Trouble Creating Joints

[ben.ruppel]

I have previously struggled with joints in Fusion.  I thought I had it figured out, I made notes and a workflow, now a few months later I'm stuck.

Workflow: 

1) new design

2) save design as JointTest

3) right click on "JointTest" and select "New Component"

4) leave default settings:  name of "Component1", Standard, Internal, Activate

5) ensure that Component1 is activated with the circle next to its name in the tree view.

6) in the Solid section of the Ribbon select "Create -> Box"

7) click on a plane (I use xy), drag a rectangle, and perform a pull operation to create a 3d box.  Press Enter to complete.

Now, I would like to align one edge of my box to the y-axis of the assembly (by which, I mean the origin that is not contained in a component.  The "root" of the file.)  After that, I would like to align a face of the box with the xy origin plane of the "assembly". 

I have tried many different things.  There are a ton of variables that may be impacting this operation, which is why I am turning to the forum.  

In my previous notes I thought I had uncovered a huge cognitive disconnect between what I expect (from mates in other software) and how joints actually work.  I think I had previously gotten away by (in the "Joint" dialog box) selecting an item for "component 1", clicking in blank space on the drawing, and hitting OK.   Then I could create a relationship between two joints made this way.  This process doesn't work now, so maybe I was using a bug or I never really understood the system.  

I have created a public link to my simple example file.  Thank you!

https://a360.co/30QV5bh

The user guide info for joints is just a hair shy of what I need to understand them (it doesn't help that it focuses on a cylindrical example while I work with planar relationships 99% of the time), and I am even walking away from Youtuber guides without an understanding.

[davebYYPCU]

Join any snap point you wish to use on a portion of your box,

to the origin., using the joint type for how many degrees of freedom you wish to release.

Might help...

[laughingcreek]

Ok, a lot to unpack here.  I'm willing to have another go if you are.  but first-

your attributing a lot to me that I simple just didn't say.

I would be laughed right off these forums if I said Fusion was superior to Solid Works.  A lot of us (my self included) have experience with solid works and have used it professionally at one time or another.  I (and probably others) use fusion because, and ONLY because-

1-way, way, way, cheaper

2-does what I need GOOD ENOUGH.   Not better than solid works, and not even as well in many cases.  But good enough.

I didn't ask you WHY once.  Not a single time.  Didn't even imply it.

I DID try to communicate, even if it wasn't clear, is that thinking in terms of solid works won't always work in fusion.  fusion doesn't have a concept of mates.  trying to do it like you would in solid works is just going to be frustrating, b/c fusion doesn't do things the same.  Doesn't mean you can't get there from here, but gotta know where the your trying to go since it's a different road.

The last time I said "to answer your last question" and then literally repeated your last question, you bashed me.  But I'll risk it again.  In this last post you asked-

I am asking how to align a Z-axis edge of the box to the Y-axis.

there are 2 conditions

1-if we are talking about BODIES, then the best answer (but not the only answer) is to build it there in the first place and not move it

2-if we are talking about components, then the ONLY answer is to use a joint.  

[ritste20]

Okay, I'm gonna try and come at this from a different angle (pun intended).

In many CAD packages, mates and constraints work by restricting degrees of freedom between two bodies, some more than others but the general idea is remove all the options for free movement except the ones you want to keep. Because of this philosophy, you can often end up with multiple types of mates/constraints to achieve the end goal of a lot, a little, or no movement at all.

Fusion may achieve the same goal in the end but you have to take a slightly different philosophical approach to apply joints. Instead of restricting degrees of freedom through the process of elimination, joints allow you to define the intended motion which as a by-product fixes all the additional degrees of freedom in relation to the joint origin. This can reduce the number of mates/constraints required to achieve the same outcome. Which brings me to one of the big differences with how Fusion operates. 

Joint Origins

A joint origin is a known vertex on a body (snap points at the vertices, midpoints of edges, and center points of faces) in relation to a known vertex on a second body. As I tried to explain in my earlier response:

"The symbol that highlights over the snap points during geometry selection indicates the x-axis of the joint origin with the line through the center of the circle (not to be confused with the part/assembly origin). By extension, the z-axis would be coming up out of the center of that origin designator."  It's important to consider the placement of the joint origin prior to placing it because this will have a direct correlation to how the pre-defined joint types will react to driving/animating its function. For example, a rigid joint only allows a fixed rotational offset about the z-axis of the joint origin so this will dictate which vertex to select for the desired outcome.

I suggest making an assembly with 2 random parts like 2 boxes and experiment with the different types of joints to get a firm grasp on how each one operates as well as what kind of manipulation is allowed during joint creation and manipulation after placement (click and drag behavior)... They are not always the same during and after.

Refer back to the screenshots in my previous explanation and maybe this will make more sense.

Regards,