Use Move/Copy to do most of what mirroring does

[brady5acct]

I'm using Fusion to design a woodworking project and get an accurate parts list from it. Using mirroring to create a duplicate across a plane messes up a parts list. Youtube videos suggest using Move/Copy and then Paste to create the duplicate. This works except the copy isn't flipped like mirroring would do. Think of a body that has an A and a B side with the B side facing to the right. With mirroring, the B side would be facing to the left after the mirror operation. With the Move/Copy/Paste the B side is still facing to the right. I know with a bunch of probably suboptimal steps I could get the copy facing the way I want but I'm wondering what the least amount of steps would be to get it facing the right way and equidistant from some central plane. Got any suggestions?

Thanks,

Rich

[Drewpan]

Hi,

While move copy exists it is not a very good way to model. In fact you should avoid using it where possible because of

some unintended issues resulting. A warning about YouTube videos about fusion - not everyone knows what they are

doing on YouTube. Some of the advice I have seen would make the average designer go Postal.

If you could export your file to fd3 and attach it to a message it will help us help you. Without seeing the file it is not

always obvious what the problem is.

Ok, some advice to help out. Fusion works best with using joints and joints in place to connect parts and assemblies.

By using joints you are associating geometry with geometry that fusion can calculate, This may be part of your

problem here. The issue with your parts list may also be because you may not be using assemblies that group parts

together.

Using the mirror command is definitely the correct workflow to use when you are dealing with symetry in general. You

have already discovered why.

I would suggest that if you design each part, either at the origin and use a joint to connect it or in place, then use the

mirror command this will help to start. If you have multiple parts then create an assembly as this will group the

parts together and so when you mirror them then the whole group will be mirrored and you parts list will reflect it.

I don't know how much experience you have with CAD or modelling software in general, but I would strongly advise

having a look at RULE #0, #1 and #2 and work through the embedded tutorials in the documentation and also have a

look at the Self Paced Learning provided by AutoDesk. It will give you an excellent base and understanding about how

fusion works and should be used. The AutoDesk and Fusion YouTube channels also have some very good tutorials.

Post your file for us to have a look at and the forum can probably help you out.

Cheers

Andrew

[brady5acct]

Thanks for replying. I fully understand the value of mirroring.  I've been modeling for 2-3 years now with Fusion for my 200+ 3D printing projects (which I never needed parts lists for) and recently started using it for woodworking. I try to do mirroring as much as possible. Unfortunately, where parts lists are concerned, they seem to create less than desirable part count totals. I know you said to be careful regarding Youtube videos but I'll use one instead of pasting my model in here for now. Check out this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJlrGcBMHJI . Starting at 2:02, and especially 2:22-2:52, you'll hear that creating duplicates via mirroring means they will show up as SEPARATE parts in a parts list - so instead of seeing 4 of something in the list you might see 2 of something and then 2 more of something that is basically the same as the first 2 but treated as a different part. 

I hope everybody who reads this and comments doesn't say anything about the video poster. I appreciate people like him helping people out with their videos. Please just comment on how I might use Move/Copy/Paste to do what mirroring does - create a copy of an item, reflected across a plane, equidistant from the plane.

Thanks in advance,

Rich

[Drewpan]

Hi,

If you could export your file so we can look at it we can help you more.

I have watched the video and I agree that the author is good at teaching, however it is also obvious that he is not

trained to design like an engineer, he is designing as a wood worker. This difference in thinking is what is causing

a few issues. He isn't doing anything wrong, just thinking different.

The first thing that jumped out at me in the video is that he grouped his parts but there wasn't an assembly in sight.

It was obvious that he has created the parts in groups as if he was building it. That is not how we usually go about

designing. He actually told you the better way to do the design by using patterns and then ignored it. He would not

have ended up with the mirror problem had he used a pattern instead, OR if he mirrored the SKETCH and then

extruded then used a circular pattern to get the bolts in the right place.

An engineer or designer would be looking for symetry and using it in the design. This cuts down the workload as you

only have to do things once and not repeat yourself as he did with his angle irons. The issue he had was that the bolt

holes were in the wrong place that could have easily been fixed using a pattern tool.

An engineer or designer also would be splitting the design into smaller chunks by using assemblies and

sub- assemblies, which are groups of parts (or components). This also simplifies the drawings considerably as you can

also group things much more easily instead of clicking on many components to select them.

As an example. I would treat the basic frame with the angle irons at each corner as an assembly, and I would treat the

walls on each side and the ends as sub-assemblies. They would then be nicely grouped and I could select each group

individually or as a whole with a few mouse clicks. Doing it this way would also allow me to get my parts list a little

more flexibility as I am using groups not individual parts. I could still create it the way he did, but I could also create it

other ways too.

In terms of Move/Copy/Paste to create the side boards and the floor of the planing box - DON'T. The best way to create

these is definitely with the rectangular pattern tool. You end up with a bunch of individual parts like he does, but

unlike him, if you edit the first one then ALL of the patterned parts will change. If you do it his way, if you move the

bolt in the first one and then copy paste it it will not necessarily inherit the change.

Also, if you are going to use copy/paste then you should be using Joints to put them where they need to be and NOT

placing them by hand. There is no precision in doing it this way. Sure it can be done but it is definitely the hard way.

You always want to work smart not hard.

Drop a copy of your file here and I am sure we can help put you on the right track.

Cheers

Andrew

[TrippyLighting]

If you can share a design, we can demonstrate different techniques.

The design in the video does not require any move/copy operations. It is symmetric about 2 axes, so if the design is centered around the origin, then a single circular pattern can achieve what you are looking for. 

I note that the design in the video is not properly assembled. That is a step that you should never omit!

I feel I need to add that, at this point in time, mirroring and patterning are functionalities that would need a pretty significant update for Fusion to compete with other CAD tools. This particular issue is a total non-issue in SolidWorks, where you can mirror components and entire assemblies to your heart's content without interference with a parts list.

[brady5acct]

Ok, I created a representative sample of my project. The sample has a base and two sides. The parts that are copies of each other were created with mirroring. One of the RAILs on the first side was created by mirroring and the whole other side was created with mirroring. I'll see if I can also attach the drawing I created from the model. When you look at the drawing you'll see there are 4 RAIL categories in the Parts List where I would have hoped for 1. You'll also see 2 BACKSTILE categories where I would have hoped for 1 and 2 FRONTSTILE categories where I would have hoped for 1. In summary, I hoped for: BACKSTILE: Qty 2, FRONTSTILE: Qty2 and RAIL: Qty 4. All the "extra categories are due to mirroring. Fusion thinks they are different parts but they aren't. The Youtube video posters, using Move/Copy/Paste instead of mirroring get the Parts Lists looking better. My parts list is small, imagine how much duplication would be in the parts list if it was a whole piece of furniture. I'm all ears if there's a better way than Move/Copy/Paste in Fusion to get nice parts lists.

Thanks in advance,

Rich

[jeff_strater]

here is how I would approach this.   First, I rolled back before the Mirror features, but you could delete them.

1. First, ground the base
2. use As-Built Joint to create rigid joints between the Base and the BackStile and FrontStile components (could be a single rigid group)
3. then, create a second instance of "Rail" inside of the "Side" component
4. position that using a Joint, selecting the correct snap points (using Flip to get it in the right position)
5. Create a second instance of the "Side" assembly using Copy/Paste
6. use another Rigid Joint to position the second Side instance.  Use 5mm offsets to position it relative to the selected geometry

Now, your entire assembly is fully constrained, and will stay in place, even if the "Base" is edited to be larger or smaller.  This will not occur if you use Move to position components.  And, your BOM will be correct

I apologize for some of the fumbling around in the video.  I did not rehearse it.

[brady5acct]

Great Jeff - the video was very easy to follow. What I was missing in my knowledgebase was how joints and the offsets you can set for them help. I've used joints but not very much and never the offset fields in the joint dialog.

What I forgot to include in my test project was the fact that the inside faces of all of the members of a side were different than their respective outside faces. So when I was struggling with this prior to my posting a question I also had a need to rotate the face of the new side 180 degrees around its vertical axis so that its inside face after the copy/paste would be facing in. I think this might be easily done now with selecting the joint point with care.

I'll leave this post open for a day or so to see if the people advocating mirroring have something, and if not, mark your answer as my solution.

Thanks again Jeff !

[TrippyLighting]

---

@brady5acct wrote:

...

I'll leave this post open for a day or so to see if the people advocating mirroring have something, and if not, mark your answer as my solution.

...

---

I do NOT advocate mirroring components in Fusion for designs that need a proper component count for a BOM.

I create a lot of concept assemblies and component mirroring comes in handy for a quick-&-dirty model. I don't need drawings or parts lists for those models.

[jeff_strater]

Thanks, @brady5acct - that clarification makes sense, though it does make it harder to solve.  Part of that is:  What you want is not a sub-assembly, because you want to rotate each part independently, and that does not work with a sub-assembly.  So, the first thing I will do is to deconstruct your sub-assembly, and just work with a flat set of parts.

I turned on audio in the video below, just because the steps are a bit more involved for this one.  Hope that this helps answer your questions.

[brady5acct]

Thanks again Jeff, especially for providing something new during the late hours. I took it all in last night but wanted to dwell on it before responding. I think I led you astray with the use of the word "all" when I was talking about the inside and outside faces of the sides.

You used red to distinguish between the outside and inside faces of a side - which was perfect. You were right that the end result I was after would have the red faces on the outside of each side. I didn't mean to say anything more complex than that.

I wonder though if you were trying to make a new point that was eluding me regarding how things would end up in a parts list. I modified my test model (attached) to revert the mirroring of the rail and the side and then:

1. Made a top rail via Move/Copy/Paste and then Jointing

2. Made the outside faces of the side red.

3. Made the second side via Move/Copy/Paste - and 180 degree rotation  - and Jointing

I then made a new Drawing including a Parts List (attached). The list was better than the one I got when mirroring was involved - there were less categories involving "duplicates". The new list isn't perfect in that the reader of it still has to do some math to see exactly how many RAILs to create - but because of the Item number indenting - it isn't too hard to see that there are 2 RAILs in a Side and there are 2 Sides so the total would be 4 RAILs. I can probably live with that for my purposes but I think it could be harder if there were more assemblies that also used a RAIL and I had to find them all in a large Parts List. It'd be nice if Fusion could total anything that had the same part number.

I see how your approach to not put things that have use in multiple assemblies in an assembly would make the Parts List then be right. It's hard to think someone would often have enough forethought to do it that way. It's also a lot of mess in the browser view.

Again, thanks very much for your time and effort Jeff. Fusion is a great product.

Rich

[jeff_strater]

@brady5acct - thanks for the reply.  The one question I have about your design vs mine is:  Do you intend for these sides to be reversed like this?  That is:  the "BackStile" on one side (the one with two holes) is actually located in the front in the copy:

I had assumed that the intent was to line up the two sets of holes (maybe so that a rod could be inserted into both of those holes?), and this is why, for my design, a sub-assembly would not work, and why I flattened out the design into just a collection of parts in the top-level assembly - it allowed me to rotate the parts, and keep the front/back aligned.  If this orientation is OK, then your approach is much better, because it does indicate that it is composed of two sub-assemblies.

Re:  BOM.  I admit I am not a drawings expert, much less a BOM expert.  I know that the current Parts List is limited.  I have heard a lot of praise for this add-in:  Bommer as a more-powerful alternative.  I suspect (though I do not know this for a fact) that Bommer would be able to give you accurate part counts in your sub-assembly case.

There is one more approach here that is more complex, but does preserve the sub-assembly.  I think it will work.  If I have time and motivation tonight, I may give it a try...

[brady5acct]

Good catch Jeff  - you're right. The BackStile was mistakenly put in the front by my attempt. I see now why you did what you did in your previous reply. If only there wasn't something more like what mirroring does w/o its BOM shortcomings.

Rich

[brady5acct]

I meant "was" not "wasn't".

[jeff_strater · Accepted solution]

OK, so here is my somewhat "creative" approach:  It preserves the sub-assembly for "Side", but, by putting the joints in the top level, allows an instance of the sub-assembly to be modified independently of the other.  It's not ideal - the result is no longer fully parametric (can't change the base size).  But, it does preserve the sub-assembly and at the same time fulfills the "red side out" requirement.  I, personally, prefer my hierarchy-flattening approach, but this is an instructive insight into Fusion, if nothing else.  Result model is attached.

[brady5acct]

Creative and interesting !

I tried it for myself on the test project and succeeded. The Parts List doesn't completely totalize all of the parts - but is acceptable (to me) since it doesn't have "duplicates". You're right that its hard to say which method (this last one or your previous one that removed parts out of subassemblies) is right more often than the other one. The last one seems a little more "tricky" - not tricky hard, but tricky in that developers would be more likely to change something about it in the future because they don't expect people to use those combinations of actions that way. (I was a Software Director for lots of years before I retired and a developer before that and a person develops a nose for when things are "tricky".)

Wrapping it up, you've been a big help Jeff and I appreciate the time and thinking you've put in on it. You've given me a couple ways to solve or work-around my difficulties. No one else has suggested how mirroring could be used and still get a good Parts List so I think we can call this closed. 

Best of luck to you, Fusion and AutoDesk,

Rich

[brady5acct]

I forgot to ask: Is there a way to download the videos you posted in your replies?

Thanks,

Rich

[davebYYPCU]

I don't use Drawings and BOM is not required, but I do get an accurate Browser count - not rocket science.  

No Capture, Align, or Copy Paste required.

Make one of each Individual Component.

Jointed into place.

Rectangular Pattern the top Rail.

Circular Pattern those 4 Components.  (Inside is fixed)

Swap right front Upright to the back with Joint.

Swap left rear Upright to the front with Joint.

I was also then able to drag each group into a sub assembly but may not be needed.

Might help....

[brady5acct]

Thanks Dave.

I tried it, it works, the Parts List has accurate heirarchical counts (vs totalized counts) like the other suggested methods provided. The putting of items into subassemblies afterward is a little counterintuitive for me.

The most interesting new knowledge for me was the fact that using the circular pattern was like mirroring as far as the faces of items goes. I'll have to remember to keep that in my bag of tricks.

Thanks again,

Rich

[davebYYPCU]

Fusion is often referred to as counterintuitive but it works.
I was just visualising, Trippys statement in message 5 above.

Jeffs movies were painful.