Reference a component to multiple other components

[nkbhvid]

I have a challenge that’s really driving me nuts 

i very often need to reference a component to more than a single other component 

in this last situation i have 3 horizontal sliding rails with 2 sliding blocks on each

i need to have the blocks move simultaneously on all 3 rails

i can join each block on the respective rail but I don’t see how I can align the blocks so the are aligned vertically 

I can make a rigid group but that will not enable me to play with the vertical distance and I can make a motion link, but that seems to be a complicated solution to a simple problem 

[Phil.E]

Thanks for asking. Can you provide a design file or an image I can work with?

[nkbhvid]

Hi Phil 

Thanks for reaching out

I have a small hobby project with a dovetail jointer

Attached you will also find a jpg explaining my challenge

https://a360.co/3XKBRB4 

Best regards

Nicolaj

[TrippyLighting]

The link does not allow download ( that is functionality limited to paid subscriptions). Please export your design as a .f3d or .f3z and attach it to a post.

[nkbhvid]

Here as a file - with latest design developments

[nkbhvid]

Again here in this latest design development where I have a new example of model constraints I find extremely difficult to handle in Fusion

I want to let the DSG16H block being aligned and sliding along the center axis of the BK 12 block - (the BK12 projects the holes in the mounting plate). At the same time I want the DSG16H block to be vertically centered between the 2 pairs of HGH25 blocks.

Can this be achieved in Fusion?

[Phil.E]

I'm sorry but I can't see what the problem is based on your descriptions and model. The design slides on the two rails just fine. I don't see a third rail.

There is only one floating component, a motor. Easily joined with a joint.

Can you help with an illustration that indicates what I'm failing to grasp? From what I see this should provide no trouble moving in any direction allowed using any viable joint types.

[nkbhvid]

OK 

Lets use use this example instead (The other one I pointed out is "around the corner" of the machine and involves the 2 pairs of sliding blocks and the ball screw nut.)

If we take this illustration I would like to have the followings constraints in relation to the motor given the facts that its distance from the other pulley is defined by the belt:

1. The motor shaft axis must be aligned to the pulleys bore axis.

2. The flange of the motor block must be aligned the the inner side of the console on which it will be mounted - so I can project the geometry of axis to define the hole

3. The edge of the motor block must be aligned with an edge of a third component - a belt tensioner console (not in model yet, but lets say we just use the bottom edge of the console mounting plate instead.)

[Phil.E]

I'm sorry but I'm not able to follow this with only a text description. Can you add some pictures/illustrations please?

[nkbhvid]

Its the same picture as you just send to me now with annotations

[Phil.E]

Thanks! To position the motor, here are some steps.

Next make a rigid joint to this position

Next measure the angle required to align the motor with the frame

(while measuring click a face on the motor and a face on the frame to gather the respective angle)

Next, once you know the angle, reverse it by adding a negative sign

The motor now is in the correct place and orientation, and moves when the frame moves.

[nkbhvid]

Thanks

A couple of questions in relation to step 2:

Where does the snap point on Component 2 come from? It should constrain the flange of the motor house to the face of the mounting plate and at the same time constrain the motor axis to the bore of the pulley. I dont see any of these constraints respected in your solution?

[Phil.E]

Thanks for asking. I hope you tried the solution.

To answer your question, about step 2, here is where the snap points are.

If you want to install the motor so it crashes into the body where you are putting it, then pick this edge for your snap point:

However, this puts the motor and the X-konsolplade(Mirror) component into interference.

[TrippyLighting]

When you start thinking of an assembly of multiple smaller subassemblies, things become much more efficient.

I have recreated the design and structured it more efficiently. The rail and rail blocks form a subassembly, which I reuse multiple times without having to go through the assembly process for the rails/block each time.

I used the Configurations functionality in Fusion. This is only available for paid subscriptions, but I believe you can at least open the design and look at how this works. If you're interested, I can show a workaround for not having configurations. It's a bit clunky but quite workable for only 2 configurations.

Also, when you download static components, such as blocks, rails, and even the sprocket/belt assembly, use a rigid group joint in that downloaded assembly. Then use them in your upper level assembly.

[nkbhvid]

Thanks a lot for your input.

Joining components inside Fusion is in my humble opinion the ABSOLUT weakest part of the software. 

I do not doubt that everything can be accomplished for a specialist but for me as a hobby user its a dealbreaker to be forced into all sorts of work arounds and "clunky" solutions in order to make simple constraints between components.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@nkbhvid wrote:

...

Joining components inside Fusion is in my humble opinion the ABSOLUT weakest part of the software. 

...

---

What I showed in the assembly I attached isn't a clunky workaround! 

I would build that assembly the same way in SolidWorks, which I've used professionally as an engineer since 1998 and still use.

I would also build it the same way in Autodesk Inventor. I don't have a lot of experience in Inventor, but I can muster this simple thing. Most mainstream parametric CAD software works very similarly.

This doesn't have anything to do with "specialist" knowledge. It is an understanding of fairly basic concepts.

[nkbhvid]

Sorry this is not included in in my fairly basic knowledge achieved as a designer (and university teacher) working with all sorts of modeling tools since 92 (including SW which still is my preferred tool btw). Your advice about working a lot more on sub assemblies is definitely a way to make it more easy to handle, - but some how it still challenges my way of working downstream in my design iterations.

So... I know how I would do this in SW but in Fusion I still think this is a kind of, well.... chunky.

I have another example here: 

I have a base plate on which I would like to have a ball screw mounted in two mounting blocks (BF & BK). The screw is driven by a belt tensioner system (here only the two pulleys and the belt is modeled) and the belt defines the position of the stepper motor mounted on a bracket which of course is mounted on the base plate as well. 

How would you suggest I should place these components?

[TrippyLighting]

Ahh, yes, I see what you mean! Wouldn't it be nice to have a simple mate, sometimes?

We've beaten that horse to death here on the forum 😉

This is not "complicated" in Fusion, but definitely not as intuitive as a simple mate. 

[nkbhvid]

Thanks a lot - it works perfectly.

Yes, as stated before- the lack of mating features in Fusion like the ones we have in SW and Inventor is really causing a lot of challenges . 

I gave myself a couple of years to to find a cheap (hopefully FREE) solid modeling tool replacing my subscriptions on SW and Inventor and looked into Fusion. Its a fantastic software in many ways but my projects always run into the same challenges when it comes to joining components.