Edit joint bug - unable to select different component when editing joint

[Anonymous]

Hi,

when I want to change components in a particular joint (e.g. when I replace/remove one of the components), it is impossible to select different component when editing joint. Is it a bug or feature?

Thank you.

[TrippyLighting]

Could you create a  screencast or share the model or even both ?

[Anonymous]

@Anonymous

@TrippyLighting

I have the same question/problem. No need for screencast. Easy to reproduce:

1) create 3 components

2) create joint between two components, for example:component1 and component2

3) edit joint

4) in the edit joint dialog box, de-select component1 - because I want to select component3 ->  not possible to selct component3

Manfred

[TrippyLighting]

You're right, that is not possible. I believe this is a use case that was not considered during implementation, despite the fact that the UI clearly lists 2 different components.

What is possible is to select different geometry on that second component, but not an entirely different component.

I that case you'll simply have to delete the joint and create a new one.

[Anonymous]

Exactly as you say. To delete joint and create new one is necessary workaround at this time, but IMHO not a solution. I would expect possibility to change the component, not only joint origin on the same component, because if you delete the joint and create new one, you have to remember and setup again all the parameters if you have used the functionalities as joint limits or motion link.

So I would like to ask developers to take care of this issue and implement it in the future.

[jeff_strater · Accepted solution]

This is a known bug:  FUS-33043.  Thanks for raising it here, though, @Anonymous.  I will push to get this elevated in priority.  It seems like a pretty basic function that should work, even though there is a workaround, that can be a problem, too, if there are Motion Links or Motion Studies that reference the joint, creating a new one will break those features.

Jeff

[andy.c]

Hi Jeff,

Is this bug on a schedule to to resolved? Your post was on 01-07-2018. Today is 05-24-2018.

Thank you.

[jeff_strater]

unfortunately, I don't have an expected date for a fix for this problem.  I guess that shows my level of influence 

[TimeFramed]

Same issue. It's now 12/9/2018. 😞

At least I found that deleting and creating a new joint is the workaround (and I didn't just not figure out how to do it).

Fortunately, nothing else is relying on the joints in this model; just using it to align a bolt to it's hole & nut.

[pludikar]

@jeff_strater

Any progress on fixing this bug?  It's now 14 Jan 2019!!

I have many joints - using them to nest cabinet panels on a board, and I have to change joint positions and components all the time to get an optimal nest layout - this is a fundamental function that's missing/broken.

BTW - whenever you edit, the components go back to their nativeObject position - this is not only highly disorienting, but IMHO an amateurish implementation.  As soon as you have more than a simple model, it becomes a huge frustration trying to re-position a joint.  Try it yourself - I can open up another thread if needed.

Peter

[CruftMeister]

@jeff.strater

Hi Jeff,

I echo the previous poster's concerns about inability to edit, reversion to native object position when editing, the disorienting change of visibility, etc and I have to say I'm a little disheartened.  Its more than a year since this was first posted to the forum and I've no idea  how long it was logged as bug internally before that.  Is there some sort of dashboard that shows visibility for getting bugs like this - every day core workflow impediments - fixed?  I'd far rather see the backlog of fundamental bugs like this, and say the linked component workflow issues solved over adding new features such as the recent generative and sheet metal enhancements. Surely module use metrics must be tracked by the product management team - is it really possible that generative design use outweighs a core feature bug like this?

[TrippyLighting]

---

@CruftMeister wrote:

@jeff.strater

- is it really possible that generative design use outweighs a core feature bug like this?

---

That depends on who you ask. If you ask Jeff, then No. these flashy features do not outweigh core features.

If you ask the marketing team you'll get a different answer.

[pludikar]

Hi All,

This maybe a stupid question, but I have to ask it anyway.  How come something like the  3D pocketing tool-path issue, that was fixed in the last update, was treated as an urgent priority, but something like this joint bug isn't?  I've raised a similar basic bug with holes in mirrored components, with exactly the same response from AD as this bug.

The problem I have is things like this are fundamental to the structural stability (be it model or usability) of the F360 product, and AD are focusing their efforts on building new features on what I consider a wobbly foundation!!  How does one get this escalated?

Regards

Peter

[TrippyLighting]

This isn't a stupid question at all!

[CruftMeister]

@pludikar 

I am 100% on the same page with you.

While I do think it is good that Autodesk shows it is committed to improving Fusion - i.e. by fleshing out features like Sheet Metal, and Generative - the existing, fundamental, core issues need be fixed first, or at least in parallel, not simply ignored for years.

To answer your question, the cynic in me says the marketing folks are gambling that these sugary new enhancements will grow the user base faster than existing users will abandon the platform.  This strategy probably works, but I suspect it will not work forever.

I do a lot of assembly work with imported PCBA files and these fundamental workflow issues as mentioned above and in other threads are really an impediment to efficient workflow and capturing design intent.  I've already had to go back to a Windows box for PCB design, Altium Designer is just light years ahead of Eagle - too bad as Eagle integrates directly into Fusion - so the hurdle to reverting back to Solidworks is much lower now.  I say this not to be incendiary, just saying it is now on the table for me.

That being said, for now, I am holding out for things to change for Fusion development priorities; that there will be a dedicated effort to resolving long standing fundamental issues, ideally where there is some visibility for the user base.

[Anonymous]

I will utilize the opportunity to react on the post above me and say, that this bug was one of the reasons I have stopped using the Fusion 360 for designing my stuff. Although I have reported the Edit joint bug 9 months ago, there have been no fixes done what so ever.

As mentioned above, I don't need some fancy organic generation functions for advanced 3D printed designs, which requere solid definition of boundary conditions and deep understanding FEM simulation and interpretaion it's results first. In my oppinion most of the users need reliable solid stable easy tu use CAD software, that can handle the basic functions flawlessly. Then can come some marketing attractive functions on the stage to show off.

I was recommending the Fusion 360 to my friends who were searching for CAD suitable for small project and I was considering to use Fusion 360 as a software for my future business. But I couldn't rely on a software that has poor bugs fix support for business use so I will select CAD from competitor. And so I will most probably recomend the same to my friends and colleagues.

[pludikar]

Given the thunderous silence this thread has had from AD, it is clear that getting fundamental bugs and issues fixed is somewhere at the end of the to-do list.  Having an issue like this linger for over a year doesn't say much of F360 willingness to make this is professional product.

Maybe @stephen_hooper  would be kind enough to provide an explanation why he's prepared to build higher on a wobbly foundation?

Peter

[CruftMeister]

Agree.

It would be nice if AutoDesk Product, or Management would say something about this (wobbly core) issue - ignoring an elephant in the room doesn't make it any less an elephant . . .

[jeff_strater]

This is a high priority bug for our team, who is working on a solution even now.  I cannot, however, promise a date at which the fix might be available.  The fix is not a simple one, and we want to be careful not to break other functionality.

[CruftMeister]

Hi Jeff,

Awesome to hear that - thank you very much for giving us an update. Understood this is a tricky issue and that no definitive timeline can be given - however - great to hear a fix is actively underway.

Best regards,

Art