Hello.
I was having a conversation with a collegue a few days ago and one thing he said stuck in my mind - He said "With Fusion 360's workspaces, you don't have to do things the old way anymore, I really like it."
I did not ask him what he meant by "the old way", however, i wish I did.....I personally come from a CG art background - Maya being my main content creation app. I have recently started using Fusion 360 though because I fell in love with 3D printing! 😄
So now I use Fusion 360 and its great, however, because of the fact I dont come from CAD, I dont know what he meant by "The old way" - in terms of speaking about Workspaces in F360. So, here is my question - What is the "old way"? Can anyone give me just a short explanation.
Im new to the world of CAD and its precise mathematical measurements vs Maya where I didnt have to care about real world measurements - But I love F360 so far, I find myself working in it almost all day and would appreciate some insight into my question. In fact, I tried AutoCAD before and after about 30 minutes of learning, I was like "NO THANKS"- It just seemed to daunting to learn, but F360 is great, I am able to migrate a lot of my 3D skills into creating objects I can 3D print! And I am very happy about that.....
I really would be overjoyed if anyone could shed some light on this.... Thanks a lot! 😄
Solved! Go to Solution.
I would guess that he's referring to seperate files for every component.
Only single bodies in each component.
Then creating yet another file to assemble those components, having to maintain links between the correct version of the files.
And still another file to create a drawing of each component and assembly.
I spent more time on file management than I did design... the old way.
Thanks for the post, Scott. One question about your post, though; What do you mean by "Only single bodies in each component?"
By "body", do you mean each separate part that makes up your entire design? I know F360 shows each mesh as a body, etc.
In the "old" way, each part that could exist on it's own in the real world would be modeled in its own workspace. Then all of the component parts would be assembled in an "assembly" workspace that would let you create constraints (joints) between each component, but no modeling could be done in that workspace. This was a HUGE improvement over the "even older" way.
If I remember correctly, Creo Elements works in this "old" way and is a free download if you want to see what it's like. You could probably also get the idea from their tutorial videos.
What's been explained so far only tells part of the story. I've worked as a mechatronics engineer for almost 30 years 25+ of tose with CAD and other software. I learend mechanical design and PCB layout on a drawing board.
What has been explained so far is correct in that you don't have to necessarily deal with files as Fusion 360 does not make a distinction between a component and an assembly files, but to a degree that can also be done with other CAD platforms. You can create internal components in Solid Works that are not saved as a separate file.
This is only really another option, however, because at some point in time when you have to break dowen a desing into differnt pieces because the size of a project, at some point in time you will have to deal with different files.
The "old" way is that you don't even have access to a tool such as Fusion 360 because the license was too expensive. Fusion 360 is basically free and even the Ultimate version is affordable. Previously the options in getting a "real" CAD system - not just a moding software or maker toy - at affordable prices were very slim and and only availabel if you were an educatior or still in school and could prove it. Everyone else had to pay full price.
In terms of features Fusion 360 allows you to free-form model organic shapes with T-Splines, which "feels" very similar to modeing with subdivision surface modelers such as Maya or Blender. Then, however you don't have to export that surface from your "mechanoical design" software to add mechanical features such as ribs, studs, threads etc. you just leave the Sculpt environment and go to the Model environment and can seemlessly transition into solid modeling world. that was previously - the old way - not possible.
The other paradigm shif this the cloud based approach which really makes it easy to collaborate with people on a project. It also provides a means to do version and revision management (when Branching and Merging will come). As a cutomer and user of the software ytou don;t have to thing where to locat the server, you don't have to configure and maintain it as all of that works in the background which is great.
Also, if you're a mac user and Engineer, and need a mechanical CAD system there Fusion 360 really does not have any competition.
@Anonymous wrote:Hello.
I was having a conversation with a collegue a few days ago and one thing he said stuck in my mind - He said "With Fusion 360's workspaces, you don't have to do things the old way anymore, I really like it."
Since he was talking about the different workspaces, what he probably meant was that Fusion combines several different types of activities into one solftware application that were previously split up into multiple applications. So Fusion has solid modelling, surface modelling, sub-D modelling, photo rendering, animation, CAM, and now FEA simulation. There are other software packages that combine most of these but I think Fusion is the only one that combines all of them.
C|
Correct. With one exception, Fusion 360 does not have subdivision surface modeling.
@TrippyLighting wrote:Correct. With one exception, Fusion 360 does not have subdivision surface modeling.
I thought that's what T-spline planes were? IDK though, I only do solid modelling and occasionally some surfaces.
C|
Modeling in T-Splies feels similar to modeling with subdivision surfaces, but mathematically they are very different.
Subdivision surfaces have a finite resolution. You'll always be able to zoom in to a level where you can disccern between discrete quad surface patches.
That's not the case with T-Splines. Both have their pros's and cons.
@TrippyLighting wrote:Modeling in T-Splies feels similar to modeling with subdivision surfaces, but mathematically they are very different.
Subdivision surfaces have a finite resolution. You'll always be able to zoom in to a level where you can disccern between discrete quad surface patches.
That's not the case with T-Splines. Both have their pros's and cons.
Ahh, ok. I just googled around a bit and now I see the difference. T-splines is (simplistically) a more advanced version of subd modelling.
So even better for Fusion!
C|
Wow! Great posts. Thanks everyone. I think I get it, now!
I gave kudo to just about everyone too! Thanks, again for all the help.
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.