Zero is a number !!

[busycleta]

Guys please, when we use the dimension on the sketcher and we type the Number Zero, we really mean the Number Zero to be exactly that. Can you please put back the case statement in the backend to make this work as expected?

Yes, also the low hanging fruits matter, why does this have to be an ER now?

Thank you for taking care

[TheCADWhisperer]

Still no file Attached?

[busycleta]

F360 does not work with files, it's a cloud CAD

https://a360.co/3pVPFWO

[toby.mack]

ok, if you need an example project, see the attached test design.

This is as VERY simplified version of a design I was working on recently. The pulley system for the corner of a corexy printer.

What I have (crudely) modelled here is the corner of a frame with stepper, stepper standoff mounts, a toothed pulley on the stepper and two idler pulleys.

If you look at the sketch, you will see the stepper is constrained to slide in the x direction but fixed by the "steppertoframe" dimension.

The belts are not actually modelled but the path is shown by the x and y construction lines.

Lets assume the y belt is a fixed distance from the side of the rail ("beltclearance") but other stuff is driving the x belt position ("topbeltvariableclearance").

Lets say that ideally I want the stepper to be touching the frame in x and y. However if the x belt moves up (lets say topbeltvariableclearance is 10mm) then I have to make steppertoframe something like 15mm for the belt to clear the standoff.

If I manage to move the belt down (say topbeltvariableclearance becomes 25mm) then the stepper can move in x to touch the side rail.

In reality I spent a good hour moving stuff around to get the stepper where I wanted it. I could have left it unconstrained in x but that caused other issues elsewhere that were hard to spot so I got in a mess. Hence wanting to keep it fixed when working elsewhere.

I practice I just set the position to 0.01mm to simulate zero. That sort of works but then I am in danger of forgetting and leaving it as such, causing small errors in the final design which then need chasing down.

I hope that makes sense, feel free to tell me there is a better way of doing this! 😉

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@busycleta wrote:

F360 does not work with files, it's a cloud CAD

---

Attached is your file.

Are you familiar with Components in CAD assemblies?

Your sketches are not fully defined.

Do you have a real product design to talk about, or will this discussion be only about theory?

I will see what I can demo with these simple models - but first I have to get some of my paying work done.

[busycleta]

Who are you, the Woody Allen of CAD?

You can sidetrack as much as you want, it still won't win a fair debate. Just constrain as many points you want, the sketch is all yours, the issue however remains.

You can happily miss the point as much as you want. What I do hope is that @Anonymous considers the users needs, if not mine, then many other voices in the thread here who will tell them:

"features that work as expected are worth a lot, everything else is a pain"

• this goes for dimensions accepting ALL real values
• this goes for dialog handling: TAB key to cycle between menus is behavior as expected
• copy ctrl+c
• save ctrl+s
• ...

any intentional deviation from this cannot add but only subtract value.

Don't believe me?

Ask Jakob Nielsen

10 Usability heuristics:

#4: Consistency and standards

Users should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing. Follow platform and industry conventions.

[toby.mack]

If we are asking for stuff we are not likely to get. I would like to be able to use negative numbers for dimensions (to mean: move it to the other side of the reference point) 🙂

To be fair, I was talking to someone about this last night. He is a hardware engineer and has to use mentor graphics pcb design tools. Apparently their schematic capture and pcb layout tools have different methods for panning round a design plus other bizarre UI inconsistencies. I gather based on historical aquisition of other companies software but no real attempt to rationalise the UIs.

Compared to that, perhaps we should go a bit easy on fusion 360 😉

[busycleta]

Okay guys, hold your beers:

If you put a angular dimension between two lines, guess what: you CAN'T have them parallel !!!! 😵😵😵

FUSION 360 does not accept one of the most common angle, 0 degress, where / in what setting can I switch off this once and for all???

[davebYYPCU]

Fusion can align two lines to be parallel - no problem, 24 hours a day, 

If the lines are already parallel,

you can’t add a zero value angle dimension, because in Fusion a dimension value of zero is not possible, they provided the Parallel Constraint, for that.

In Fusion, you can’t turn that programming regime off.

[busycleta]

For engineers and product developers it would be much better if the program-regime wold follow the two simple rules:

• produce simple behavior
• produce behavior as expected

both points are deliberately disregarded: instead of typing in the value, when angles or distances come to zero, what they do very often in real-CAD-life, 6 clicks and cumbersome fumbling around is the consequence, not only is this unprofessional, it distracts the user from what his job is.

I get the idea that fusion targets the makers who have plenty of time and patience, but imagine if it just worked as expected, would it hinder any maker to get his job done ?
Of course not, he would still have the freedom of choice: 6 clicks or 1 value and hit enter..

come on @Anonymous it's world engineering day, pay some attention to us as well okay!

[g-andresen]

Hi,

---

@busycleta wrote:

 6 clicks and cumbersome fumbling around is the consequence, not only is this unprofessional, it distracts the user from what his job is.

---

Could you demonstrate this with an example?

günther

[toby.mack]

I think you are missing the point. We all know what fusion does not do this. We all know there is a way of getting round it. That is stating the obvious. We are just saying we think that having a dimension value of zero (or negative for that matter) is a logical and useful thing to be able to do. Fusion not doing so makes for a poor user experience.
Sure, we can remove the dimension and add a parallel or co-incident constrant (and repeat this every time we decide to change to a non zero value and back). But we would rather just be able to change a parameter and get on with the real work. Surely the whole point of a parametric cad system?

If the answer is that fusion was designed like this and it will break other things if it is changed then so be it, but surely no one is saying it is not a valid use case and changing it would not be a improvement in user experience?

[davebYYPCU]

The limitation is only restricted to the sketch Dimension Tool.

parameters, have zero and negative numbers.

I was taught to constrain before dimension where possible,

so as a zero dimension is not possible I can live with that, 

Which other cad system allows a zero dimension?

[busycleta]

You mean the zero distance would work everywhere but in the sketcher tool? This means: it works everywhere only where it’s needed most, in the sketcher, it does not?

Apart from that, try to move a body, „create copy“ option checked and set distance to zero .... fail again.

every paid CAD has it, onshape, NX, sure every engineering CAD, imagine if you paid top dollar and the program does not work as expected in its most basic tasks..

f360 can only maintain this status because there are so many free plan usere...

[toby.mack]

oh dear. It is worse than I though.

So you can set a parameter to zero. However if that parameter is zero, you cannot assign that parameter to a dimension on a sketch. Set it to something non-zero and you can then assign it to a sketch dimension. 

Now, that done, you can set the parameter to zero and it updates the sketch accordingly!!!

So you can use zero dimensions in a sketch. You just need to jump through hoops to do it 😂

[busycleta]

have you tried this sucessfully? I did not work with distances here on my installation...

[busycleta]

SEVEN CLICKS INSTEAD OF ONE, Yes folks, you read that right SEVEN ( 7 )
@g-andresen 

[toby.mack]

using zero parameters. Yes, it works, but only if you set the parameter to non zero before assigning it to a sketch.
OR it did on a test sketch I did with two parallel lines.

[toby.mack]

If I have done it right, attached is a test project. Look at the sketch and you should see a zero dimension (parameter driven).

[busycleta]

Hi @toby.mack , thanks for sharing the file, I took a look and I can only see two lines, the dimension disappears,
We have found a Quirk and a Bug @CGBenner , thx for taking care, by the way, where can the Feature Request be seen, is there a forum section for that?

because when I move them , they do stay together without having a colinear constraint.

This is really odd, can you see the dimension in your file on the graphic window?

Greetings

[toby.mack]

You are right, I had not noticed that. If I open the design I cannot see the dimension, even when editing the sketch. However if I then change the parameter to non-zero, the dimension can be seen in the sketch. I can then change it back to zero and it is then still visible as a zero dimension. 

So I guess we have to modify zero dimensions every time we edit if want to see them. As you say, very odd behaviour....

https://knowledge.autodesk.com/community/screencast/b65ebe55-277d-4741-b45c-3d09587ffa66 

Sorry, I gave up fighting this forum software trying to embed the screencast!