Dock "Change Parameters" dialog?

[jboerhout]

Is there a way to dock the "Change Parameters" dialog?  I find myself using this extensively/interactively during design and rather would like to keep it open, docked to the side. At the moment it seems I must open/close it continually - Fusion does not permit to keep it open while continue working on the design.

[ryan.bales]

Not at this time no. Since it's a dialog box and because you are essentially modifying the parametric timeline it cannot be up at the same time. @jeff_strater can probably explain more why this is. 

[jeff_strater]

@jboerhout - it's a good idea, I agree, and there is really no technical reason why we could not do this, but @ryan.bales is correct - as of today, this is not possible.  This is the closest idea I could find in the Ideastation:  quick-access-to-parameters.  You could vote for this, or submit an idea of your own for a non-modal parameters dialog

[jboerhout]

Thanks for your response @jeff_strater @ryan.bales Following the link shows that this was requested since 2015. This is not an unimportant function, it is really part of a workflow. Are we all so wrong to ask for this - is there a better way to work with parameters?   For even simple designs i easily have a hundred parameters and consult these constantly. Is this an incorrect workflow?  If not, what is the hold up to implement this?  I totally understand competing priorities, but 4 years for something so fundamental seems excessive...

[jeff_strater]

@jboerhout  it's not an invalid workflow, or an unreasonable request.  And yes, it's been 4 years, but, to be honest, we probably have hundreds of requests like this, which are all equally reasonable.  I know it seems like Autodesk is a huge company, but the Fusion organization is of limited size, and we can only address so many of these reasonable requests.  We have to triage and prioritize them.  And, while I personally would use a non-modal parameter dialog, it is not something that comes up all that frequently as a request.  We have to try to address issues where workflows are completely blocked as higher priority.  I know that's not what we all want to hear, but I'd rather be honest than to promise something that we probably are not going to deliver anytime soon.  I feel your pain:  I've been frustrated with how Word handles bulleted lists for 25 years, but I've learned to work around it, and I can always eventually get my document to look how I want.

[graham.wideman]

@jeff_strater  Regarding Word's bullets -- if you're using the bullet button on the toolbar, then you may get along much better by instead applying one of the bulleted list styles. You'll probably want to modify them, because the *&^@%$ built-in styles don't indent or line-space with quite the spacing you might like. But after you've done that once, you can save that set of styles and you're good to go.

.... and now returning in 2023 to add:   Jeff's example of Word's bullets is one in which (a) it does not affect every document, and (b) at least the end user can do something about it (use the bullet style instead of the toolbar bullet button).  

Both of these are unlike the non-modal Parameters dialog, which affects working with every single document (given that a prominent reason to use F360 is that it's parametric, using, you know, parameters, that you need to edit in the ... parameters dialog), and can't be fixed by the end user.

[graham.wideman]

I would like to add my plaintive bleat to this chorus.

[graham.wideman]

And I've once again returned to Fusion 360, and again am flummoxed by why a CAD package which touts PARAMETRIC as one of its flagship features makes PARAMETERS so frustratingly inaccessible while you are working on a model trying to apply the *&^%$ PARAMETERS! 

This is not just one of "hundreds of requests like this, which are all equally reasonable". PARAMETERS are what Fusion's core value depends upon.

[iamolivierperret]

Trully !

[pgarbuzT7FJC]

Please chat with marketing to remove parametric design from your marketing materials. Usually, when engineering go out of their way to nerf a feature, there are major underlying problems with it. 

You are scamming engineers and getting them to waste their precious time and energy by marketing a feature that you know has no intrinsic value.

Please stop

[graham.wideman]

Just to clarify what I think you're saying:

You are requesting that @jeff_strater should ask F360 marketing to stop promoting F360's Parametric features (because they are buried in a work-stalling modal dialog). (Not to mention other inconveniences of the primitive Parameters dialog -- like you can't reorder the list.)

You speculate that when (Autodesk) engineers fail to fully develop a feature (nerf it), it's because there's an underlying architectural obstacle.

This results in wasting the precious time and energy of (customer) engineers who were lured to the product with the promise of a feature (parameters) that turns out not to be fully or efficiently usable.

I infer that your reasoning is if marketing was obliged to stop promoting the Parametric aspect of F360, that might pressure management into prioritizing the usability of this feature area, even if that requires fixing the architecture to do so. 

[pgarbuzT7FJC]

@graham.wideman, yes, we are in absolute agreement and it is worse than that.

The parametric features are utterly useless when compared with even barebones offerings from competitors. Basic features like grouping or reordering parameters do not exist, and working with parameters while building a model is purposefully broken. Having spent enough decades in the industry, it is obvious that the parameter subsystem was half-baked on top to satisfy marketing, and its value is not shared by the architects. Probably because they came from AutoCad where the workflow is different and parameters are not used. Otherwise, this would have been done over a morning coffee.

The conversation with marketing must happen because marketing is selling a product that the architects are refusing to make. If they tried to make parameters useful, this would likely require a complete rewrite, hence why for half a decade they have avoided doing anything about it.

@jeff_strater and his team needs to have a come to Jesus conversation with @Anonymous @ruth.ann.keene @dan.lohmeyer and the rest of the management team and make his case for either removing parametric features from their marketing material, or radically rewriting the parametric subsystem so it can work concurrently while modeling.

Had I been aware of the problem from the start, I would have never invested the time to learn this tool. It is unethical to market parametric features when the old AutoCad team does not believe in them, and made early design choices where future progress is impossible.

[graham.wideman]

@pgarbuzT7FJC 

>... have a come to Jesus conversation..

Ah, you must be referring to Jesus' well  known support for this area as recorded in the  "Sermon on the Parameters". Sadly, thus far they seem to be getting the "Passed-over" treatment.