Using Timeline to change copied components, doesn't work, WHY!?

[Beyondforce]

Hey guys,

I'm explaining the issue in the screencast:

[HughesTooling · Accepted solution]

When you use Paste New the copies are totally independent and there's no history back to the original. Really you have 3 choices just use Paste all the copies are linked, paste new the copies are totally independent or similar to what you did and copy the bodies into new empty components. With the third option after the copy you can edit the copies independently or you can roll the timeline to before the copy, edit the original and it will propagate into the copies when you roll the timeline to the end again.

Mark

[Beyondforce]

Thanks Mark,

I understand what you mean, but still, theoretically it should have worked. Because, when I move the timeline forward, it should have checked if something changed to the original component and propagate it to the copied components, after all, they are an exact copy of the original, like with the bodies. Connection or no connection!
But, for some reason, if it's a component, it ignores everything.

Honestly, I don't understand why the dev team program it like that! But it is, what it is 🙂

Thanks.

[kb9ydn]

I agree with @Beyondforce, this does break the concept of the timeline.  What's happening is that when you do a paste new command, it does two things:  first it creates a new component, then it copies the contents of the original component into the new component.  What you get in the main timeline is a new component command and copies of all the copied features.  What you DON'T get is the actual copy operation itself, which means that once the copy is made it's too late to make any changes, even if you roll back the timeline.  The copying of the contents of the original component to the new component doesn't get repeated because there is no timeline entry for that action.

Now I don't know if there is a specific reason it was done this way but I do think it is an inconsistency in how the timeline works.  It would be interesting to get Autodesk's input on this.

C|

[HughesTooling]

I guess you need 3 different types of copy because the way it works now is the most useful for me, using the first component as a template with no history to the copies. The way @Beyondforce would like it to work I'd find useful occasionally making mould tools where you want the copy updating. And the straight copy\paste where you want identical copies. There was some talk about configurations, I don't know if that would give you my first 2 examples of copy. I've used configurations in other solid modelers and you could get in quite a mess setting what updates and what was independent, that was probably down to not using them enough though.

Mark

[kb9ydn]

---

@HughesTooling wrote:

I guess you need 3 different types of copy because the way it works now is the most useful for me, using the first component as a template with no history to the copies. The way @Beyondforce would like it to work I'd find useful occasionally making mould tools where you want the copy updating. And the straight copy\paste where you want identical copies. There was some talk about configurations, I don't know if that would give you my first 2 examples of copy. I've used configurations in other solid modelers and you could get in quite a mess setting what updates and what was independent, that was probably down to not using them enough though.

Mark

---

Personally I have a rather strong dislike for the timeline at the assembly level (in any form), so to me it makes sense that once you make an independent copy it's done and that's that.  However I don't like inconsistency either.  If we're going to have a timeline then make sure it includes everything.

I use configurations in SWX all the time and they are incredibly useful.  How that's going to work in Fusion with the timeline concept I have no idea.  But I do know that it hurts my head just thinking about it. 

C|

[Beyondforce]

@kb9ydn and @HughesTooling,

I don't understand why History is such a bad thing. If you don't need it, then clean it with the Do not capture...

I'm curious, how can it affect negatively on your work? @HughesTooling, how is that a bad thing for you, when you copy paste a component?

I would rather have it and not use it, than need to use it and not have!

Ben.

[TrippyLighting]

When you copy/paste (instead of copy/paste-new) you create instances of one and the same component. You can edit any of the instances, but what that really means is that you edit only one set of data, which is basicaly created when you create that first component int the timeline. So in a way when editing an instance you are travelling back in time. Similarly to when you are editing a sketch, you are travelling back in time to the point of creation of the sketch. Same principle.

When you use copy/paste-new you create independent stets of new data at different points in the timeline.

When you copy a body from one component into a new component you are also creating an instance of that body with only one dataset existing. When you are editing the body in the second component you are adding additional features to that body so you add data to that original data set, but you are still maintaining that original data set. If you want to edit that origimal data set, you have to travel back in time.

I find that to be thought out very well and you can mix and match these methods.

It also maintains the timeline concept.

[HughesTooling]

Lets say I'm making bolster plates for a mould tool, they all have holes on the same centres, but the holes are different in all the plates, some taped some counterbored. The cavity plates will have waterways. Now I like to keep the timeline as clean as possible so all the features for one component are in one block not scattered along the timeline randomly if I roll the timeline back to the first component and add waterways I don't want them in any of the other components so I need a way to make copies that are only liked by parameters driving the size and position of the holes anything more would mean having to design every component from scratch. So like I said maybe you need 3 different types of paste.

Mark

[Beyondforce]

I'm very much used to workarounds in Fusion 360 and thinking out of the box, so this limitation (the way I see it) doesn't matter that much to me. I was really more curious to the why it has been design like that.

Just an idea - they could have created a pop up right after the change, where you can choose if you want to propagate the changes to the other copies (data sheets). This way, it's a win/win for everybody!

But never mind, I don't think they will change the way it works right now.

Thanks guys for your feedback.

Ben.

[kb9ydn]

---

@HughesTooling wrote:

Lets say I'm making bolster plates for a mould tool, they all have holes on the same centres, but the holes are different in all the plates, some taped some counterbored. The cavity plates will have waterways. Now I like to keep the timeline as clean as possible so all the features for one component are in one block not scattered along the timeline randomly if I roll the timeline back to the first component and add waterways I don't want them in any of the other components so I need a way to make copies that are only liked by parameters driving the size and position of the holes anything more would mean having to design every component from scratch. So like I said maybe you need 3 different types of paste.

Mark

---

And this is exactly why I don't like the timeline at the assembly level; it's another thing to have to manage that I don't really need.  Turning off history doesn't work either because it turns off for components as well, which I still want.

As for having 3 versions of paste, maybe it would be better to have the paste new command ask if you want to do a one time copy or if you want a copy command to be stored in the timeline.  This way you could have it propagate past changes (in the timeline sense) to copied components or not.  You could even move or delete the copy command later you want to change what features of the original get copied.

C|

[TrippyLighting]

I think for what you are describing I'd use configurations.

That's really one of the features I miss most in Fusion 360.

I made heavy use of that when I designed machinery in SW and asked to have that feature added when I bought the mid-range solution of Alibre Design. They did with no extra charge.

[Beyondforce]

@TrippyLighting, Configurations will definitely elevate F360 to a whole new level. It will make F360 more adaptable to different industries and workflows.

Right now, we need to adapt to F360 instead of the other way around. There isn't enough flexibility, I think.

Functionality is one thing, and flexibility is another. That would definitely will separate F360 from other CAD programs.