Models don't retain their appearance when inserted

[Robert-FreEnergy]

This started happening a while ago, a lot of my models don't retain their appearances when inserted into an assembly.

New parts don't seem to be affected, just ones from before whatever caused this.

Opening the base part, removing materials and appearances and re-adding them doesn't seem to work.

I've attached an example and added some photos below.

[Robert-FreEnergy]

Any autodesk employees got the time to take a look at this or am I going to have to open up a support ticket?

[TrippyLighting]

Sometimes when a Fusion update is rolled out, that includes updates to the data structure of Fusion designs.

New designs will be created with the updated data structure, while existing files will need to be updated. This update process is seamless and occurs automatically when you start using an older design in a project with the newer data structure.

I can speculate that somewhere in that translation, appearances get lost.

You could try opening an older file before inserting it and changing "something" to get a save prompt. Saving the design saves it with the new data structure. I ma not sure it will help, but it might be worth trying.

[Robert-FreEnergy]

Thanks for the suggestion, I have tried this though, sadly it had no effect.

I even tried removing all of the materials and appearances (setting them all back to steel) saving, then re-applying them and re-saving.

That didn't work either

[TrippyLighting]

I've asked for feedback on the Fusion slack channel (only available to Autodesk Employees and EEs).

We'll see if we get someone from AD to chime in here.

[Robert-FreEnergy]

Thanks, much appreciated

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Robert and Peter,

I took a quick look. It seems that the top-level assembly has been assigned "Steel" material style. As a result, the inserted component looks like steel. Unassigning the material seems to restore the subassembly's appearance (right-click on the top assembly node -> Physical Material -> click on Steel -> right-click -> Unassign.
Another proof is that when inserting the same subassembly to a new design. The appearance seems to work fine.

Please try it out and see if it works for you.

Many thanks!

[Robert-FreEnergy]

Hi Johnson, thanks for getting back to us.

I have tried what you suggested, but it doesn't seem to work for me, I have recorded myself doing it in case I misunderstood what you were saying I needed to do.

[Robert-FreEnergy]

I realise watching my video back that I do not right click on the steel material, however if I do the image below is what I get:

[TrippyLighting · Accepted solution]

I created a screencast with my observations. It might take a while to convert into viewable resolutions:

[Robert-FreEnergy]

That is possibly the most comprehensive explanation of how appearances and materials interact through assemblies I've seen, completely explains why I misunderstood Johnson's solution.

Thank you, this should sort out the issues I have across loads of parts.

I completely agree with your point about the bodies and sub-components affecting the BOM, the reason both appear here is that this whole assembly is a representative model of a part that is purchased from Khrone. (The flanges come pre-attached and as I have a model of them I just dropped it in here rather than modelling one). They didn't have a model available so I quickly sketched this up to check spacings in larger assemblies. The whole assembly has a part-number (linked to an external part index) which is what appears on our BOM's and the body and flanges should never appear.

We currently don't use the BOM that is built into fusion, it was something that I wanted for a long time before it was introduced (am I correct in saying that it is part of the manage extension?) so I wrote some code to manipulate the exported .csv files of parts lists from my drawings into a live BOM system that ties into our part-numbering system and drawing index (all external to autodesk so that anyone in the office can access / print them).

I haven't found any detailed information on how fusion's built in BOM's can be extracted and manipulated (to be transparent, I haven't looked too hard) or organised a meeting with a fusion salesman for a demonstration and, given I expect that it would require me to change my workflow considerably and possibly re-write some code, I'm not sure that I can justify the added expense of the extension.

We build reasonably big renewable energy power plants, so most of my models are one off's for an individual site, or get drawn once and never need updating, which makes most of the iterative production tools that make the manage extension so powerful, inapplicable to us.

Thanks again for taking the time to make that video, it's a massive help, I'll take you advice on the rigid joints.

Is there a quick way to locate the rigid joint between two components? In some of my larger assemblies I have multiple components all aligned to the same point, with an capture position I can just make sure all alignment is contained in one capture position element on the timeline and edit that, but with lots of rigid joints I've often found it difficult to locate the correct joint.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@Robert-FreEnergy wrote:

...

We currently don't use the BOM that is built into fusion, it was something that I wanted for a long time before it was introduced (am I correct in saying that it is part of the manage extension?) so I wrote some code to manipulate the exported .csv files of parts lists from my drawings into a live BOM system that ties into our part-numbering system and drawing index (all external to autodesk so that anyone in the office can access / print them).

I haven't found any detailed information on how fusion's built in BOM's can be extracted and manipulated (to be transparent, I haven't looked too hard) or organised a meeting with a fusion salesman for a demonstration and, given I expect that it would require me to change my workflow considerably and possibly re-write some code, I'm not sure that I can justify the added expense of the extension.

...

---

I don't use the BOM in Fusion either. For mu day job I create concepts for manufacturing automation equipment and don't need a BOM or drawings for that.

For my larger hobby projects (500+ components 10+ vendors) I use OpenBOM as it has functionality that goes well beyond Fusion what Fusion currently offers. I have an early adopter subscription, so don't pay full price.

If I only needed a BOM and not any of the other, probably more mature functionality of the Manage extension I would not get a subscription for the extension.

---

@Robert-FreEnergy wrote:

I'll take you advice on the rigid joints.

Is there a quick way to locate the rigid joint between two components? In some of my larger assemblies I have multiple components all aligned to the same point, with an capture position I can just make sure all alignment is contained in one capture position element on the timeline and edit that, but with lots of rigid joints I've often found it difficult to locate the correct joint.

---

Something you may want to think about is that if you have assemblies where you only assemble components but don't create any geometry, you can work without a timeline and don't need capture position features. you can move parts in position with point-to-point move or the Align function and then create a rigid group when done.

This works well for assemblies ant are comprised of many purchased  standard components.