Intent Driven Design (IDD) is breaking prototype fixture management

[michael_dahlen]

Hi everyone,

I'm currently testing the new Intent Driven Design (IDD) workflow on multi-spindle CNC lathes (Haas DS-30SSY), and I'm finding it very restrictive for rapid prototyping.

Key Issues:

• Missing "Paste New": The "Paste New" command is completely gone in the new workflow. This makes it impossible to create independent copies of chuck assemblies to adjust Gripper Diameters across multiple setups without global changes affecting everything.

• Complexity in Multi-Op Environments: We often run up to 8 different operations in our machines. Managing 8 independent fixture states and part iterations within the new IDD hierarchy (Part/Assembly distinction) is incredibly cumbersome compared to the fluid "Hybrid" workflow.

• Broken Parametric Workflow: I have yet to find a functional way to use User Parameters effectively in IDD. Controlling variables like Stock_Dia, Stock_Length, and Gripper_Pos across 8 setups now seems impossible as I cannot find a way to link or derive parameters between these new file types. The simplicity of a centralized parameter list is gone.

• User Accessibility & Skill Barrier: As an advanced user, I can navigate some complexity, but I work with a team of operators with varying levels of Fusion experience. A workflow must be intuitive and repeatable. The current IDD structure causes confusion and "head-scratching" for operators who need to create quick, efficient CAM programs without navigating a maze of file relationships.

• Over-Engineering: The overhead of managing these new file relationships and strict "intents" is significantly slower for R&D and multi-op environments where we need to move fast.

Questions:

1. How do you maintain multiple identical chucks with different jaw positions in a single IDD assembly now that "Paste New" is gone?

2. What is the intended way to manage global parameters across numerous Part/Assembly boundaries if traditional linking methods are unavailable?

3. Has anyone found a more efficient workaround or established a new "best practice" workflow for complex 8-op setups under the IDD regime? I would love to see examples of how others handle this.

Due to these roadblocks, I will be sticking with the Hybrid Design workflow for my actual production work until a viable solution for these complex setups is presented. The current IDD architecture is a major bottleneck for shops that need to handle many operations quickly and involve team members with different skill levels.

Best regards, Michael

[kacper.suchomski]

hi

IDD mode is an option, not a requirement.

There's a large group of users who came to Fusion from other programs (SW, SE, Inv) and are accustomed to IDD, but find hybrid mode confusing.

Either way - you have a choice. We all have the opportunity to choose.

Of course, IDD (like the entire Fusion) has many limitations and places for improvement.

[michael_dahlen]

Hi Kacper,

Thank you for the reply.

You are absolutely right that IDD is currently an option, and I appreciate that Fusion 360 gives us the choice to stick with the Hybrid workflow.

However, my intention with this post was to highlight that if those of us who use Fusion for high-speed R&D and complex multi-op setups don't point out these friction points, they might never be addressed.

I am a strong believer in having both options available, but wouldn't it be even better if we could utilize the strengths of both workflows interchangeably? My point isn't to dictate exactly which commands the versions must have, but rather to emphasize that there should be functional ways to achieve the same results in both workflows to make them equally usable in professional scenarios.

For the IDD workflow to become a truly viable alternative for "power users" in a prototyping environment, it needs to offer efficient solutions for managing multiple versions of the same component (like chucks with different jaw positions) and intuitive handling of global parameters across part/assembly boundaries. Regardless of the underlying design philosophy, these are universal needs that make the software a productive tool for shops that need to move fast.

I'm sharing this feedback in the hope that it helps bridge the gap between the traditional CAD structure and the modern, agile workflow that Fusion is known for.