Derive from Manufacturing Model - Error

[HarrisonClassic]

Thought I'd try something new today.

I have a fairly complex model in one document.

I then have a derived document from it whereby I add some additional design elements in the design workspace, then much in the manufacturing workplace.

I know that this second file is going to have probably 200 or so toolpaths across around 300 parts spread across about 30 plywood sheets.

So, I thought I might try creating a derive for each sheet ( stock and parts ) and for performance reasons do the toolpaths in each derived file.

When I do the derive, I end up with an error suggesting I need to select at least one object, the derive fails and I end up with an empty document.

Video here https://harrisonclassicboats-my.sharepoint.com/:v:/g/personal/david_harrisonclassicboats_com_au/EURs...

Any ideas?

David

[jeff.pek]

As you've found, this isn't possible today. It's only possible to insert or derive from the "design" model.

One thing we've kicked around is to give the option of creating separate "design documents" as a result from nesting (or arrange). How would that sound to you if supported? This way you could do anything with those outputs that you can with any other "design."

  Jeff

[HarrisonClassic]

Hi Jeff,

Nice to hear from you.

What you have suggested would be a way to accomplish what I was thinking.

The motivation is around when you have a "master" model that has say >400 components/bodies, and then you move to manufacturing whereby layouts and additional CAD work in the Manufacturing model get heavy, then you add hundreds of toolpaths Fusion performance suffers - so flexibility in being able to manage this is important.

I do realise I am complicating the issue. I tend to use components in the manufacturing model for purposed unintended which doesn't help. As an example;

In my projects ( boats/campers) I create parts out of varying thickness of plywood.

When I setup the manufacturing model I selectively move components into a new components that represents the thickness of plywood they are going to be created from for ease of visibility. So, I'm purely using these new component(s) as organising folders. A very heavy way to do things, but no real other choice.

Then I create components that represent the individual sheets of plywood used (nesting parts) for each thickness

So. I could export these final arrangements of components into another file, do the CAM , but obviously I then lose the parametrics.

Being able to organise things more easily in the manufactuing models I think is something for Autodesk to consider.

One of my biggest annoyances is having a file where there are literally 100, 200 or more tool paths, and when you create all the NC programs there is no folder hierarchy to sort/manage them with. I've suggested this often, no response from Autodesk, would have thought it very simple!

David