Heights Tab

[spano.dom]

Anyone else a little annoyed with the new update to the heights tab. Got a little confused but since they moved things around and are making us do more clicks to get what we want. I'd say bring back just the drop down menus and  get rid of the check mark boxes its not very stream lined imo. 

[g-andresen]

Hi,

What are you talking about?
Please show a screenshot.

günther

[seth.madore]

We are listening to feedback, but there's not a large chance that there are going to be any changes back to the old UI. Yes, the current implementation could use some polish, which is something we're looking into. 

Is there anything in particular that you no longer can do with this UI?

@g-andresen the recent update implemented some changes to the MFG Heights UI:

 

[programming2C78B]

I think the issue is you guys not only changed the workflow, but ALSO the wording. IF you made it "Top of ___" and "Bottom of ___", then given the 3 options people would've been able to transition smoothly. They should also sit in the same location of the drop down so muscle-memory would allow people to "accidently" do the right thing as we were for years (I cant confirm that it isnt in the same location).

highest and lowest just sounds weird to have as options all of a sudden. 

[Fabbunny69]

Agreed. These new selection options are just making what should be a simple selection process a kind of mini 'Rubix Cube' experience! Something a programmer doesn't need when just trying to produce a part accurately and efficiently.

There are too many interconnected levers here, it's unnecessary. The programmer knows what his safe heights are(definitely should do!) and they just need to input them. There is no need for fusion to have selection criteria, and in my honest opinion, I think this is going to be more error-prone than it was before.

[programming2C78B]

Just a shower though, we could've left it as "top/bottom of model" and then added checkboxes for "include stock/fixture" as a simple modifier. 

[leo.castellon]

I am on my third year of using Fusion 360 and I program parts all day long. I hate the new heights tab. Why not give us a choice on the Bottom Height tab to select top of part? We usually have to engrave serial numbers onto parts, and we used to choose Top of Part and then -.005, a bit more awkward now as it looks like I have to choose the face, then input distance. When we are making multiple parts a day, time is money, especially when we have the shop owners pressuring us to be more efficient and productive. 

LeoC

[programming2C78B]

That options still there Leo. Nothing was removed, only renamed.

[leo.castellon]

Oh, that is really cumbersome and confusing. Why not just leave "Model Bottom" and "Model Top" as options without going through the selection tree?

LeoC

[231Matthew]

i agree, it is pretty cumbersome.  Its taking some time to get used to.  I think it allows for more mistakes and I have caught myself with the dropdowns choosing something I didn't want.  thank heavens for simulation.  😞

[johntasker_clm]

I also hate the new heights tab, i can't see why it was changed, it's gone from being simple and easy, to complicated and confusing!

Rather than changing stuff that doesn't need changing, why not use the resources to improve the less effective parts - like creating drawings from parts; it's so far away from Solidworks in this area it's stupid!

[johntasker_clm]

But why, why, why o why has it been changed!!!

I've been using fusion since 2019 and I'm sat here considering my life choices because for some reason I can't seem to tell Fusion i want my top height to be the stock top. It's telling me I need to pick an offset!!!

I'm so annoyed! 

[seth.madore]

You should still be quite able to define your Top Height to be Stock Top:

 

[kieran.gill]

Here are some of the recent updates we have made based on community feedback. We think these changes strike the right balance between ease of use and capabilities. 

[Fabbunny69]

I am really pleased that (simple)model/stock-top/bottom are back in the ever growing list of options without all the additional complications, thank you 🙂

Adding as many simple steps as possible to a possibly complicated work flow seems common sense to me.