Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
Submitted byAnonymouson10-18-201508:52 PM
Status:
Gathering Support
Ability to reference Driven Dimensions
I have a driven dimension in a sketch, which I would like to be able to use in a calculation for another parameter, but there is no way to reference this. It does not show up in any way under the "Change Parameters" dialog or have any named reference that I can see.
The comments from the Autodesk guys underneath seem to suggest that it was on its way, but that was almost a year ago....!? and in the mean time there seem to be a hole load of what i would call 'nice to have' items implemented, whilst this has seemingly been ignored when i would call it absolutely essential for parametric modelling.
I can't see it anywhere on the road map either....
Any one at Autodesk reading this and can provide us with an update? 'Cus as far as i'm concerned, if this isnt going to be implemented soon, then i need to jump ship and do my modelling elsewhere.
> ...this has seemingly been ignored when i would call it absolutely essential for parametric modelling.
I almost have to wonder if the issue isn't some misconception or error on the part of those of us who see this as an essential feature. Maybe we're just hooked on the Inventor crack and all we can think about is how to get more crack.
Not only is Autodesk pretty blase about it, but there don't seem to be a lot of other users taking to the streets to demand it, either. Do they have some alternative approach that achieves the same effect? If anyone out there in userland is reading this and thinking "I don't see why you would want this feature when you can just XYZ...", please do drop a note here with a pointer to XYZ. I'd be most appreciative!
(But note, I don't think "you could just include the relevant calculations in your formula" is a plausible response. Not only is that very complex in many cases, but it also seems like a pretty clear violation of good design practices. You should be able to design part B to fit part A without part B having to know all about part A's internal structure and constraint network.)
Haha, well when the crack does you no harm, then why stop!?
> You should be able to design part B to fit part A without part B having to know all about part A's internal structure and constraint network.
Absolutely agree, if part A's dimension is determined as 0.2+0.8-0.4+(5*2) -(0.2/2)+5, you shouldn't have to tell part B this in order that you can position it 0.1mm away from Part A, you should simply be able to say 14.5 (i.e. the driven dimension) + 0.1. It would save days, even weeks on a big project!
Plus, you can then go back and delete dimensions in sketches, without fearing that you'll have to go through your entire timeline checking for formulas that may have mentioned the dimension you now want to delete....
In some cases it's not even possible to use a formula, and you're just stuck having to update an extrusion (for example) ever time you change another parameter.
I feel requests like this get lost in the noise amongst the 'nice to haves' i mentioned earlier. I vote for features here and there, but there's no way of indicating with that vote whether it's a feature i view as 'absolutely essential to my continuing to stick with Fusion' or just a 'good idea that would be nice to have at some point in the future when fusion have a spare moment'...
It's good to see your passion for the Fusion and I appreciate you trying to drum up some demand for this functionality. You are right that referencing driven dimensions are critical for parametric updating / configuring models. Displaying driven dimension is just the first phase in our plan to build out our parametric tools. Developing the ability to reference driven dimensions is a large project for us and there are dependencies that need to be done first to allow the desired workflows. Our team made a decision to release driven dimension without the ability to drive them because it still delivers value to our users. Right now this teams top priority is taking fully constrained out of preview, along with text and dimensioning enhancements. Yes, this has been in our backlog for a while and it still is. Once the dependency work, along with our current priorities are completed we will start work on this. In the mean time, keep driving demand for this, it will help influence priority.
yep that's the plan we are talking about two different things but there is a way to make a user parameter a driving damnation, I use them all the time where you can make a drive what b does
is this the sort of thing you wont to do the 2 user paramters are used to drive all the damentions,
I do it this way for cabint makeing where you can have the hight damention, driveing where shelfs go / how many you wont then changeing hight changes the shelf gap and the top is sketched of the top of the hight line what locks it to the line so it moves with it.
then when doing the length that will be the press pull from the sketch, it is the length paramater.
then when doing the shelfs length it is the length paramater -1/2 timber thickness if it's going into a dado.
so when doing cabints I just have length, width, hight, timber thickness and shelf amount these drive the whole thing.
or if it is to timber stock size it's 2 damentions and a number that drive the whole
then it -, / ,* what ever for each part.
the way to do it in fusion can be hard but if you alraedy know the main damentions you set them as user paramaters, then you can drive everything from them.
you can also combine user paramaters into another user paramater. the idea behind this idea sation would be easyer but it wont be in for some time unless every week a few people keep bumping it
@daniel_lyall thanks for your post, but unless i'm misreading it, your example is using standard (and sensible) 'driving' parameters, as opposed to the 'driven' parameters that we are requesting.
The forum post below features a very good example from @Anonymous of what a driven dimension is, and when/why it is required.
@AlexanderYates I see what you mean, what the person did in post 3 you can do I just did that. I dont do it that way my self I like to name everything, but it can be done.
d5 is a construction line conected to the circule d2 is the 100 you can see, the circules size is d2/3 and the lines length is as you can see d3/2 if you change this the circule moves is this closer to what you wont, if not I will shut up and go away
You are missing one important thing in my design. In your example you have d2 defined as being 100 mm and can use it for calculations.
I could not do that, because the length of d58 is not a dimension I have defined, but it depends on the vertical length, horizontal length and the angle in that triangle. I can add a dimension (which is d58), but it can not be edited (it is "driven" by the rest of the sketch).
You can not use these driven dimensions for calculations at the moment which is what this improvement request is about.
A workaround was to use trigonometric functions (sin(), cos(), tan(), etc) to calculate the length, but that can get pretty ugly quick in more complex sketches. I basically had to use the following function for the calculation in my original design (not the simplified triangle I used for describing the problem):
Here's an example of something that would be quite difficult to calculate but easy to get as a driven dimension. If I wanted this length as a reverence for a spacing in a pattern it would be a lot of work to come up with an equation as a parameter.
The last post shows the real sketch I had a problem with. I needed the length of the top diagonal line that has the driven dimension "(9.907)" to position the small circle around 1/3 from the top. But since that length depends on all the other dimensions in that sketch, I couldn't just "use" it.
The complex formula is basically based on a^2 + b^2 = c^2 if you construct an orthogonal triangle with the diagonal line as hypothenuse. But a and b had to be calculated by the other dimensions. And to get there I had to use a tan() function to work with the 60° angle, etc.
Oh and yes, that's one of the very few times I had to remember that stuff from math in school ;).
@HughesTooling thanks Mark I get it now it would save all those math functions I have to do to get the spacing correct, what get quite long.
@Anonymous yer I get it now it is needed I hate doing the long math to get spacings correct it, if I could just have it's D12 (the spacing between what ever) so much easier, at lest we know it is coming, sooner would be good, I just looked in my note book almost every single cabinet I have done has long math functions in them the worst is 6 different damnation's
@schneik-adsk@promm why is this shown as implemented? Driven dimensions are just cosmetic at the moment and can't be referenced to anything. I see this idea is listed as future consideration, but is the same thing as this one. Its a bit of a tease the way it is currently, since they are essentially pointless.
I've only used Fusion360 for non-mechanical/unimportant designs because this feature is missing, and I need to make a more permanent decision about what software to use for milling/CNC.
