

Mark

[chrisplyler]

Boundary Fill has it's weakness though. The new Component created by it will not have the Sketch(s) and Construction item(s) that might be contained in the source Component. Sometimes that's no problem, sometimes it is. Just depends on what you expect to do with it.

[HughesTooling]

If you want that then why not just use Paste New. Until Fusion gets some kind of configurations for components the 3 versions of creating a copy component are what we have to live with and use your judgement on what works for the design you're working on. Wish they'd fix copy so you could reselect the source body so I didn't have to use Boundary Fill or give Create Components From Bodies the option to make a copy of a body. 

Even if you had some sort of magic Copy\Paste New that had history from the source component you'd only need to edit a sketch and remove or add a few lines\curves and it would all fall apart and any history between the copies would be broken. I used to use Alibre that had configurations, probably didn't use them often enough but you could get in a real mess locking and unlocking features in a configuration. You had the option for some features to be unlocked and independently editable some were locked together, think you had to unlock a feature in the active component to edit then lock again or other configurations could edit what you thought was locked! Adding features was fun as well, they could be active in some configuration and suppressed in others so you'd need to unlock all the configurations you wanted to add a feature to. Starting to understand why we're waiting for them to be implemented in Fusion now I've written that down.

Actually find Fusion's copies less confusing and do what I need one way or another.

Mark

[chrisplyler]

---

@HughesTooling wrote:

If you want that then why not just use Paste New.

---

Well, because using Boundary Fill does help solve the OP's issue. I just want him to understand the results.

[jeff_strater]

@RogerInHawaii - regarding this:  "I would swear that, a few months back, someone in the forum discussed Copy/Paste and Copy/PasteNew and said that each one is indeed a form of linkage between the original and the copy, with Copy/Paste being a link to an underlying description and Copy/PasteNEW being a timeline type of linkage such that a change made to the original, back in the timeline where the original was initially made, would indeed propagate time-wise into the PasteNEW copy. "

I suspect I know what might have caused this confusion.  There are several operations where this kind of "timeline linkage", as you describe it does exist, it just doesn't exist for normal component instance Copy/Paste.  One is Component Mirror, another is Body Copy/Paste.  See the screencast below. I first show the behavior for Mirror Component, then for Body Copy/Paste.  If you add a feature after the Mirror or Copy/Paste Body feature, it will only affect the geometry selected.  If you add it before the Mirror or Copy/Paste, then the mirror/copy will also be affected.  This is because the mirror/copy is itself a timeline item which computes after the new feature.

Screencast will be displayed here after you click Post.

599947f4-74da-43ef-b8b4-28bfca9e395a

[edgemarston]

---

@HughesTooling wrote:

Paste new creates a totally independent copy no link to the original at all, none. The copy does not know it's a copy, no history to the copy so changes before the copy don't propagate. The way paste new works is useful and the way poste works is as well, what you want is a derived copy.

For a derived copy, what I do is use Boundary Fill set to new component to create a copy. The copy will work like you want, roll the timeline before the boundary fill and make modification to the original will propagate to the copy, mods after boundary fill will be independent. You could just copy the body into a new component instead of using boundary fill but the copy can break and there's no way to fix a broken copy.

Mark

---

Just want to say, this discussion on repurposing Boundary Fill is blowing my mind. I've wasted so much time trying to paste bodies to make derived components from them, and it always causes super weird, buggy, and counterintuitive behavior, with all sorts of errors and broken timelines. I gave it a quick test and Boundary Fill appears to work way better.

@jeff_strater, It took me ages to figure out the right way to use Paste New for components. That's extremely important functionality, and I think it's a big mistake that Autodesk has hidden it away in a right-click menu. I think it would be a big usability improvement to add the paste new function for components to the CREATE and/or ASSEMBLE menus. One option could be to have a right arrow next to the New Component function (like how Pattern works, as well as a lot of the sketch commands), and then have the two options be From Scratch and Copy Existing. Or something like that.