The title kinda says it all. Basically this feature would just be something that would allow me to go back to a previous version to retrieve a component that I spent awhile working on but then randomly disappeared, and then saving that as a new design or copying it or basically having any way at all to pull it out without having to redesign the thing even though I've already wasted more time trying to get it back than it would have taken to redesign in the first place NOT THAT I'M ANNOYED OR IN ANY WAY EXTREMELY FRUSTRATED AT THE MOMENT.
I really don't understand this but I've noticed that often when I drop something into a design and then move it, the component /looks/ like it's in the right place but then when I try to do something like align a plan to its surface, it's actually back where it randomly dropped in (read: very much not where I wanted it to be)
I'm not sure if that's a bug or a misfeature but it'd be nice to at least have the option to be able to start sketching in the plane defined by where the surface of a component appears to be in a design.
Note that that blue construction plane (upper left) is actually on the surface of that mounting reference body (lower right).. or at least it should be and that's where I wanted it to go.
This is something that we do already but it'd be a nice convienence utility that you could cook into Fusion 360.
Basically it would just be a way to describe things like «this hole is for a screw and we need to be sure that nothing will interfere with that in the assembly up to some stage».
A simple example is that we need to put screws into a handle which lookx something like
(basically just a flat surface with an arch over it)
Those holes have to be placed in such a way that a person or robot can easily insert and tighten them. Not a hugely complicated process but if you're not careful, it's easy to get them too close to the handle in a way that the handle interferes with the tools, and this sort of thing is trivial to fix if caught early in the design process (and moreso if it's codified into the design, itself, as a form of documentation and parameteric control).
All that needs to be added is a way to programatically put in excluded space for tool access (actually also if there were separate from the design timeline, an «assembly» timeline, it'd be amazing if you could just put those constraints and clearances precisely where you need them in the process so if you're building a complex assembly like a car transmission, you could get the assistance in design for manufacture at precisely the stage where you need it).
Very often in assemblies it's important that parts fit together and not overlap.
It'd be great if there were a way to have interference (ideally with the ability to specify positive or negative tolerances) automatically checked while we're designing.
I'd love it even more if whenever we're doing something like pulling a face, we could just snap that face to other bodies to bring them just into a specified tolerance (again positive or negative to allow for free or guided motion and interference fits).
I'm using Fusion 360 to design a piece of furniture. It contains lots of "boards" that can be visualized as rectangular bodies mostly at right angles to each other, with lots of overlapping pieces (like a top that covers the sides when viewed from above).
When I need to select a face that is "on edge" in the current view, and I click and hold to bring up the selector to dig down into the potential things under the cursor, I find the current method of displaying which face is which as you mouse over the different faces in the list to be difficult to use.
I can see surface normal planes lighting up and submerged normal faces lighting up their perimeter, and can see submerged edges light up, but the indication that I'm on a hidden face under an edge is...nothing is lit up. This is counter-intuitive since other types of features all light up. It would be much better to have the edge light up in one way for an edge and a different way (different color, dashed, whatever) when the face hidden beneath that edge is selected.
As it is now, one has to keep going back and forth between the pan and magnifier tools to get zoomed in on a specific part of the design. I would much prefer that the magnifier tool paid attention to where I put the cursor before I click/drag.
To say that another way, if I want to zoom in on a particular feature in the design, I would like to be able to select magnifier, and then click and drag ON THAT FEATURE to both pan to and magnify that area of the design.
There should be something in place to quickly identify which joints are locked. There isn't currently anything in the browser so I just ended up going joint by joint. My vote would be for a browser badge icon like grounded components. It could be a small lock of some type.
although i understand the technical reason behind i think the export currently isn't the best user experience. You have to find your file in the dashboard, choose export from the toolbox, choose a name and format and at the end you don't get the file but have to wait until the cloud based export renderer get's your export finished. Of course the latter part doesn't take that long normally but you still have to wait or most likey switch to other tasks until you get notified about the finished export.
(actually i'm waiting for an export to get finished while i write these lines.)
When the export is finished you have to go back, find the exported file in the dashboard and download it.
How about offering the option in the export dialog to directly send the exported file with the notification email or instead of it. Maybe this won't be a big deal for some of you but i would find that extremely helpful and i think it should not be too hard to implement.
Coming from SolidWorks, the single most frustrating thing I'm finding about Fusion is the sketch environment. Most of the features are analogous, but Fusion's colors, line weights, dimension leaders and constraint icons are (to my eye) immensely frustrating.
They look good in a demo. In fact, they look basically fantastic in a screen shot of a well-sorted, clean sketch.
Using them however, is a soup sandwich compared to sketching in SolidWorks (and SW can have some super messy/annoying sketch issues as things get complex at times as well).
Line colors are ghosted, lightweight and often times difficult to see in every environment setting offered.
2- Line Weights
There is no deliniation of line weights between leaders and sketch lines. There are different line weights for construction geometry, but those lines are often unrecognizeable. I can't even see the construcition geometry in the attached sketch picture. The 10mm dimension leader is absolutely obscuring a sketched line.
3- Constraint Icons are Too Heavy
Constraint icons are very heavy in comparison to all line weights and they seem to dominate whatever geometry they are supposed to be annotating.
I understand that I've got about a decade of SolidWorks experience and transitioning to something as core to a CAD package as a new sketch environment is going to be a pain, but the pure visual experience of Fusion 360 sketching is making it hard to even get a grasp of what's going on. Sure sure, we're all designers here and Fusion is making a name for itself with a super slick interface, but design is also about visual clarity and useability. On those fronts, I think Fusion could use some minor tweeks to find major gains.
It would be great having this feature present in 3DVia Composer.
It has a hotkey assigned so you can go ghosting parts that are under your mouse pointer. As soon as the pointer goes away from the part, it recovers its normal state. A ghosted part displays transparent and gets ignored in the selections.
It's a very efficient way of accessing parts inside an assembly without having to go hiding different parts and then showing them again because they are in the way.
Some annoyances aside, ray tracing was working well enough for me in the previous Fusion 360, but in the beta preview I'm just getting image corruption [see enclosed].
Late 2010 MacBook Air (1.8GHz i7 w/ 4GB 1333 MHz DDR3 RAM Intel HD Graphics 3000 w/ 384 MB)
OS X 10.9.2 13C39 (though also present at least as early as the GM release of 10.9.1)
This is a bit beyond the scope of Fusion 360 but it would be a spatially concurrent hardware description language that can describe complex assemblies.
Although the application is diferent, it could be modeled after Verilog where modules describe collections of function. In an initial / alpha version, it would just describe positioning, exclusion, and relative movement.
Assemblies would be described with formal specification that could be automatically combined with design rules and translated into physical hardware. Optimized part and assembly generation could then be implemented to allow for easy and automatic generation of metal stamping and injection molding dies, laser sintered or melted parts, and hand or automated assembly.
Synthesis could take into account clearnace for motion of components durring assembly and in the final assembly, noise and stiffness constraints for positioning, and so on.
Individual parts can be described in a 3D CAD system where the part, mount points, and clearances are specified as separate physical layers, and a 3D design tool (Fusion 360) can specify boundaries.
A typical workflow might look something like the following:
[product designer in Fusion 360] lays out the outer geometry of the product specifying soft feet, a metalic face, and a hard plastic surface.
[product engineer; probably in Fusion 360] selects stamped aluminum for the face, santoprene for the feet and glass filled nylon for the surface. Specifies that a NEMA 17 stepper be centrally located with the ability to move a component within a specified range. Fixes the mount points for the motor, specifies the location of a control board, battery, capacitive touch panel, etc. Specifies M3 bolt fasteners and a specific variety of plastic reversable rivets.
[design automation system] applies design rules for stampped aluminum to synthesize the stampped face. Uses rigidity and other constraints to determine the optimal material for the stamped face, thickness and geometric details of the injection molded santoprene and glass filled nylon parts, and the positioning and number of fasteners, and wiring design and routing.
[automated documentation system] generates technical drawings, tolerances, 3D parts, and assembly instructions to send to metal stamper, injection molder, integration, and testing suppliers.
[product designer in 360] makes significant changes to external geometry
[design automation systems] automatically generate updated complete assembly design and manufacturing instructions without requiring the intervention of other engineers beyond design validation.
Such a system could in principle be used to synthesize an optimal design for something as complex as a Boeing 777, and regulations (such as safety, ADA compliance, recyclability, etc) could be imposed as constraints. Once a complex design is built and certified, improvements in availiable materials and manufacturing techniques could be applied to generate completely new and dramatically improved parts and assembly processes.
Fusion by default smooths stl face normals when importing. This is great for smooth surfaces, but for planar surfaces gets very messy.
If you try to model a mechanical part from an stl, it gets very difficult to visualize the geometry with this shading.
In other packages there is an option of flat shading so you can see planar faces composed of many triangles as a single one.
This is how it is displayed in Fusion:
The same happens in blender when you have smooth normals on:
If you flatten normals, you get this:
Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but none of the forums quite fit. There doesn't seem to be a general feedback forum.
I bought a Makerbot Replicator 2last month and have been trying out 3d modeling packages to select the one I like best. So far my favorite is Moments Of Inspiration, but I wasn't aware of Fusion 360 until today. I like what I see of it so far, but the price will take it completely out of consideration. The only way you'd get me to subscribe to software like this is if the price were really compelling, but $300/year is NOT compelling. I pay less than twice that for all of Adobe's products combined. Based on that, Fusion 360 is priced too high. You could certainly point out that at this price I make out better vs a $2000 package until 7 years from now, but I don't see this playing in the $2000 space.
Please offer a simple one-time $300 perpetual license for me to purchase. Let me pay for upgrades. This subscription model puts too much power in Autodesk's hands.
My main concern with subscription based software is that Autodesk will basically stop development on it, but continue to charge me anually. Either that or it'll suddenly stop working when they decide to shut down the subscription service for it.
I understand that importing geometry is a popular request. I also understand that the status is now "Implemented" Still I have to ask where is the add or Import button?
Here are some thoughts and observations on the subject:
Drag and Drop in the Dashboard
Note when I tried the drag and drop function it works for the initial establishment of a file but when I tried to add a surface into an existing file I get a crash document.
Drag and drop should work while the file is open as the workflow needs to accommodate all potential outside geometries.
The default should be to all available file types with easy filter for type.
It would be awesome to be able to parametrically connect imported bodies to a folder where as if the imported body is developed further by other when the FUSION files is opened it re-imports this updated / changed file.
I was not able to figure out how to extrude an edge in sketch. My fault was I did not read the tool tip help text.
However fusion organized poly tools in an odd way.
Extrude loft etc should be grouped with bridge subdivide ect.
All those command create geometry.
Further extrude should be applied not only to a face but also to an edge and vertex.
In blender e just extrudes geometry no matter what I have selected.
Assign aliases to existing Fusion/Autodesk materials.
There's already a big amount materials available in Fusion 360 and most of the time, for me in any case, it's just the name of the material that needs changing or tweaking. For example, Steel, Mild I'd like to see as MILD STEEL, but it doesn't really require a new file to be created, just a name and or description change since I'm happy with the density, appearance, etc.
How will it work?
Make a table accessible in the Hub with columns showing the Autodesk names of all the Fusion 360 materials and columns showing my names (aliases) for those materials. If I leave an entry for, say, a material name in a row empty, then Fusion uses the Autodesk name, if it sees an entry for a name, it uses my alias. One could do the same for density and other physical properties.
In the 2D (drawings) environment, these aliases should show up in the Parts List (BOM).
Just a stop and or pause button for imports (uploads), similar to what Google Chrome has for downloads.
I currently have a massive upload that is ongoing and have no way to stop it unless I unplug a cable or delete the original file on my PC.
What I'll probably have to do is to rename the original CAD file on my PC and replace it with a small (empty) CAD file of the same name, then let Fusion 360 do its thing and then I can delete the design from my Hub when the upload is finished. It's a bit of unnecessary effort for something that should be simple to do.
Win 7 64-bit, South Africa.
Please mark this as Solved if it answered your question, other people may find it useful too.
I'm not sure if it's just the I'm loading complex designs or if it's that Fusion 360 is gonig to cloud storage but either way, loading designs takes quite a bit of time /but/ when it nears completion, Fusion 360 brings itself to the foreground which is cute but incredibly annoying when you're trying to do something else (especially when that something else may include closing a window which ends up getting captured by Fusion 360 and closing the design you were waiting for rather than the browser tab you wanted to close :)
When Fusion 360 crashes (which is incidently still far, far more common than it should be), it launches a process «senddmp» which, itself, often hangs and ends up using a ton of CPU time even after killing the frozen crash reporter.
In the last few days alone, I've had a couple dozen crashes where the crash reporter froze before sending the report in or completing the process (no way of confirming one way or another). My MacBook Air's fan has been running constantly which I attributed to Fusion 360 constantly churning (which is another issue) but then I noticed it was still going even though I stopped using the program last night. I looked in Activity Monitor and saw a few instances of «senddmp» running, each using 100% of a hyperthreaded core so I'm guessing it's a single thread caught in some sort of a loop.. all of the above is super annoying and should be fixed before you start charging :)
Every polygon modeler that knows the value of fluid edge creasing will miss this feature in T-Splines. Variable values for the creasing amount allow me to quickly explore certain edge rounding styles without having to commite to inserting actuall loop cuts which will only increase the model mesh needlessly.
Here is a screenshot from a game car I created as a demo piece for my students to show them an efficient workflow to explore certain body styling directions rapidly just with edge creasings.
The only way to get this body shell into Fusion would be to bake a high res mesh in Blender (the subdivision surface option allows 6 levels of refinement) however the higher the mesh res the better the details get baked but the less Fusion will be able to convert the OBJ mesh into T-Splines.
Here is a video that shows how the process works inside Blender:
This one is not harmful, but might need fixing at some point.
The Cmd-Ctrl-3 and Cmd-Ctrl-4 keys are standard shortcuts for taking screen grabs in OS X.
Utilizing them in a certain position in Fusion 360 has the unwanted effect of minimizing the 'offset plane' to hardly visible size. This only happens if the source for the plane is the coordinate plane, not i.e. if an edge of a box is being offset.
1. Construct > Offset Plane.
Pick one of the coordinate planes and start dragging it.
2. Press Cmd + Ctrl keys (together), and release them.
This should have no relevance to Fusion 360.
The offset plane is minimized to really, really small size (but continues to work).
Notice that during the Cmd + Ctrl press (or i.e. taking a screenshot) the offset plane disappears. I needed to use the Capture tool to get the screenshots because of this. It's probably due to the application losing keyboard focus or something. This is fine: the offset plane is an interactive element and interactive elements can be hidden if the application is not topmost.
There's something weird with imported images.
1. Use 'Image > Attached Canvas' to bring in a picture
2. Right click the picture, select 'Move'
The move controls should be enabled, allowing the image to be moved and scaled.
A 'move dialog remains on the screen but nothing else.
Notice that one cannot select the canvas from the Browser, either (as the 'Selection' that is asked for).
Now, right click on the Browser at the particular Canvas. Select 'Move'.
The canvas can be moved.
Why shouldn't the same work right-clicking the canvas itself?
Why don't the move controls allow for scaling of the canvas? Could be because I've calibrated it? Nope - the same happens also for just imported images. One can zoom them only during the import. Why?
My selection filters had everything enabled, including 'Canvas'.
Look At doesn't work with Canvas - why?
'Look At' feature (either from the Zoom/Pan minibar or by right clicking i.e. a sketch) is a handy feature to get a right angled view of a plane.
Why aren't they available for canvases? (i.e. no right click entry in the Browser)
btw, you should add 'Browser' and maybe also version numbers to the Idea Labels. How are we differentiating versions now that we get 'Sep' and 'Dec' releases?
Doing more tests, I noticed this:
I had imported a new image to the right (the little speck), ended the import.
Then zoomed to see the image, and took 'move', right-clicking in the browser.
No move controls anywhere.
Until I zoom out and find them at the origin? What the hell?
Fusion 360 doesn't really have the concept of a global coordinate system. I think that is cool - coordinates should be relative to the component in question, or the parent component. The canvas should be limitless, without a certain point above the rest. Right?
However, there is this one point on the canvas that seems to be the global origin.
I don't need it. In fact, I often try to avoid it s.a. here moving the sketch circle away from it. So - why should the 'origin' be marked, at all?
The only use for the origin I know of is axis / plane selection.
When you hover in the Browser over Origin > O X Y Z XY XZ YZ elements, you can pick the point, the axes or the coordinate planes.
If you click the bulb on 'Origin', you can always see the axes cube.
You can even selectively click some of the bulbs to decide, which parts to be visible (here, axes have been hidden).
Cool. But why is this bad?
Most of the actual work, we're not rotating around the origin (which is the default pivot point) but around a self-selected point (shift + middle click). When we do this, selecting the coordinate axes / planes becomes difficult, since they often end up outside of the view window.
- take away the concept of 'origin' (the point) completely
- move the axes/plane selection next to the view cube (away from the model and browser)
- allow still visibility of individual axes / planes to be selected, but from the display settings
This would make sure the axes / plane selector never gets out of view, when I need it. It also always keeps it in one place, instead of how it currently moves around with the origin.
Once I pick something from it, it should be applied to the current pivot point (origin by default, or the custom 'red dot' if I have picked one).
The benefits this change would bring:
- more consistent thinking in the tool (no global coordinate system)
- never needing to 'look up' the origin for selecting an axes / plane (i.e. no need to zoom out / pan around to please the program)
- getting 'origin' away from the browser
One down side I can see is that export of material may indeed need a certain point of origin (= other tools rely on global coords even if Fusion 360 doesn't). To please this, the 'Origin > O' entry could survive in the browser.
Another approach to overcome the problems would be to simply move the axes / plane visualizations to where-ever the 'red dot' has been placed (i.e. normally in the center of action).
This would not cause changes in the browser, but would be a more scalable workflow compared to the origin-based one that I can only think works for very small designs.
What do you others think?
Have you been frustrated, trying to find the axes / plane selector being outside of the view area? Or have you given up and started using the browser only?
First of all, I am coming from Autocad P3D. ( no inventor knowledge )
This program is incredibly user hostile.
Slow, simply annoying to try to use.
Having to upload any model you want to work on? One of the biggest problem of cloud based software.
If I want to work on an existing model, I have to upload it.. wait.. try to work on it ( haven't worked yet, can't rotate?!,
then download it again... waste of time for me.
Just trying to re-create a very simple model - few cones and rounded edges - over 10 minutes and gave up. Would have taken me literally 10 seconds in autocad.
Basically I gave up and most likely will never use this again. I am very very glad I still have Inventor fusion 2013 if I need to convert file types.
On the positive list, it has some really cool features that would make workflow in autocad go a lot faster / smoother.. but unfortunately I will never really get to see them in fusion 360 because it's just too hostile from a knowledge base based on autocad.
I would like to give it a good try... but I just can't get over how counterintuitive it is to the workflow I have established with autocad. ( I assume ( not making an **** out of you and me ) that the workflow goes very well with inventor? )
The logic on when things automatically 'close' Sketch mode and when not is shaky.
Just a moment ago:
1. I'm drawing in a sketch, with mm being the default unit
2. Changing that (in Browser, click on an edit icon that emerges next to 'Units') to meters
- measures I have visible within the Sketch would be redrawn in meters (i.e. 2.5e+4 -> 25m)
- measures are gone, since I seem to be thrown out of Sketch mode
Cure is simple (re-edit the sketch) but this kind of behaviour is surprising to the user and thus counter-productive for the ease of use and learning curve.
Once more: "Browser" should have it's own Idea label.
The need for 3d snapping has been discussed earlier. I'm interested to hear how the Fusion 360 Team is thinking of implementing it. Currently, I really like the 2D Sketch environment and I hope whatever the solution, it will build on the same user experience (instead of diverging the look and feel).
Here are some suggestions, based on building a component for a steel mesh.
The current state
For those new to the forum, Fusion 360 does not have 3d snap. It has snap (and plenty more) in the 2D Sketch mode - but not in the usual 3D space.
The way around (as suggested elsewhere in the forum) is to use Joint Origins and fix everything together with them. However, this is really strange for creating a component without internal moving parts. Joints are for movements, components (by their Fusion 360 definition) are parts that move, relative to other components. We shouldn't use (need) components for building something that doesn't have internal degrees of freedom. Ugh.
Ignore the Joint Origins in the screen shot, I'm not going to use them. Instead, I'll see how Fusion 360 could make this kind of construction clear, and intuitive to the user, as it already does in the Sketch side.
If I just start to move the blue (selected) bar, it's kind of difficult to even drag it near where it should be snapped. This is because I'm dragging in 3D and the "depth" of the drag dot seems not to be in my control. I end up with this:
The ends don't meet. The blue bar is behind the one I would like to snap it to.
How do other CAD programs solve this? Are there examples of 3D snapping UI's? (really - I don't know)
Suggestion #1 - a 'Projection' constraint
What I can see as a possible solution is reusing the fine features in the Sketch mode.
1. Let's create a work plane
Looking from above (right click on the sketch in Browser, 'Look at'), I place points on the sketch.
Now, if we can make the 3D elements be tied to these dots, that's (almost) it. We would in effect constrain the 3D model to always follow (changes in) the sketch.
In order to do that, we need a feature that pairs sketch elements to 3D model elements.
It could be called '3d constraints' and be yet another submode of the Sketch mode (like 'dimensions' and 'constraints' now are). It can also be just a new kind of 'projection' constraint.
Here the lowest entry is a new one - the icon is borrowed from that used for 3d models (just a place holder).
If I select the 'Projection' construct, I'd be able to select any 3d model location (while still in the Sketch mode) that would then constrain the 3D element so that it's projection matches the given sketch point. This should be somehow indicated visually to the user (as sketch does for its 2d constraints).
The feature could ask me whether I want to move the 3d element to the sketch plane, or just constrain the projection. If I choose to constrain only the projection, I can make another sketch and constrain the remaining degree of freedom through it (to the same 3d point).
This way, I could implement i.e. meshes easily, by constraining multiple bar end points to the particular sketch 2d points.
Suggestion #2 - snapping in 3d
Since simply moving a 3d element over another, and snap, turned out to be difficult, let's see another way that could do the snap without the need to resort to sketches.
Let's create construction points at the tips of the two bars.
If we now had a feature (like Assemble > Join) to join these two points (moving one of the elements) that would be it.
( Fusion 360 doesn't do this, since these bodies are within the same component, and only components can be joined to other components, as per their definition. )
The feature should probably be under 'Modify' (or simply come about if two or more elements have been selected and one does a right click). ( Let's leave 'Assemble' for the component stuff. )
( Hmm.. my use of construction points is not good here. They don't move with the bars. Bummer. )
The 'snap' feature would allow me to tie the two ends of the bars together (moving the first, like Join does for components). The connection should be like a ball joint (for points), allowing me to further manually move both the bars or add other snaps to fully constrain them.
#3 - use what is there now
I was able to get this, as a single component, done using Fusion 360 existing 'move' and 'split body' commands.
It looks right, but is not based on precise geometry. Especially getting the aligned section to be somewhat right was difficult since I can only control the rotation angle (in 'move'), not constrain it to go through the end points.
Maybe there is a workflow that can currently do this better (please suggest me one!). But it's telling that it's very hard to find one.
The lack of 3d 'snap' is my #1 grievance on Fusion 360, at this time. Whatever the solution, I hope it binds the amazingly nice Sketch mode feeling and usefulness of its constraints seemingly also to the 3d. Currently, it feels like the 2d CAD inside the 3d one is actually more powerful.
Can you reveal your plans on this? Thanks.
I'm not sure if this is a bug or a feature?
1. Create a body and a Joint Origin connected to it
2. Create a component
3. Move the body into a component
Everything will be fine. Both the body and the Joint Origin will be moved under the target component
Only the body moves. The Joint Origin is orphaned (shown red on screen) and no longer function able.
Is this the expected behaviour?
The good news: one can tilt Joint origins already. The bad news: it's hard and unintuitive.
This entry falls somewhere between 'how to use Fusion 360' and being a collection of disparate UI suggestions. It may be in the wrong forum. It may be messy. It also may be sad. ( Eeyore )
Joint origins can be tilted
Earlier, I thought joint origins could not be tilted, since their adjustment wheel only rotates around one axis, not two.
This is not true. The 'reorient' checkbox allows realigning the 'Z' and 'X' axes of the Joint origin, thus allowing some (but not fully free 3d) tilting.
The attached video shows this.
There are also many problems with this feature. It basically feels like 'click and hope' instead of allowing me to clearly and easily express my intention.
This is a collection of the problems I've faced:
Just right clicking on the JO is not enough
As usual (unfortunately) in Fusion 360, one should first select (left click) the object and then right click on it. This is not the usual UI behavior at least in programs I use.
Actually, I was wrong here. Also Keynote (my reference for OS X UI) demands one to select first, after which right click *anywhere* on the screen refers to the selected items. Fusion 360 works the same.
What makes it feel weird are some other things:
- A selected, hovered JO looks the same as an unselected, hovered JO.
(unselected, unselected hovered, selected, selected hovered)
This means if you are right clicking while hovering above the JO, you have no idea whether it's selected or not. And since selection matters to the context menu to pop up, you have no idea whether you'll get the right one.
It is unnatural that in order to better know what's happening you should move the cursor away from the object, and right click there.
One solution can be to change the color scheme so that a selected, hovered JO gets a unique color (similar lightness change as for the unselected one, but based on the default selected color):
- There are too many context menu items.
I was hoping I wouldn't need to bring this up here. It's a more common issue. But it really hurts in trying to get to 'edit Joint Origin'.
Context menu when there is no selection on the canvas:
I don't have anything selected. Who's material am I going to change? Where am I going to make a hole? What am I going to press/pull? This simply does not make any sense. There should not be a context menu at such state. At all. Or it can have things s.a. 'paste' (enabled if there is anything to paste to the current component, shaded if there's not); see Keynote for the lead.
Context menu when the JO was selected (notice that it looks just the same):
Here we're better off. Some of the entries make sense.
'Find in Window' is interesting. We're looking at the selected object. It makes equally much sense as 'Find in Browser' right-clicking the element in the browser…
I recall that Ron prefers right-clicking stuff in the Browser. I don't blame him. But this can be fixed.
Back to the JO
Editing the JO (as well as creating one) offers these options:
'Flip' simply switches the orientation 180°. It's kind of neat but also redundant since the same could be done if only the 'reorient' feature was easier (that's why I included it in this shot).
'Reorient' tick simply enables the below two axis selections (at least I didn't find what else it would do). Therefore, also it is actually unnecessary.
Why is the Z axis before the X axis?
The real problem is in the selection of the axes (0:20 onwards in the video).
The best way I found to do was using the axis entries in the browser. This is not ideal, because I end up jumping between the browser and the dialog. I should be concentrating on the Joint origin instead! If there was a second rotating slider there, none of this would need to take place.
Selecting an axis seems to (sometimes) deselect the tool allowing the axis to get selected. So I need to jump back to the dialog…
Selecting the same axis for both 'Z' and 'X' looks possible (i.e. the browser entries don't get dimmed if a selection would be invalid). Only, nothing happens. This makes the 'click and hope' approach even a bit more challenging.
The video could be cut there. Eventually I got what I wanted (but by chance).
Why is it like this?
You have a beautiful widget for the offsets and rotations. There is no need for the 'reorient'. Just add another angle.
On the positive side, I got the Joint origin tilted.
I would like to see a feature where you can select a face or an edge and a menu box appears allowing you to use the fillet, chamfer or extrude feature. It'd be nice to have that to avoid right clicking or having to use the ribbon. Also having the offset, tangent, angle, plane etc.. features and various sketch options in the same box as the fillet and extrude box would be nice.
It would help to cut back on mouse movement and save time. I found this feature in fusion 2013 to be extremely helpful.
For things like designing injection molding parts, we need to export components to STEP or other formats.
Currently, it seems that we have to
1) create a component in the current design
2) save that component as a new design
3) go to home and find that design*
4) open that design
5) export the design
Ideally it'd be like exporting an STL
1) select object and export to desired format
* This step alone is nontrivial in itself because (a) the hub doesn't seem to auto-refresh and (b) the naming convention gives me something like «JR Beta DFM Design... 2013September8 16» with all of the distinguishing information hiden in the ellipses
** Also extremely annoying but unrelated: currently Fusion 360 crashes if I switch to another application while exporting. Avoidable but I do it all the time without thinking and have to restart 360.
A simple way to select a large number of bodies that are members of an autocreated pattern group.
1) generate a small object
2) create a circular pattern with hundreds of copies
3) combine those into a single object by joining with another body
expected: it is possible to select all with a single click to the group
actual: it seems necessary to open the group, click on the first, scroll through all instances and then shift+click on the last object
Help button is in top right corner, but all of the tips/tricks/errors appear in the bottom right corner. It took me a while to discover the help "?" button because I had assumed that all help-related information would be in the bottom right.
Also - help only directs you to the overall-help page, it would be nice if upon receiving an error there was a link to a more specific part of the help site relating to the command or action or feature that you experienced the error on. Troubleshooting errors is currently very labor intensive for the user.
I am still of the opinion that there should be a separate forum for bugs. It's unnecessary to clutter the IdeaStation with entries s.a. this.
Versions:Fusion 360 1.8.604, OS X 10.7.5 (Lion)
Streamer is Fragile As Glass
1. Launch the streamer
Observe that the download starts (percentage starts running with two decimals - why not three?)
2. Open the streamer's menu (the one saying 'Fusion 360 Client Downloader')
- it should be okay to open a menu, right
- streamer becomes a "non-responding" application. = beach ball
- percentage stops running on screen
but download actually continues (if you have Activity Monitor open for network traffic)
I used Force Quit to get streamer out of this stage. Tried thrice - always the same. Then settled to not open that menu.
"Now, what happens if I press that X over there?"
Oops, the streamer app closes. Why would it do that? Why would the app makers want me to push this?
I can quit the app from the menu (or Cmd-Q) if I want… Oh, but the menu got the app stuck.
- fix the menu problem
- remove the funny X icon
- bonus: use only one digit in the progress indication?
This shouldn't be possible, right?
Make a duplicate of a sketch ('copy' from earlier sketch's right-click menu, 'paste' on 'Sketches' right click menu).
- the name should be something like "Holder down 2" (different from the previous name, and unique among all the sketches in this level)
- one can have duplicate names (in fact, it's the default)
This feels unlike other areas of Fusion 360, where numbers are given to pasted / duplicated entries.
Also, I would like to know the overall naming strategy within Fusion 360.
It can be either:
- Names don't matter. Duplicate names are fine and it's the user's thing to keep clear of duplicate names (if she wants).
- Names should be globally unique. Pasting or importing any object with overlapping names will change those names to something unique.
- Names should be unique within a hierarchy (similar to scopes in programming languages). Pasting an object with a duplicate name (in that hierarchy) will cause the name to be changed to something unique.
- Something else / not defined / just happens to be the way it is?
In other words, has someone considered this.
I thought I had already posted this, but cannot find it anywhere (sorry if this is indeed a duplicate).
First check this video.
The motion should be smooth and keep following the mouse cursor. I had the button pressed down, but within a short, variable time, Fusion 360 Sketch decides it's enough and won't continue tracking the mouse any more.
Tried with both the Macbook Air's touchpad as well as a Logitech wireless mouse. Same stuff (touchpad sometimes followed the movement even for multiple rounds - but not always).
I'd like to know:
- can others reproduce this bug?
- could Autodesk put it on speedy delivery (i.e. September version)?
I'd like to use this for presentation later, and therefore smooth behaviour would, well, be appreciated.
Apple Macbook Air Core i7, HD 3000 graphics, 4GB memory
Only Fusion 360 was running while recording this.
Fusion 360 v.1.8.604, OS X 10.8.4
In my other post I explain how 'Sketch > Sketch Dimension' mode currently works on straight lines.
Here is a collection of ideas on how it can be made more discoverable to the user. These suggestions build on top of the existing logic and don't try to change it much.
Case 1. Making a length constraint on a non-horizontal/vertical) line:
It is not clear that one must click at this stage, to enable a length constraint. The extended cursor graphic may or may not be aligned in the way that it makes sense for the user (to me it didn't - it happens to point away from the line, not along it).
Aligning the cursor extra would be too much work. Making it either vertical or horizontal might work better.
A tooltip (which doesn't exist at this stage, currently) could help. "Click to choose a length constraint. Move cursor outside of the line's bounding box to choose component constraint."
When clicking, the form should change immediately to show the length constraint.
Currently, there is a stage like this (that should go, imho).
Case 2. Making a component constraint on a non-horizontal/vertical) line:
No problems here.
Case 3. Making a length constraint on a horizontal or vertical line:
I'm slightly of the opinion that this should create a component constraint instead of the length constraint that it currently creates.
If it creates a length constraint, the extended cursor (shown above) should be shown after selecting the line, but before moving the cursor. This is simply a visual cue to make the user feel the line behaves the same as diagonal lines do. Currently, they don't.
Removal of a constraint
While in 'Sketch > Dimensions' or 'Sketch > Constraints' modes, and the mode is waiting for an object to be selected, a click outside of any objects should end the mode.
Currently, it doesn't and one needs to press 'esc' to get back to regular Sketch mode.
Is there a specific reason for this? If not, I suggest both click and esc should end the mode.
To emphasize with a use case:
The reason why I wasn't able to move my sketch objects around was probably that I had gotten "stuck" in a Constraints mode. Unless one 'pins' the particular icons on the Bar, there is no clear visual indication in which mode one is. Only, things work differently than they did - just a moment ago. It's confusing.
There should be a 'safe' base mode where pressing Esc multiple times (already works) or clicking wildly on uninhabited area would bring one. :)
Btw, it is perfectly fine this 'safe' base mode is Sketch, since the Bar so clearly indicates Sketch mode is on, and 'Stop Sketch' is there as a friendly, big green tick.
Perhaps not within the scope of the application, but one thing that would be enormously helpful for me would be a simple way to build a mechatronic assembly and then export th kinemetics equations for the system (even just the state space model parameters would be helpful).
Even better would be a way to place sensors and actuators, specify materials and detailed structure of components (or at least their shape and moments), and then export Mathematica / Matlab / C-code fragments for modeling (algebreically or numerically) the system and sensors.
The ideal (though probably practically impossible given the number of possible observers, controllers, and architectures) would be to automatically generate code for things like an LQR controller or feedforward model based controllers.
For example, the user could model a quadrocopter, placing a 9dof sensor (accelerometer / gyro / magnetometer), and four brushless DC motors with speed controllers and then Fusion 360 would figure out the equations governing the system's dynamics, the math for fusing the sensor data to make an IMU and the necessary control code all of which could be exported as C code so someone without significant background in control theory could quickly build and control a complex mechatronic device.
Just as a general guideline for how the app should behave.
Automatic behavior (snaps, setting boolean operation (join/cut/intersect/new), etc.) is great but if the user takes some action (manually entering a distance in sketch; setting extrude to join bodies; etc), that should always take precedence over the automatic behavior.
'Paste New' is used for bringing in an independent copy of a component, so that changes to such component won't be reflected in the one that was copied.
The naming is a bit misleading, isn't it? Even the regular 'Paste' creates something new (a new instance of existing component).
I would suggest "Paste Independent" or something like that itself - or redesigning the whole component management so that this would become a non-issue.
Another suggestion could be to rename "Paste" -> "Paste Instance" and "Paste New" -> "Paste Independent", making people realize they are making a choice here and either choice is not more "correct" in absolute terms than the other - they are equal.
A further choice could be to move 'Paste New' below the 'New Component' and call it 'New Component (with contents)' (similar to how pixel programs have 'New From Clipboard').
p.s. 'Browser' should be added to Idea labels
Lookup is a nice feature (makes your viewing angle perpendicular to the particular sketch).
Why wouldn't it also scale the view port so that all of the sketch fits in?
This is the view I now get:
This is what I'd want to get:
This is a slight visual annoyance, but I decided to mention it.
It may be correct on Windows (based on some screen shots I've seen) but occurs on OS X (Fusion 360 1.8.604).
- If all material fits in the dialog, vertical scroll bar should not be visible
- Scrolling down on vertical scroll bar should stop once all options are visible (and not proceed beyond)
Currently, this is not the situation as these pictures show.
The horizontal scroll bar seems to be working correctly (if one scales the dialog smaller).
I presume there is an invisible UI element in the pages with "plentiful room for new options" or something. This is not a good idea since it affects the scroll bar as well, making the application think there is more content than is visible for the user.
It would be a great help if besides cutting multiple parts at onces also selecting more than object at once being the cutting tools.
If I select the surface I can trim both red objects at once with shift selecting everything to trim
But it seems I cannot select more than two objects at once being the cutting tool to trim with both the encloused areas of the arrow heads.
A simple way to expose all design functions to a scripting language (I like Ruby myself, but Python or any other would do).
I find that there are lots of things that I do that are detailed, repetitive, and seem like they could easily be automated.
Would be very cool if there were a simple way to add new features and exchange them with other users on the team or in the community.
I'm trying to get a work plane at the highlighted point, normal to the highlighted axis.
There doesn't seem to be a construction feature for this?
The 'Plane Along Path' should do this, but
a) it doesn't work with axes (reason probably being that it works with relative distance 0.0 .. 1.0 for the point and thus needs the profile to have a beginning and an end)
b) it doesn't snap to points alongside the edge/sketch profile
Versions: Fusion 360 1.8.601, OS X 10.8.4
( This was intended to be a short story. It became a long one. Not my fault. Also, I'm not sure if IdeaStation is the right place for this. It's a full consistency analysis of the Construct features and tries to highlight places where naming, tooltips or both could be changed to make the tools more intuitive for the first-time user. At first, I thought everything was in place. In a deeper study, it's a mess. )
I was looking for a tool to make a point at the intersection of an axis and a plane. At first sight, it seemed that didn't exist.
A walkthrough of the tools revealed that the 'Point At Edge And Plane' is what I was looking for. But it didn't say 'axis' in its title. Well, that could be understood but other tools ('Point At Center Of Circle/Sphere/Torus' and 'Axis Through Cylinder/Cone/Torus') do state multiple options in their title.
So I started digging deeper..
I would suggest renaming this to 'Point At Edge/Axis And Plane' (or making also the others more generic). [Actually the generic naming may be a better approach - even now the long-named ... Circle/Sphere/Torus fail to mention in their name that also Sketch Arcs are entitled to the feature. It's a never-ending struggle to keep them correct.]
Also notice that the tooltips are pretty verbose and repeating. I think the two paragraphs could be merged or the second ones dropped for all the construction tools (the lower information is given anyways once the tool is selected, if one keeps the mouse stationary - that is the right place for it).
Further notice that there's excess empty space above all the tooltip texts (i.e. they are not vertically aligned); please make both the upper and lower margins the same.
The following tips I find a bit confusing:
"normal to an edge or sketch profile". Is this understandable and correct CAD lingo? To me, "normal" means somewhat perpendicular. Here, the idea is that the emerging plane will have the edge/sketch within it, right? How about "covering a 2D edge or sketch profile". The title itself says the thing perfectly, though.
( By saying "2D edge" I'm trying to make a distinction between a "linear" edge (i.e. a line) and a spacial edge (that defines a plane). Intuitively, just saying "edge" makes me think of a straight edge. )
The 'Tangent Plane' and 'Plane Tangent To Face At Point' are almost the same (and their names should be closer to reflect this). How about 'Tangent Plane At Point' for the latter?
BUG: For 'Tangent Plane' the tooltip mentions "at a point". Should be "at an angle".
The current tooltip text for 'Tangent Plane' (first paragraph) can be used as such for 'Tangent Plane At Point'. It works on conical elements as well. It uses a point. For two sister features s.a. these it'd be nice that their tooltips would follow almost the same wording (less confusion for us users).
Same applies for the second paragraphs (if you decide to keep them). They should be similar.
'Plane Tangent To Face At Point' applied to a conical object.
Doesn't this explicitly say "select a planar face and a work point ..". I was expecting to select first a plane, then a point (s.a. one of the corners in the above cone). Turns out, any point in the plane will do - the click of the plane simultaneously also locks the point. Weird - unexpected - unlike Fusion 360 elsewhere - should it behave like this?
The cone after clicking 'Axis Perpendicular At Point' thrice. Note that there are no specific visible 'points' in the places of the axes.
i.e. the 'Axis Through Two Points' only snaps to actual points in the geometry. I think the above is a bug in 'Axis Perpendicular …'
What exactly does the tooltip mean?
I can use this to make a construction axis alongside a linear (straight) edge. But "circular edge"? Trying that gave me:
Trying on a "sketch curve" doesn't have the curve selected. This tooltip is weird. Help me understand it.
"Axis Perpendicular to Face At Point" works the way I was expecting "Axis Perpendicular At Point" to work - i.e. lets one select a particular real point. Why are both here? Why have the no-I'll-just-take-where-ever-your-mouse-pointed (i.e. the first) version at all? Remove it and use the cuter name for this?
What I'm trying to say - thanks for reading so far - is that all this is highly complicated and inconsistent. About half of the Construction tools are simple. Another half is a mess. Make them all clean, and short but precisely tool tipped. Thanks.
moving a body (tiling it) makes construction planes (at least a 'tangent in point') not move along. Is this intentional? Is there a way to make a construction plane move along? (maybe grouping both in the same component and moving the component?).
Cone moved as a root-level body.
Cone first promoted to a component, selected as the active component (probably doesn't matter), tangent plane created thereafter, component moved - tangent moves along.
Lesson learned: as Ron says, don't use root-level bodies in actual work. Make everything components, and sub-sub-components. Powerful. Too bad the beginner plays with root level bodies and therefore doesn't realize this power of modularity.
In 'Point At Edge And Plane' the selection order cannot be desided upon. (post: actually you need to select plane first, edge after that)
menu title:wrong order (edge first)
menu tooltip:right order (plane first)
selection tooltip:wrong order (edge first)
Now that surely is confusing.
To ease this burden, try to move to a system which a) removes unnecessary duplicates in 'help' messages, b) allows selection in either order and - even - c) would work on pre-selected edge and plane (or whatever). In other words, less limitations for us.
Versions: Fusion 360 1.8.601, OS X 10.8.4
- create a construction plane
- bring the cursor near the construction plane's edge. The cursor should change to a fat '+' shape.
- dragging by the mouse, the edge should follow (as indicated by the tooltip)
- the selector dialog (usually invoked by a long primary mouse button press) should not be shown
- the edge doesn't follow mouse movements
- the selector dialog is shown (which doesn't really help in the situation)
A video showing this:
Also, the '+' cursor is not the best choice here. It's used in spreadsheets but not for this purpose even there,
A better choice would be the 'edge with arrows in both directions' cursor:
Versions: Fusion 360 1.8.601, OS X 10.8.4
Do you do this as a part of the development work?
I suspect there is unnecessary traffic between the client and the server - this would explain i.e. some of the dashboard sluggishness.
It's really easy to simulate any level of network connectivity. Use the SpeedLimit OS X Preference add-on and you can set delay + bandwidth range for the system. Try out how bad can you go and still work with the system. Then let us know.
If you already are perfectly optimized, and know exactly what packets run between the client and the server (and they really are all needed) then ... what's wrong with my Dashboard? Any hints on how I can make it snap.
(see, lots of requests for snap these days..)
WIFi (full bars) to 10Mbps cable in Helsinki, Finland
p.s. suggestion to Idea Labels: Performance
This is a components list from Keqing's blade model. It shows a problem I faced in real life.
Why does every component need to be tailed with the ':1' postfix? It makes sense to count / separate components with identical names, but if the name is unique, why not just show it without the postfix to the user?
The current behavior was especially annoying when I had a component called "pillar 200" for a 200 mm diameter. That is shown as "pillar 200:1" which implies a scaling ratio. I see no need for dropping the ":1" on unique component (and any other element) names.
Version: Fusion 360 1.8.601
btw, Browser could be added in the "Idea Labels"
Reporting here, though it's not ideation.
Versions:Fusion 360 1.8.568 -> 1.8.601, OS X 10.8.4
I had noticed the Release Notes for a new version at the Forums, so clicked 'search for updates' icon in the toolbar. The program told 'no updates available' so I continue the work (or whatever it is I'm doing).
Later, I move the mouse too fast, and Fusion 360 starts beach balling (gets stuck).
I notice the dock now has duplicate icons for Fusion 360 and Sim 360.
This is not normal (other self-updating apps never show two sets of dock icons).
Notice that the leftmost Fusion 360 has the 'running' indicator. The others don't.
Jul 31st 21:00 .. 22:20 GMT+3
I'll Force Quit the running instance now and see what happens.
The left icon points to: webdeploy/69e5777f7670ab8fe6a5d402b114295c37eba7a4
The right icon points to: webdeploy/1b540d9427bb7bbd438f42f69735ab27b95b8d7b
I'll start the new version now.
All seems okay.
Launching the new version removed the old version's icons from the Dock (but what if I had launched the old icon, not the new one?).
At present Fusion 360 SCULPT is constrained by its tools. As a result the models that are being produced tend to look like balloon art rather than the sophisticated forms the market demands. The solution resides in the quick intuitive and simple movement of points, lines and surface patches. So what is meant by “simple movement”? At present we can move scale and slide geometry but many transform moves are not possible. I need to be able to move any selected geometry in any direction or to any spot desired. I need a transform tool that allows me to SEPARATLY invoke the movement of point lines and surface patches in the following directions:
Orthogonal World space. Like the current tool move or scale along XYZ axis in model world space.
Where you move to is also selectable. For instance you hit a hot key to SNAP to
- Other geometry
- Construction planes
Orthogonal Local space. Like the current tool move or scale along XYZ axis construction plane Local space
Orthogonal normal to Screen View. Again like the current tools but XYZ are normal to the particular view at the screen at the moment.
Transform along surface AKA Slide. Need a hot key invoked transform that give the choice of movement in:
- U or V in up or down directions
- Scale from a set-able point. This might be the basis for a Falloff function where transforms are selected from a choice of concentric rings around the aforementioned set-able point. Depending on which ring you selected and at what ”clocked” point would determine the falloff effect.
- Free form movement along surface in the direction of the mouse drag
Perpendicular to surface. So again the same tool moves points, lines or surface patches perpendicular to the normal surface. Note that this is kind of like the bevel tool but without adding geometry. It would be nice if adding geometry (like bevel) could be a choice (hot key) when this tool is being used.
Got to get back to work so more later.
Ability to import and export an entire STEP (AP 203, AP 203ed2, AP 214, or AP 242) top assembly, with the top assembly and each component and sub-assembly being a separate STEP file contained in the same directory, would be invaluable to integrate with a PDM type system that stores all assembly components (parts and sub-assemblies) as separate STEP files (i.e. LOTAR based systems).
I've now surveyed throught the Sculpt workspace's toolbar items, and was surprised in many cases by their current positioning.
It's not ideal, or logical. Which is just fine at this stage to get features created and stability proven. However, at some point the Fusion 360 team should (imho) book some time for rethinking the tool ordering, and making a true cleanup in that regard. This should be before people start making elaborate investments into i.e. writing books on the system.
I don't want to give a full analysis, yet (will do so if requested). Some of the issues I faced were Sculpt > Modify having loads of tools that have nothing to do with modifying T-Splines. Just an example (let's not get tied with that).
This goes hand-in-hand with the workflow discussions that have been done elsewhere in the forum (i.e. order of selection of elements vs. tool selection).
Are there no company-wide recommendations at Autodesk as to how a new tool should deal with its UI? Innovation is good, but so is consistency. Many people have referred to Inventor as a product that does these things pretty nice. Why be inconsistent with it?
My main point: don't think the UI is currently ideal. It's not. Book time for making it perfect (once the features themselves are all in and tested).
Part of the problem I had with Fusion 360 UI initially was that I was selecting first, then using a feature s.a. Construct > Point At Center Of Circle/Sphere/Torus.
(note that the blue ring means the cylinder's edge is selected)
I was expecting the tool to work on the *selected* edge, but instead it clears the selection and wants me to *now* select the particular edge.
This is partly learning. I suppose (= guess) that right click menu entries work on selections, and the toolbar menu entries instead clear the current selection.
Here are some things that could be done about this:
1. Nothing. Just mention it in the tutorials.
2. Extend toolbar menus to work on preselections (instead of clearing them). This could be powerful: for things needing three inputs I could preselect them and doing the 'Construct' would work right there, without showing me any menus. Snap. If some selections are missing, I would be shown which types and how many (my other post dwells on this).
3. Dim the toolbar menu entries if there are existing selections (instead of clearing them). This may not be preferable - it's always difficult to figure out why something is cleared.
4. Make a nagging dialog to the user in case there are pre-selections. "You have N elements selected. XX will clear the selection. Ok / Cancel" This will essentially teach the current behavior to the user instead of trusting him/her to figure it out somehow.
Please have a discussion about this. As long as the UI is *discoverable* (i.e. one can learn it just by playing with it) I'm fine.
The problems with Align & Snap (discussed elsewhere) refer to working points and planes a lot. These are under the Construction toolbar menu and today I tried them out.
The UI for selecting elements (points, edges etc.) isn't completely obvious, and it's not coherent either.
Let's take the coherency issue first.
Select Construct > Offset Plane
This needs just one element, a plane and communicates it clearly:
( What could be done here is to use color coding on the arrow icon like I think Inventor does. White background: not selected yet. Blue background: selected. Here it seems to always be blue which lead me to think I had a plane selected. Anyways - check Inventor and do alike. )
Now, take i.e. Construct > Plane Through Three Points
That's ALL you get on the screen.
And if you click the 'option' icon, you'll see this:
Seems like only one point (or something) is needed, but it's actually all three. (For the first, this means the first point, then the second point, then the third… but since there is no visual indication that some points already got selected, the user is confused - unless she/he knows the drill.)
Granted, if you do NOT do anything, this tooltip will surface:
However (based on your personality) you might never see it. I hadn't. My way was to click all possible, not to wait for a tooltip to surface.
A better way would be alongside how 'Offset Plane' selection works (and how Inventor works, I think):
This makes the tooltip unnecessary and allows changing selections of the 1st and 2nd elements, if needed (current workflow doesn't, which is part of its problem - it also only gives feedback on successful selections by changing the color of the selected elements; this method is *already* used in Fusion and should imho be the *only* method used. Or vice versa - experienced users may choose only to have the "driving blind" option since they know what they're doing. That's fine. But behavior with Construct > Offset Plane and this should always be coherent.)
(btw this is on Fusion 360 v.1.8.568)
(I'll make the selection order into another message, though these are kind of related.)
There are five things I would love to see added to Fusion 360:
- Scenes/views added in a similar way that SketchUp and FormZ/Bonzai3D have - you can save views and then click from one to the next, the movement from one view to the next is animated.
- Animate object (including camera view) along path. This way, we could achieve fly-bys or animations that zoom in on points of interest.
- Animate materials - e.g. be able to keyframe and object starting with one colour and turning transparent over time.
- Bend/stretch object alongpath.
- Animate according totranslation, e.g. be able to move and rotate components using keyframes.
I think that with these five inclusions, product presentations could be created entirely within Fusion 360.
Necessary viewport manipulation - mouse+keyboard - as in all CAD and 3D editors, or the program is not usability.
Beautiful notion, very good functionality, but all to no avail without the usual manipulation of viewport.
Now - even Blender steeper.
This feature would help in many cases where one has the basic design... and wants to "branch" off into variants.
If one has several variant designs with the same elements... at the present time one must download and then upload just to copy the file and make a design variation.
Perhaps this is part of the billing plan, to pay for each time you upload or download something (In such a case, I hope we are paying by the pound).
Still, a simple, native "Save as..." in the cloud, would save a lot of headaches during the design phase.
I can see how this could clog the servers if guys made multipule copies of turbine engine designs... or medical scans... perhaps these aspects make such a system more viable from a business standpoint.
But in the small part world I live in... it seems strange to work without this familiar tool.
It's quite a time saver to be able to drag a selection fence over an entire plane of geometry and delete without having to orbit and delete for each plane.
The ability to control when this occurs via a simple toggle (either via a checkbox in the preferences, a keyboard shortcut or even a momentary hotkey) would mesh nicely with my typical workflow.
I just got done with the Skateboard decals exercise--if you're not going to do something with true alpha mapping maybe you should enable transparency in decals using image files that support it, like GIFs and PNGs, so that you can get a sticker which is just the symbol and not the rectangular picture with the symbol in the center.