Tons of components, unjointed, need to join in rigid 'as built' quickly

[drew]

f3d file attached.

The project has to main 'parts', the center section of a stage set, and a set of stairs that is hinged to that centre section.

(Some of you have already seen parts of this here in the forum as I have learned to do different parts of it)

Please look at the Stairs.

Right now it is a slightly sloppy data structure - I will resolve some of that today.

And I *KNOW* I did some of this wrong. I *KNOW* I have too many references, too many things at too high a level of structure, etc etc. I will do better on all that in FUTURE designs. It would take too much time to fix all of what wasn;t done right in this one, and I have a deadline to meet to provide useful drawings to a person who needs them. Just can't go back to do all that.

Anyway:

All those components need to be jointed, "as built, rigid".

Only exceptions being the wheels on the underside, which need a rigid joint from wheel plate to stairs - but I'll need to define a rotating joint or two on the casters themselves.

So far, all I can do is to create joints between two objects at a time, and that process is multiple clicks and delays as the joint 'animates' to show me it did the joint.

This is going to take HOURS if I do all of them one joint at a time like this.

Is there ANY way to speed this up?

I can't select all of them and tell Fusion to create rigid joints. I tried, and it just randomly picks two components and joins them - nothing else is done.

Really hoping you all can tell me how to do this with any efficiency.

Thanks!

[SaeedHamza]

Hi,

The best thing to speed things up is to apply 1 joint and then select the components used for the joint and then copy and paste them

that will give you a new one with the same joint moving on it's own

Regards, Saeed

[Anonymous]

Can you not just select all the ones you want to join and select "Rigid Group"?

[drew]

Not sure if I can " just select all the ones you want to join and select "Rigid Group"".

Does that create joints where all selected components touch each other?

Or does it just make them a group that stays together, but does not have joints at each contact surface?

I don't know what the difference IS or MIGHT BE between components that have been "Jointed" and "Rigid Grouped". 

Fusion is a bottomless well of terminology that doesn't fit how I use words, so it is NOT safe for me to assume *anything* based on the Fusion name for a particular action.

[Anonymous]

@drew I am very new to Fusion too (from Solidworks) but my understanding is it's in line with the second group - Fusion creates a "rigid" group that stay together based on their relative absolute position to one another. They don't even have to touch. In this way there's one joint (or constraint/mate) instead of the usual 3 or 4. But it sounds like that's all you need for your assembly.

[drew]

Thanks Saeed, but that suggestion would ask me to re-do the whole thing and do this as I built it.

I'll definitely take that in for future projects, but it isn't a solution to the *current* situation of my many many unjointed components and not a lot of time.

[drew]

Weird posting glitch. This was same comment as below. Edited to make it go away

[drew]

Good to hear, Matt - but I am hoping that one of the deeply experienced folks in the forums will chime in with a definitive on actually getting joints made before I do this and move forward with the design.

Terrified of doing it and then having to blow away massive amounts of time in the timeline between that and wherever I am when I find out that the two ways to lock stuff together are not compatible with other things I need to do.

[SaeedHamza]

Hi drew,

Check this screencast please

Regards

[TrippyLighting]

Well, the question would really be: What are these other things you need to do ?

How much do you still have to do on this design ?

Rigid Group functions as advertised. If you select the root of the browser, right-click on it and select rigid group your entire assembly will be rigid grouped.

[drew · Accepted solution]

ANSWER:

As of May 2017, you cannot perform 'as built' joints on more than two components at a time.

Joints must be added one at a time (between two components at a time).

The "Rigid Group" method suggested in this thread will work as an approximation of a mass joining command, but it is NOT actually creating any joints.

If your design requires actual joints, you must make them as you create the components, as you duplicate the components, or post-facto after you have placed components where they belong.

@SaeedHamza and @TrippyLighting - thank you for the tip-off about rigid grouping. It did the trick, but I really wish I could have added real joints.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

thank you for the tip-off about rigid grouping. It did the trick, but I really wish I could have added real joints.

---

What do you imagine is the difference between a single RigidGroup and an As-Built joint that somehow applies to many components??  There is NO functional difference!

Regards,

Ray L.

[Anonymous]

I agree with @Anonymous and @TrippyLighting - this is effectively the same thing. I think you're getting caught up in semantics.. Both prevent the components from moving relative to one another. It is a "real joint"

[drew]

Hi jagboy2013-

The difference is that all the components in a rigid group are locked *together as a group*, and the connections between any two components cannot be 'undone' without 'undo-ing' the entire group.

That introduces the challenge of having a large number of "free moving" components once you 'un-rigid group' the group. 

When I am working on something with a whole lot of parts (components) that interconnect/overlap/contact, it is altogether too easy for me to accidentally move something and not even know I moved it. Yes, it has happened a number of times. I only find out much later on, when I get interferences or gaps where I was **** sure I lined everything up properly. I've even accidentally changed the base profile a part was extruded from... which had interesting results...

So that functional difference isn't about how all the components behave/move once they are 'rigid grouped' or 'have all been independently jointed' - it's about what happens when you need to do something to one part deep inside an assembly and cannot accurately establish that all other components are staying still.

But yeah - using 'rigid group' allowed me to keep going with my work, so good enough for now.

[Anonymous]

You need to learn a lot more about Rigid Groups before you rule them out.  It is obvious you have not tried them.  You can edit them exactly like any other joint.  If you want to move one piece, you can remove that one piece from the Group, and nothing else is affected.  You can move groups of pieces without losing their relative positions.  How would a single joint of ANY other kind be any different?

Regards,

Ray L.

[Anonymous]

Again.. @Anonymous is right. Plus you shouldn't be worried about parts moving without you knowing - Fusion will capture the movement of any parts in the feature tree. This was one of the main things I had to get my head around. In Solidworks you can move stuff anywhere, but not in Fusion.

[drew]

Yes, I really DO need to learn a lot more. ... About rigid groups and tons of other stuff in Fusion!

That I can remove one component at a time from the group is new to me, so awesome and thanks.

I did use a 'rigid group' to lock the relative positions of a large collection of unjointed components, and it worked to allow me to hinge that rigid-grouped set to another assembly that was held together with joints. As I said, I get it - it works the same in effect if not in the particulars.

And as to your question "How would a single joint of ANY other kind be any different?"

I wouldn't have a CLUE!

And that's the problem, actually!

I can't find anything in the community or the plethora of videos that clearly explains the difference, if any, between them.

Underlying this particular challenge for me with rigid group vs. joint is that Fusion has a really large array of names for the many "types of relationships between things". I find it impossible to keep track of them all in my head, so must rely on constantly referencing web pages or that awesome intro doc that Peter and Jeff made for a class they taught.

I have found that if I *assume* that something is true about what Fusion is doing behind the scenes I can and often AM disastrously wrong.

So, again - I wouldn't have a clue what IS different between a 'rigid group' bond and a 'rigid joint' bond between two things.

I just cannot feel comfortable *assuming that they are the same*, and since Fusion uses two distinct names for these types of bonds the difference in naming makes me even less likely to think that bonds inside a rigid group are actually just joints by another name.

[Anonymous]

The difference is a Rigid Joint binds two components to each other, while a Rigid Group binds an arbitrary number of components to each other.  Functionally, that is all you need to know.  What Fusion is doing "behind the scenes" to implement those two features is completely irrelevant.

Regards,

Ray L.

[drew]

LOL - "What are these other things you need to do ?"

Well, I needed to hinge the 'rigid group' onto another assembly, then look for problems. I knew I would have to change a couple of components within the rigid group, but could not completely predict what else I might find out about how all of it (the three main assemblies all interacting) looked and worked.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't yet know what what I don't know yet... if you take my meaning? 

In any event, I carried on and got it all together by using the 'rigid group' technique. So it worked out OK.

_______

My paranoia about using the inappropriate way to 'make things stay stuck to each other' is because I have repeatedly used BAD assumptions about the future implications of 'relationship type' choices.  

I've learned now that it just isn't safe to make any assumptions because it might be a long time until that assumption bites me in the butt, so I ask here in the community - even when people think I'm being overly concerned about it.