when using an object as distance, change extent type to 'Object'

[bryan_martin_morris]

The default behavior of the extrude command Extent Type is Distance. However, as you likely know, it is possible to select an object which updates the distance, however, the distance is not always correct (which probably has something to do with where you click...). And crucially, the 'Extent Type' remains as 'Distance', which means that it will not update if I change the reference object, the extrude stays at whatever 'arbitrary' distance Fusion decided to use, that looks sufficiently accurate that I did not realize it has done something that frequently ends up being unhelpful.

This behavior allows for potentially problematic errors to be introduced into a design if, like me, you expect the software to behave a little bit smart and automatically change the 'Extent Type' to 'Object'. Maybe this is lazy designing, but if I use something to define my distance, does it not make sense to change the extent type automatically? (or give us the option to make this the default behavior).

So, what I want is a UI option to change the default behavior of the Extent Type Dialog, such that if I select an object to define the distance, the extent type changes to 'Object'.

This could help me with certain complex assembly/part designs which end up having errors created by somewhat arbitrary distances from extrudes, that I need to then use a python script to find which extrude used distance instead of object that resulted in a stupid slither of a surface somewhere that should never have existed (and then just imagine the fun reworking every reference as of that object in the timeline....!).

If this option actually exists, please gently suggest to me how I activate it and forgive my ignorance. If it doesn't, please consider adding it, as I wouldn't even notice it's addition, and sometimes that's the most awesome thing a new feature can do 🙂

That is, unless I have to go into preferences and tick a box to make it happen... (which would also be pretty cool). 🙂

Thanks! And apologies if this is already a forum topic... I searched... I promise.

[TheCADWhisperer]

@bryan_martin_morris 

I recommend that you Attach a model here that exhibits unexpected behavior.

You should see absolutely robust and predictable behavior based on logic.  No guessing!

Can you File>Export your *.f3d file to your local drive and then Attach it here to a Reply?

[jeff_strater]

This is somewhat intentional/historical.  In the very beginning, Fusion only supported Direct Modeling (no history, no recompute, no associative references to objects).  So, selecting a "to" object was a "snap" - a convenience for setting a the distance you need to extrude to that object.  When we added parametric design, that behavior propagated into the history version.  So, now, to get associative behavior in parametric models, as you describe, you have to pick "to object" as the extent type.  Was that the best choice?  It is certainly debatable, and I can appreciate your point of view on this - maybe parametric designs should not have "object snapping".  But, it was at least a consciously made decision.  Surprisingly, not that many people have complained, at least not here on the forum.

[bryan_martin_morris]

Thanks Jeff. I'm happy to hear that my searching the forums seems to have work, and that not finding anything on this subject was more or less normal. I can also appreciate the reasoning behind the decision. Might not resolve my issue per say , but at least now I know why! And I am pretty sure I can survive the 'indignity' of having to actually signal my intent, hehe.

Thanks again.