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 byAnonymouson02-13-201810:46 AM
Status:
Gathering Support
Configurations
Configurations is the main thing lacking from Fusion 360. It gets very frustrating having to have multiple versions of the same file and having to make sure to update each one to keep them all at the same level. I have't been using Fusion 360 for long but the inability to quickly create variations of a file is a huge let down and is the biggest reason why I am thinking of heading back over to Solidworks. It is a requirement in nearly all fields of designs to have slight variations on a base model.
I think Fusion did have git-like branch and merge feature. It was removed. Who knows why it was removed. Likely it was a hard to implement feature and the developers gave up.
My suggestion is simply to integrate with Git. I do this manual by exporting files from Fusion 360 to a Git repository and the doing commits. I can always branch in Git. Merging does not work this way but at least I can track experimental versions and production versions.
In short data handing in Fusion is not great. Best to just toss it all out and use something that already works and is popular. Git seem to have won the contest.
This I by far one of the most critical things missing from Fusion 360, and would make it my go to program. One of the only areas where OnShape is killing Fusion.
I’ll add that this is a showstopper for my full adoption of Fusion 360. I’ll note that Onshape has both branch/merge functionality and now their new configurations support. These ARE NOT the same. Version control and branch management seem superficially similar to configurations, but ultimately are a gross mismatch when managing families of parametrically-related parts.
I come from a software background, and so this has seemed far clearer to me than it has to the engineers (including some Onshape folks a few years back) I’ve spoken to. There’s a lot to unpack here, but put simply, managing propagation of changes from a “master” version to per-configuration “branches” quickly becomes an unmanagable workflow. Likewise, it presents nothing good in the way of a user mental model for parts/assemblies that have multiple configurable parameters.
Version control absolutely has its place, eliminating ad-hoc saving off of “versions” in random files with random naming conventions, and no way to inspect/merge/manage changes. But that support is orthogonal to the tools needed to manage part and assembly configurations.
For example, consider a configurable part model for a socket cap screw. Basic parameters might include:
thread major diameter
thread pitch
length
Even this small set of parameters quickly blows up into a number of configured instances that will be really, really unpleasant to manage with versions and branches. Go count SKUs at McMaster if you don’t believe me... But version support would be great to apply, e.g. a minor design tweak to the screw head across all configurations in a controlled, documented way.
I think the only way to handle versioning and branches is to consider a prarmeterizeh design is ONE DESIGN it is one design that happened to have parameters. No branches for the 6mm and 4mm screws.
One way I handle "branching" now is to have two components, say a design that is structurally good in plastic and a second one that works for aluminum and then I turn the component on or off with the little light bulb icon. Yes it is manual an not great
Perhaps branching can be done like that, a composite is either in a given branch or some other one is in. So the definition of a "different branch" is "different list of components"
This right here. I just thought up an idea for a product series. The whole thing is going to vary greatly based around 3 main dimensions for each variant.
Making a branch for each and then maintaining all of them is untenable and honestly not the purpose for branching. I live in a software world and this would be tantamount to constantly rebasing your source code when you alter the original base model. Which is fine if the system automatically rebases all the parts, but no everyone's talking about manual merging.
Solidworks allowed be to do part variants back when I first learned to use it in 2003. I'm not sure why this feature is lacking in Fusion but it is something that is greatly missed and I'm finding I have uses for it more and more often. Especially when I have different parameter sets for the same part for different DFM guidelines for different manufacturing processes. Being able to switch to the model associated with the process I am currently looking at using would be a big help as well.
All a variant is is a set of parameter values associated with the particular variant. They are changed based on the variant being selected.
This is a significant issue. For instance, if modeling something that has standard off the shelf dimensions for the materials.
Example: A patio deck or a house. Dimensional lumber comes in fixed lengths, but is "reconfigured" for use. In solidworks, there can be a configuration for each length that is used without having to create and manage an entirely new part for each custom cut piece of lumber.
Just agreeing with the rest. I use configurations on the regular. Maintaining 15 files in parallel because I want to change an early feature before they diverge is a pain.
Perhaps one could use IF statements in the Parameters area?
One way to handle this is to have a spreadsheet as part of the design document and dimensions can be spreadsheet cells. Spreadsheets have a macro language.
So as an example I design a generic stairway as a spreadsheet. I enter the total height and the horizontal distance and it applies rules to figure out the number of steps and the rise and tread of each step. The building codes all have limits and rules and the spreadsheet would follow them. So I'd have the design about finished before I even made a sketch.
Then I do make a sketch that is an array of steps using the dimensions calculated in the spreadsheet.
But STILL, a Git-like branch and merge would be great. You could check out a design, apply the change that if it approved fold it back into the mainline. But even better is the Git allows multiple people to work together. Not having this feature is kind of a big deal and makes me want to a serious look at other systems.
To be clear, here's an example of what can be done with configurations. There are only 3 parts (Part files). The rest is done with configuration setup and switching. I've also driven the configurations using a design table which just makes the setup of the configuration as simple as adding a row of values to Excel.
It uses a "Google Sheets" spreadsheet as a place to store and retrieve sets of dimensions to make configurations.
I found it super intuitive and actually easier to use than Solidworks configurations. I didn't even read any of the instructions past the "how to install" part.
The only tricky part for me in the installation instructions was the step that says, "On the main toolbar click the Scripts and Addins button in the Addins Pane." I had to google around to find the that the "Addins" button is in a pane called "Tools," which can be found directly to the right of the Design/Render/Animation/Simulation/Manufacture/Drawing drop-down menu, *above* most of the buttons I usually use for sketching and creating features. You can also access it by pressing s for search and typing in "add-ins." Maybe buttons got moved around...
