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]

I would use Coincident or Horizontal or Vertical.

Can you File>Export your *.f3d file to your local drive and then Attach it here to a Reply?

Alternatively you can create a named Parameter.

But you have to be careful if you are going to change the dimension - there are two solutions - one on either side of zero.

[busycleta]

Hi thanks for the reply
Will it work if Zero is a User Paramter?

For this question, it does not make sense to attach a local file, after all the glitch is built in, you can easily reproduce: just type Zero in a sktch dimension.

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@busycleta wrote:

For this question, it does not make sense to attach a local file, after all the glitch is built in, you can easily reproduce:

---

Actually, for this question there is a very very good reason to see your actual geometry and an explanation of your true Design Intent.

I would not have requested the file otherwise.

[busycleta]

Sorry, I didn’t state the problem / intent well enough:

I d like to use the dimensions command and have it work as expected. For instance when I insert 5 the distance (if not overconstrained) is set to 5. Same for zero—> distance is set to zero. It is totally independent of any design intent rather this is a functional intent: have things work as expected.

Hope this helps to understand. 

cheers

[TheCADWhisperer]

1. It works with parameters.

2. It is not needed.

[busycleta]

Now I was looking forward, but too early: the program does not accept parameter set to zero neither.
@innovatenatewhy are so many features tweaked to "not work as expected" ? It puzzles me, whats the design intent behind such things? Makes CAD work cumbersome, need not to be...

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@busycleta wrote:

Now I was looking forward, but too early: the program does not accept parameter set to zero neither.

---

No *.f3d file Attached?

[busycleta]

No, why , again its a generig glitch, reproducable on any f360 installation, independent of my file, independent of any file in existence, why even asking for it.

1. create a sketch

2 create 2 lines

3. set distance between lines to zero

--> reproduced

Now: How can I unaccept a proposed solution that does not work, thus is no solution. Just to be sure: did it ever work as expected in your instance of f360?

[davebYYPCU]

Sketch dimension of zero is illegal.  Always has been, no amount of complaining about will make a difference.

Work around is with parameter, but it is difficult to manage and generally not a required when there are easier / other ways to get it done.

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@busycleta wrote:

No, why , , why even asking for it.

---

It doesn’t sound like you have figured out the solution yet.

[busycleta]

Wow, thank you @davebYYPCU for your valuable input about the legality of the concept "zero as number"

why even bother with basic usability, zero distance is "illegal" anyway, that's the solution to all problems. 🤔
there is no way to make this work as expected, you would have to bring a team of 12 FTE elite-programmers to implement this and it would take at least 3 years to iron out the bugs in the IF statement...

you ever consider that users of the program include actual engineers?
well guess what...

[davebYYPCU]

You're Welcome.

[ed · Accepted solution]

Frustrating to see responses that the users making the request are wrong and we should work around it.  I would like to see this function implemented.

[CGBenner]

If I am understanding this topic correctly, the validity (In the real world) of zero as a number is not being disputed.  That said, in Fusion (and I think also in Inventor), zero is not allowed as a dimensional value on sketches.  I'm not going to even speculate as to the programming reasons for this, since I know ZERO about coding. (see what I did there?)  The use of geometric constraints is what is currently set up in these programs to accomplish a distance of zero.  

Asking the product team if changing this is possible or not, is a valid question.  But at this time, it is not possible. 
Am I getting the jist of the question?

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@CGBenner wrote:

  That said, in Fusion (and I think also in Inventor), zero is not allowed as a dimensional value on sketches.  The use of geometric constraints is what is currently set up in these programs to accomplish a distance of zero.  

---

A zero dimension can be used in Inventor.

But of course there are generally better techniques.

I haven't used a zero dimension since leaving MDT 19 years ago.

[toby.mack]

For what it is worth I completely agree with the need for this and find the inability to set dimensions to zero a pain.I often find my self having to delete dimensions and add constraints (and vice versa) just because I have decided something is better off touching (or not). It does not take long to forget what should be constrained to what and get in a mess.

Maybe that says more about me that fusion360 but it is nice to know I am not alone 😉

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@toby.mack wrote:

I am not alone 😉

---

For more than 15 years I have requested example case files for this.

I have yet to see anyone post a single case file. Not one!

I can envision theoretical need, but I have yet to find a practical need.

Do you have any real examples?

[toby.mack]

I have a few. I will try to find one tomorrow that I can share.

[busycleta]

I often see this, people from academia tell us to not use zero distance. Well in engineering reality things look different, and tools not working as expected are therefore creating pain points for the user.

Example?

Clip initially has .2 mm clearance, adjust to touch, then to .4mm clearance again.

It's called iterative product development.

We have two ways

A)

1.set the dimension to reference

2.create a coincident constraint

3. delete the coincident constraint

4. toggle dimension as driving

Versus B) as expected

1. type 0mm

2. type .4mm

Which one is preferable? A or B ?

I am glad we could sort this out here. Thanks