Align non-rectilinear objects by axis. I'm going bonkers here!

[ipmcc]

I've got two threaded rods that I've inserted from McMaster. Lovely feature. I would like to align them to one another, one axis at a time. 

I either want them to be directly above each other (Z alignment), directly beside each other (X alignment), and/or have their ends at the same 'level' (Y alignment). Every incantation of the Align command seems to either do nothing at all (super frustrating) or it seems to align these threaded rods in the same place (i.e. the two rods are coincident in all 3 dimensions).

Much simpler applications, like TinkerCAD, make this very easy, but FOR THE LIFE OF ME, I cannot figure out how to make Fusion 360 do this. Align left/right, front/back, top/bottom. Feels like it should the the easiest thing.

The align commend seems to work very well with rectilinear forms, but with these two threaded rods? And nuts matching the threads? If it's capable of doing it at all (I've been trying for hours with no success) it sure as heck isn't obvious. What am I missing here?

Thanks,

Ian

[davebYYPCU]

No comment on Align, can’t remember if I have ever used it.
Use Joints with inbuilt offset data.  Nuts are rotated in the same process, using section analysis.

Might help….

[a.laasW8M6T]

Hi

This seems like you want to use the new Constraints feature

https://help.autodesk.com/view/fusion360/ENU/?guid=ASM-CONSTRAIN-COMPONENTS

[ipmcc]

Yeah, I'm aware of joints. And thanks for the tip about Constraints.

I feel like aligning multiple parts/bodies/components in arbitrary dimensions ought to be a standard/stock thing to do. As mentioned, TinkerCAD does it, and Fusion does it reasonably well for simpler shapes. I just cannot figure out how to make this feature work for these round/irregular/threaded parts. It really seems like an exceedingly stupid thing to not support. 

At this point, I'm starting to feel like I might have to create extruded rectangles, align them to be congruent (along the longitudinal center) with the rods, and then do it that way. But really, this should be possible!

-Ian

[TheCADWhisperer]

@ipmcc 

Constraint1 is added.

Add your second constraint as desired.

Edit:

@ipmcc 

Did you get this figured out?

Since this is new functionality in Fusion, I was thinking about creating a video demonstrating where Assembly Constraints can be very useful.

[ipmcc]

No, sadly, I have not figured it out. I also apparently can't figure out how to make a decent screencast (like so many others here, if anyone has tips), so let me try to explain:

In creating an initial trivial demo document, something seems to have gotten lost in the 'problem statement'. Let me see if I can clarify the situation: Consider the new attached doc: BeforeState-v2.f3d. What you're seeing here is a nut, imported as a component from McMaster-Carr, and an extruded channel (another component), created from a sketch. At the end, I would like this nut to sit in the channel cut into the extrusion.

Mentally speaking, in the smallest steps I can imagine, I would like to:

* Re-orient the nut such that the faces of the nut is parallel with the face of the extrusion. This is fairly straightforward with the Align function. I start the Align operation, select one of the faces of the nut as the "From", and one of the faces of the extrusion as the "To", inevitably picking the wrong face of the nut the first time and having to do it over, and align them. OK, so far. OK, now the nut is oriented correctly with respect to the extrusion.

* Orient the nut such that the bottom face of the nut is co-planar with the bottom of the channel in the extrusion (in the end I want it 0.1mm away from co-planar, but that's just a standard Move op). This is simply a slightly modified redo of the first step, but with different faces for alignment.

* The nut should be centered along the long dimension of the extrusion -- the center of the nut should be aligned with the center of the channel cut in the extrusion. I have not found any way to do this with the align command (other than with a free move; an approximate operation)

* The nut should be fully contained within the channel in the extrusion. I realize this will ultimately be best captured with a Joint, but for now, in the beginning design phase, I want to move the component, and it FEELS like this should be possible. I want the center of the nut's hole to be aligned with the center of the cut channel, along the short dimension. I have not found any way to do this with the align command (other than with a free move; an approximate operation).

Everything I've tried so far, with the Align command, either doesn't work at all, or yields results quite different than what I expect. Constraints don't seem to solve this problem well, and I feel like I must really just be missing a modifier key or something because aligning objects like this feels like it should be absolutely a simple, common operation and yet I'm having no end of trouble trying to figure out how to do this.

If someone wants to tell me what everyone's using to make the style of screencasts that people often post, I'd be happy to document my many flailings, but Autodesk's screencast tool appears to be gone/EOL, so I'm not sure of the best way to do that. I'm on macOS if it makes any difference.

-Ian

[TheCADWhisperer]

@ipmcc 

If this were my design...

I would anchor first sketch with symmetry about the Origin.

I would most likely have a logically Grounded Component.

I would not use Align or Move.

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@ipmcc wrote:

1. * Re-orient the nut such that the faces of the nut is parallel with the face of the extrusion.

2. * Orient the nut such that the bottom face of the nut is co-planar with the bottom of the channel in the extrusion 

3.* The nut should be centered along the long dimension of the extrusion -- the center of the nut should be aligned with the center of the channel cut in the extrusion. I have 

4. I want the center of the nut's hole to be aligned with the center of the cut channel, 

Constraints don't seem to solve this problem well, 

---

Constraints will work perfect for this.

1. What faces parallel with what faces - can you color code the desired faces?

2. What face is the bottom face of the nut?

Are you referring to the face as viewed by the View Cube as the "bottom face"?

3. I normally refer to the Axis, in this case the Z axis of the nut.

4. Model the channel relative to a logical Datum, say the Origin, and problem solved.

We have no control if geometry is floating is space.

We like absolutely robust and predictable behavior.

[g-andresen]

Hi,

1. Here are just two variants for joints

2. screencast free

and several others

günther

[ipmcc]

I absolutely have to be missing something blindingly simple here, because the suggestions being proffered here are far too complex to be believably the simplest way to do it.

Component Constraints are a new feature -- I'm not opposed to learning new features, but aligning two components should not require a new feature. Aligning two bodies in 3D space is as basic as need as there is in CAD.

Joints also work, that's great, and sooner or later all these components will be assembled with joints. But again, it's much more complexity than I wanted to take on at this particular stage of my design process. I just want to align two components (and capture their positions) and it seems absolutely ridiculous to me that there's not a simple way to achieve this. 

But let me step out of Fusion for a moment: I've used TinkerCAD. In TinkerCAD, you can select two bodies, and align them by their Left/Center/Right boundaries (as well as Top/Middle/Bottom, and whatever you'd call extents in the third dimension). If I had the ability to do these extremely simple, arguably even ham-fisted, operations in Fusion, this challenge would've been solved in 30 seconds, with no difficulty whatsoever. And yet I have now sunk almost a half a day into this simple task, learned a whole new feature, and so on. 

So, at the risk of sounding dense, let me rephrase the question again: How can I most easily do a TinkerCAD-style alignment (as described above) in Fusion?

Thanks,

-Ian

[TheCADWhisperer]

@ipmcc 

Are you willing to start over from scratch with logical step-by-step instructions on how to use Fusion?

[ipmcc]

I am willing to try pretty much anything.

The thing that's driving me so bonkers is that I'm having so much trouble doing something so simple. I've been using Fusion for close to a year now (of almost daily usage), so while I don't purport to be an expert by any means, I have made complex assemblies, with complex motion links, etc. In this case, I just want to align parts without creating Component Constraints, Joints, or using any other higher-order feature. I feel like I must be missing something fundamental here, and if I am, I definitely want to know what that is, and yes, I'm willing to start over to learn it, but Component Constraints and Joints simply cannot be the simplest way to align components. They may be the best ways, but they can't possibly be the simplest ways, wouldn't you agree?

Thanks.

[g-andresen]

Hi,

---

@TheCADWhisperer  schrieb:

@ipmcc 

Are you willing to start over from scratch with logical step-by-step instructions on how to use Fusion?

---

I don't think @ipmcc  is interested in learning about and understanding the design principles of fusion.

günther

[ipmcc]

---

I don't think @ipmcc  is interested in learning about and understanding the design principles of fusion.

---

I take some minor offense to this suggestion:

I am eager to learn. If I am somehow grievously wrong here, and, for instance, Autodesk removed the ability to move components relative to one another when the Component Constraints feature was delivered, then please, by all means, let me know! If this is the only way, that's fine. I just want to move components relative to each other in a systematic way! I don't want Fusion to work like TinkerCAD either. I'm quite fond of the parametric approach. I got over that hurdle months ago.

I merely brought that up to point out how this operation is trivial in other applications, and somehow seems quite complex in Fusion. 

-Ian

[davebYYPCU]

I have trouble equating your logic, don’t teach me how to use Joints, because I will be doing those later.

I don’t want to follow Tinkercad, but there must be a simple way like that, to preempt my use of Joints later.

Fusion has Align command that as far as I know, you need to use it 3 times, flush with each ordinate / offset or face / plane

A nut on a plate centred / rotated / almost flush with a plate - easy please, but without Joints - does not exist.

Very easy with one Joint as per the video.

Might help….

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@ipmcc wrote:

I am willing to try pretty much anything.

I've been using Fusion for close to a year now 

---

Ignore all of the noise is this thread, we will build a strong foundation that is logical, robust and completely predictable.

Our guiding principle will be, get lazy, don't do extra work that isn't necessary.

I have to get other errands done first but check back here later.

[ipmcc]

My impression has always been that Joints exist to describe the dynamic (i.e. moving) relationship between parts, and not to describe the fundamental static nature of an assembly. Put differently, until this discussion, I've always considered Joints to be the feature to use when you want to describe motion, not static structures. Conceptually, I understand that you can use Joints (especially rigid joints) to describe static structures, but my thought was that if you were to take Joints away, you should still have a fully-functional Computer Aided Design program, just one that describes static assemblies and doesn't describe any movement between components. Maybe I am fundamentally misunderstanding the role of Joints. If I am, please educate me. If you had two bodies in a single component, you couldn't use Joints to position them relative to each other, right?

TBH, Component Constraints feel a lot easier argument in this case; They "constrain" (describe) the static relationships between components. And maybe they're the best tool to use here, but the fact that they're so new to Fusion leaves me with a similar feeling: that if you took Component Constraints away, you should still have a fully-functional Computer Aided Design program.

---

@davebYYPCU wrote:

Fusion has Align command that as far as I know, you need to use it 3 times, flush with each ordinate / offset or face / plane

Yes!! This!! Exactly!! This is what I want to do. My experience makes it seem as though you can't align something to a 'void', for instance, the hole at the center of a nut, and that makes it exceedingly difficult to Align bodies/components that have such voids in them. I've used the Align command many, many times to align solid bodies/hulls in the way you describe, without issue. But (among other issues) the UI I'd use to align two solid bodies disappears when I try to move the mouse over to click on the UI widget at the center of something like the hole in a nut.

Sadly, despite trying many different permutations of clicking the UI that I am actually able to click, none of those permutations have succeeded in getting me substantially closer to the results I'm trying to achieve.

Thanks again. I understand that it must seem like I'm being exceedingly dense here, but I think we're getting a lot closer to the meat of the issue now.

-Ian

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@ipmcc wrote:

I am willing to try pretty much anything.

....but they can't possibly be the simplest ways, wouldn't you agree?

---

@ipmcc 

Since the goal is to complete the work in the simplest way possible, let's start with at least a general idea (and hopefully a specific idea) of what you are attempting to model.

Do you have a picture of something similar that already exists in the real world, or is this a novel design never before conceived by man, woman, or beast?

[davebYYPCU · Accepted solution]

Joints are not limited to moving Components, rigid Joints prevent accidental moves, whilst setting the required position.  See video. 

Rigid Groups not limited to 2 components at the same time. 

Logic?  Take Joints away, why would you do that - you are not forced to use them, they perform a valuable function, including allowing / simulating component movements.

Correct - but you did not supply a file with 2 bodies in a Component.  Recommend Build In Place.

Component Constraints - so new I have not needed to investigate those, I am likely to prefer Joints.

As Whisperer has said, Lazy Efficient runs against 3 Aligns compared to one Joint with far more functionality.

Selecting a snap point within the void, (doesn't take long to learn) hold down the Control Key, and the snap points on the selected face are locked temporarily, allows for selecting the nut facing centre point in voids.  Works the same with Align, Move and Joints, no comment on Component Constraints but would expect it works there too.

0.1 above the slot.

Might help...

[TheCADWhisperer]

@ipmcc 

My demonstration will follow a more natural logic - like manipulating objects with your hands.  Something you have been doing since birth.