Fusion Crashing when updating components

[M&GToolWorks]

I have a small assembly made up of 4 components. This is comprised of 1 fixture, and the same part, three times, jointed to the fixture. I added a hole to the part. I now need to update the parts in the fixture. Whenever I click "get latest" Fusion crashes. These are "derived components". 

Can anyone advise? I needed to get these parts machined today. 

[karina.harper]

Hi @M&GToolWorks 

Can you please share the file? 

Were any of the derived fixtures created using "Save As" If so, that is probably what is causing the crash. You'll need to right click the top level component and use "save copy as" and re-derive them.

Let me know,

Karina

[M&GToolWorks]

Hello, 

How do I tell if the file was created by "Save As" or "Save As Copy" and what is the difference? 

[karina.harper]

Hi @M&GToolWorks 

"Save as" is in the file dropdown, while "save copy as" is from a right click on the top level component. Currently the 'save as' command is not working as intended. It creates a duplicate underlying ID that causes Fusion to get confused when there are two instances derived into the same file. Using "save copy as" works as normal.

Cheers,

Karina

[M&GToolWorks]

If I can respectfully say, that is a pretty big screw up. 

Esoteric "issues" like this has been one of my biggest issues with this software and one of the main reasons I haven't committed to the software. Between yesterday and today, I have over 2 hours of  re-associating programming to parts that apparently were "save-as" not "save-as-copy" parts. 

I suspect that I will have many hours yet to come re doing programming as another wonderful aspect of fusion, it never gives the same results twice! So at least two of the CRITICAL operations that have the same exact settings, are no longer giving the same programming as what was run previously. 

I suppose it would be convenient for those of us who are not computer savvy, that Fusion somehow reached out to let us KNOW about these "known" issues so that we do not lose hours of time wasted. Or I suppose they could just FIX the KNOWN issue. 

[karina.harper]

Hi @M&GToolWorks 

I hear you, and I absolutely understand your frustration. I will pass along your words to the developers who are currently working on getting this fixed. 

Thanks for your patience,

Karina

[TrippyLighting]

If don't "need" the derive functionality is is better to to use linked components. Derive has been added just recently and inserting components is generally much more stable and battle proven.

This is not not necessarily something that many user would know, but might help.

Derive is mostly helpful when you want to modify the derived component in the design you inserted it into. So the base geometry is in the external design and then you can derive it into different designs and apply different modifications to the same base geometry.

Another important functionality that helps specifically CAM users is the ability to derive a component out of an assembly into this own file. If you have a more complicated fixture and don't want to manage the CAM setups for each component all in on larger assembly design then deriving the components out of that file will still update them if you make changes in the assembly but you can create the cam setups in the individual components.

[M&GToolWorks]

Thanks for the response. I will have to look at linked components. I had thought linked components were "dated" and were no longer supposed to be used. 

Typically I model my part, as its own component file. I then derive that component into my fixture assembly, so that all the programming is in one file, so that I can post out all the work coordinates in the same program. This way, I can open the original file, make changes, and update the parts in the fixture(s). 

Should I be using linked components for this type of work? 

In the instance of the part file that brought up this post, I wanted a SIMILAR but completely separate part. So I took the parent file, and saved it as a new file. I then made the necessary geometry changes and started programming it in the fixtures like I normally do. It wasn't until after a great deal of work, the part needed a minor change, which brought to light the issue. 

Is there a better way to be doing this? 

[TrippyLighting · Accepted solution]

Yes, for that type of work you should be using linked components. That is still perfectly valid functionality.

[M&GToolWorks]

I will definitely start doing that. 

After the above issue I went through and removed the "Save As" files, and derived a new "Save As Copy" part. I then spent several hours  re programming the parts, as you know, none of that carries over. (I'm up to about 4 hrs re attaching the programming)

Now these newly derived "Save As Copy" parts will not update, and give a bunch of red x's whenever it is tried. 

Will definitely use linked components from now on. 

[M&GToolWorks]

Error: The referenced file being opened is the same as the one currently open. Error: Could not open linked document. Error: The referenced file being opened is the same as the one currently open. Error: Could not open linked document. Error: The referenced file being opened is the same as the one currently open. Error: Could not open linked document. Error: Could not gather info on latest referenced files This is what pops up today when trying to update the derived components.

[karina.harper]

Can you share the file?

Thanks,

Karina

[M&GToolWorks]

If there is a way to specifically allow you access, yes I think the customer would be OK with that.

[karina.harper]

Yes, you can set the file to be viewable by link only and then you can PM me the link.

[Anonymous]

This is really helpful information.  Thank you.  This distinction should be made more clear in Fusion itself.  I researched the distinction beforehand, but nothing was as clear as your concise post.

My derived model always crashes Fusion upon update, very unstable.  I specifically did not want to modify the derived model once placed and I certainly didn't want the massive amount of CAM in the derived assembly.  So, based on your post, using derive is the wrong thing to do; I should link it?

Thanks, again.