BIG frustrations!!! ->to Autodesk team.

[kjoellesdal]

So........., what in my mind and understanding of 3D geometry calculations is very simple, is seemingly for Fusion totally impossible. This leads to BIG frustration for my part.

I have lost track of the amount of time and attempts to do simple operations in Fusion that do not work. I have a hobby of designing boat hulls. These hulls is often constructed of simple splines and lines. Typically just a 3-point spline to make the keel. Two intersecting splines (2x2D to 1x3D) to make up the chine and similar as the chine for the gunwale. Then the transom is made of lines most of the time, but some times with a spline or two. Same goes for rail/guide lines for the coming loft. This is the construction of half the hull that then is lofted and patched into surfaces, then mirrored and finally stitched into a solid. There are never big changes is the method or the design. My splines never exceed 3 points. The bow converge into a single point. Still there is way to often a problem with the solid that will not shell. But also for other shapes I have the same issues. Making shells, bevels, fillets, sweeps and boolean operations is constantly giving resistance by not computing. Very often very small differences in the design without being able to tell why makes the operation compute or not at all. The error message from the application does not give any good help or hint if or what is wrong with the design, or at least very rare.

And then there is the FX parameters.... omg. You can not even do, this dimension multiplied with that dimension. Because there is no unit called m/cm/mm2 or m/cm/mm3. Ok you can use acre and liter. But what the duck. Are you serious?

Do not get me wrong, I really appreciate the software and its powers. But some tasks, unfortunately, the kind I often need to do gives me notting but head ache.

I really hope there is urgent plans to make improvements to these issues:

-The logic behind computational 3D solver. (normals, tangents, offsets (also 3d curves/splines), intersection and topology interpretation)

-The pure lack of super basic units to do parametric math operations.

I guess there is other things too, but this is what annoys me to a level of discomfort. Else I'd like to thank you for a really nice piece of software for us hobbyists. The buggy behavior is to me a big frustration leaving me with more time resolving and get by obstacles than actually designing stuff I like.

The philosophy of the software should be that any grandma with basic knowledge of a 3d space and design should be able to do what ever she desires without knowing about the technical aspects of software and its quirks. I do like your software, but I am really puzzled about how a big company like Autodesk mange to a release software at this price point and with such basic problems for the users. If you need one year or more of school to learn the software to design the way YOU intend instead of what users find as the intuitive way of designing, then you are on the wrong path.

EDIT (I was a bit harsh at first):

If you want a solid to shell, it SHOULD shell. If you want a fillet it should FILLET. Take a look at Plasticity, one man alone makes Autodesk look not so good. Autodesk has according to Google 13700 employees...... I bet you can up the game and review some core functionality and logic to better solve this kind of issues?

This sounds like a rant, and kind of is. But I am still very grateful for being able to use Fusion free for hobby use. So please take this as constructive criticism. Love and hope from Vestfold, Norway ❤️

[MRWakefield]

Here's a screenshot of a model I've just quickly put together. It shows parameters for Width, Height and desired volume. It calculates the cross-sectional area then calculates the Length from the Volume and the Area. I have to admit that I don't find the parameters as intuitive as they might be and you have to add things like "/mm" to make a value unitless.

Obviously this doesn't help with your original issue but it might help with the calculation of lengths, areas and volumes mentioned above.

[jeff_strater]

---

@kjoellesdal wrote:

Yeah, sorry about the prehistoric name and that I compare a one man project to your rather large organisation. I'm just really frustrated over the same kind of problems over and over if I work with shapes that is not based on the simplest forms or shapes.

In my mind a shell operation should in general be as simple as:

1. Offset flat surfaces.

2. Offset curved surfaces in regard to their normals.

3. Find new intersections and trim/extend new surfaces.

5. Calculate new lines and curves based on intersections.

This should probably work with any shape and topology.

---

It is steps 3 and 5 in your list that are very hard.  I know it sounds simple, but it is not, and there are a lot of complex mathematics involved.  "should work with any shape".  No one would disagree that that is the desired state.  However, given the complexities involved in these steps, IMO, we will never get there.  There will always be geometry cases (and there are an infinite number of geometries and combinations to consider), where any mathematical algorithm will fail.  Can we improve it?  Yes, but, again, at the risk of repeating myself:  We need data to do that.  This is something we work on every single day.  Have you tried the new "rounded shell" option in Shell?

This is a development project we have been working on to address this exact problem.  It uses signed distance fields to produce a more robust shell result.  Fusion can now shell many models which were not possible before, and which competitors cannot shell...

[kjoellesdal]

Ok, its a workaround. But one should not have to divide by the units. It is so counter intuitive. Hope to see basic volume and area units added to a near release.

[MRWakefield]

---

@kjoellesdal wrote:

Ok, its a workaround. But one should not have to divide by the units. It is so counter intuitive. Hope to see basic volume and area units added to a near release.

---

I couldn't agree more!

[Phil.E]

@MRWakefield Thanks for the example. You derive a length from an area. What sort of commands and workflows consume that parameter? 

@kjoellesdal Yes, I see your example units and values,  but I don't see how you use that in a feature or sketch dimension. Do you have an example where a Fusion command would accept 1000mm^3 as input, for instance. The other example provided is getting closer to explain the value of this, by deriving a length from an area. I'm just trying to associate the use of area units with command workflows so I can test around it and provide more examples for an improvement ticket. 

[kjoellesdal]

Yes I have tried the new rounded shell operation and some times it helps.

If I have a H 100mm* L 1000m* W 1000m box and want to shell it on the inside, it should compute even if I set 110mm thickness to shell. Just ignore any face outside original geometry. (The body should now be a shell that is not hollow from natural reasons. A warning telling that chosen thickness does not make object hollow would be ok, but it should compute. If I later change H to 300mm it will recompute and be a hollow shell. This is now not possible. It is in my mind a serious bug and some really faulty logic. Probably it makes downstream problems too.

EDIT: Another way to solve it is to make the offset geometry without regards of the original geometry. Then make a surrounding box for all new geometry, subtract the original geometry from that box and then subtract the box from the new geometry.

Both solutions very simple. But instead now I get an error 😕

[kjoellesdal]

double post

[kjoellesdal]

In the parameters one should be able do math operations on dimensions with units. If I am about to make something with a displacement of 1000 liter or 10cm3, then I should be able to set any two dimensions to get the third based on the set volume. This is a very common and normal thing to do when designing all sorts of things. If you dont understand why I would need this, why would one need the Units:Area: acre and circular_mill?

[MRWakefield]

---

@Phil.E wrote:

@MRWakefield Thanks for the example. You derive a length from an area. What sort of commands and workflows consume that parameter? 

---

The 'Length' parameter is used as the distance for the extrude:

[kjoellesdal]

Another example use, is if I have a rectangles with one dimension but want the other dimension to relate to a set area. Also another use, could be for circles, by setting area and get diameter from it.

EDIT: I guess there is a thousand more use cases. A fundamental feature totally missing.

[kjoellesdal]

I hope you understand the need for the area and volume abilities in the parameter section. Thanks for listening and trying to see things from my and others perspective.

[kjoellesdal]

That's a valid point. But here we are talking about basic operations on
simple bodys based on very simple lines and curves. If one needs a long
education to understand the software and to do it the "right way" or need
to do numerous extra operations to get it "right" then it's not intuitive.

[kjoellesdal]

Hope you you can see what I'm pointing at in regards of the logic behind shell and other operations. Fusion too often ends up chewing on an operation for long times just to end up with an error. I dont see the need to upload more files than what I already did as you did see in the link. The forum is full of people struggling with shells, fillets, chamfers, sweeps and such. I hope you can take a look back at the core logic behind your solvers and look for simpler ways of interpreting the results. I really appreciate your software and your efforts and I hate to be that grumpy guy. Ill give you one example file here now. This file does kind of shell but not to the wanted thickness and I do need to activate the rounded shell. I really can not understand why this is the case. It should shell to any thickness and with sharp corners.

[kjoellesdal]

It got awfully quiet here now...

[Phil.E]

Thanks for the feedback and detailed responses. It's clear what you want to see. I agree the units in parameters are a little strange, especially for area (like acre for instance), but please understand what you are looking for would have to be part of a major overhaul of parameters. It might not seem like it, but this is the engine of Fusion, not the tires, to use @jeff_strater 's analogy a little more. Thanks for giving your voice to the community, and thanks for using Fusion!

[amaglim]

Boat bodies are usually difficult to shell because there are singularities and almost tangent edges.

As a developer of shell in Fusion, my apologies.

We will have a look at the case you posted in:
https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/fusion-design-validate-document/why-will-this-design-not-shell/td-p/
A new technology that computes the round offset we have added recently in fusion could help in some of your cases (it is in the shell dialog box as "Shell type": "Rounded shell".)
Nevertheless for us is very important to have data to work with.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@kjoellesdal wrote:

It got awfully quiet here now...

---

If you can share the models you have problems with I am happy to help.

Without models we cannot address specific issues, regardless whether those are workflow issues or software issues.

You'll have to be prepared to receive some constructive feedback and perhaps even criticism yourself, if you want to learn. 

[kjoellesdal]

Thank you for your time and attention. Hope to see these features in the future.

[kjoellesdal]

Thank you for your time and attention. I will see if I can make a collection of hull shapes I have been struggling with then upload then here.

[kjoellesdal]

Thank you for your time and attention. I will see if I can make a collection of hull shapes I have been struggling with then upload then here. Id sure like to better learn and understand the workings of Fusion. Still I hope for some improvements.