Fusion
Accepted solution
I think a little clarification about terms is in order.
Edit:
General definition - to change the shape of the model
Parametric definition - to access the stored parametric history and change the shape of the model
Any model with no timeline history that has geometry can probably be edited, that is to say, the model can change shape if you use CAD modeling tools on it. If you expect parametric relationships and values to be stored and used, that happens with the timeline "on" and everything must be created in that mode to be parametric edited.
Phil Eichmiller
Software Engineer
Quality Assurance
Autodesk, Inc.
Based on what you've described so far you are working on more advanced topics but have skipped over some basics.
You imported that PCB assembly and all components are on the top level. Then you started immediately adding stuff to that design. Wrong approach!
The design with that PCB should have received one rigid group joint at the top level with "Include child components" enabled and then should have been saved as is, without a timeline.
Perhaps also you should create a selection set of all those components that are either not needed for mechanical design or don't need to be visible. Those should be deleted or hidden.
If they need to be visible, then set them to un-selectable. That will help viewport performance.
Then that design should have been linked into a new design with a timeline. There you can start designing the components that need to interface with that PCB.
@Anonymous wrote:1. When starting from a step-file, begin with rigid grouping the whole thing.
You'll have to respond appropriately to what is contained in the step file. In this particular case, it contains a static assembly of a PCB with lots of multi-body components. This would be your second step after "cleaning-up".
@Anonymous wrote:
2. If the model is so complicated that it is slow to use, delete or hide components that are not needed. Is hiding just as good for performance as deleting ?
3. Setting components as unselectable increases performance in the drawing workspace.
With "cleaning-up" I am referring to removing, hiding, or setting to unselectable those components that are not needed to complete the mechanical design. Deleting components & bodies obviously has the biggest impact on performance. Fewer data to process results in better performance.
Hiding only improves viewport performance. This is the 2nd best option.
Setting components or bodies to be unselectable also improves one spect of viewport performance and is your third-best option.
Dynamically in a cone shape projecting from the mouse pointer Fusion 360 searches for selectable entities. The fewer entities are viewable or selectable, the faster that search is. Having stuff hidden or at the very least set to unselectable can have a dramatic effect on viewport performance.
@Anonymous wrote:4. Fusion 360 is not suitable for designing without design history. Use one instead.
Modifying geometry is perfectly possible without a design history. Follow this link to an Autodesk University recording discussing the techniques.
@Anonymous wrote:5. Don't design in the file of a to be imported component. Import the (simplified) component first and design in the assembly.
Again, this depends on what your overall design goal is and what is represented in the imported componet. In this case, it is its own self-contained PCB assembly. I would insert it into a new design with design history and start designing around it.
When I run a quality check in Autodesk Inventor Professional - I get an indication of several errors in the geometry (I did not take the time to hunt them down). I would not use in my design until I had tracked down all issues.
I converted to a single multi-body component (Attached) , but it is much slower that I would expect.
I would delete an unnecessary bodies and replace them with simple boxes if needed.
@TheCADWhisperer wrote:
...
I converted to a single multi-body component (Attached) , but it is much slower that I would expect.
Yes, because instead of working with multiple instances of the same geometry, when flatting this into a single multi-body component, the geometry has been copied as many times as there were instances. That can increase the file size substantially.
There's a "quote" button in the toolbar. Using that makes your posts more readable 😉
There's also a link button that should help properly embedding links.
@Anonymous wrote:
TrippyLighting : “Modifying geometry is perfectly possible without a design history. Follow this link to an Autodesk University recording discussing the techniques.”
Thanks. I have mentioned a few problems seemingly occurring due to the absense of a design history. Does that recording explain how to solve or avoid them ?
I am not sure. Different environments sometimes necessitate different tools with different options. But I am sure watching the video will provide you with a better understanding of how to work in direct modeling mode and might well show you workflows you are not familiar with. It will help broaden your knowledge of the application.
If you cannot extrude to a plane, for example then I am sure you can measure the distance, copy the value, and then extrude by the value.
@Anonymous wrote:
TrippyLighting : “Again, this depends on what your overall design goal is and what is represented in the imported componet. In this case, it is its own self-contained PCB assembly. I would insert it into a new design with design history and start designing around it.”
Why ? The placeholder belongs with the module and adding stuff in the file of the imported component avoids clutter in the assembly.
You either follow my suggestion and then add the placeholder in the assembly but there with a timeline, or you add it to the imported PCB assembly but then without a timeline. If you want to optimize the design for performance - and you should in this case - you'll simply have to make a compromise.
I had posted some guidance on how to properly quote on this forum.
@Anonymous wrote:
Trippylighting : “If you cannot extrude to a plane, for example then I am sure you can measure the distance, copy the value, and then extrude by the value.”
That is an inferior way to do that you would resort to because you lack anything better.
I just tried extruding from one component up to the next (with the timeline off) and it worked without a problem in direct modeling mode (timeline off). That's not really the point of my earlier reply.
The point was that even if some tools might be different in other parts of the software, exploring options and alternative ways to do things will increase your knowledge of the tool and will enable you to be a bit more resourceful than you currently are.
The turning of the timeline has pros and cons just as timeline-based designs have.
Also, from the way you wrote your post, I am deducing you are not familiar with what an Autodesk Expert Elite is. We are customers, just as you are, perhaps with a bit more experience under our belts.
I have no intention to "sell" you on Fusion 360. My intention is to help you through the problems you are encountering. I am also doing this for fun and spend my time here voluntarily. Please take that into consideration with your next reply.
@Anonymous wrote:So, one has to choose between the drawbacks of working with a timeline and without one.
Both have pros and cons.
@Anonymous wrote:
Is performance without timeline better ?
Yes. Adding a timeline adds additional data and layers of complexity. All that has to be processed. Unless I have to make changes to imported geometry and those changes have to be parametric, I rarely turn on the timeline for imported stuff.
@Anonymous wrote:
I have deleted about 90% of the model, which went reasonably fast, considering the number of components and bodies to delete.
For PCBs the select by size functionality allows you to delete unneeded geometry very quickly.
