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
I was having a really hard time doing a type of precision modeling without Object Snap, I honestly think this should be on top of the todo list. Object Snap should work in all 3 workspace. Below is a list of the ones I'm used to having:
I think there is a disconnect among AD but also a preference to repeat the same way of working like with Inventor which Fusion is clearly build upon.
Frustratingly it seems common for them to offer half finished options something my students complain about a lot when working in different workspaces and missing software design concistwncies.
I'm just getting into Fusion and finding it to be incredibly frustrating because it lacks some basic functions. Good to hear that I'm not the only one having some issues. Hopefully AD will listen to us and get some of these things into the next update.
@Anonymous No you are not the only one. Problem is that there are some established ways of working (parametric apps) such as how snapping is done in a sketch or when moving objects/bodies. But this should not be the only way considering how other apps offer snapping to. Particularly when Fusion also offers T-Splines snapping there should work like in any normal polygon or nurbs app like Maya or Rhino.
Absolutely must have feature for me. Cannot work without osnaps. I love osnaps in Rhino, and I snaps work in SolidWorks perfectly as well (but for sketches). Really strange Fusion doesn't have it. Will need to put it off because snaps for me is one of the most vital tools. And a small off topic - I hope they will work on Tsplines, because now it is very limited compared to Rhino’s Tsplines...
Hi Claas, I think my post from several years ago was made soon after this ability had been introduced, and I was meaning that it was terrific that the ability had been added, but we needed more options for snapping. I think it was in the context of some who were saying that this idea had been implemented, and I was trying to say that significant parts of it have not been. In trying to actually use t-spline snaps I have the same reaction as you. The way I would want to actually use this feature would nearly always be to snap to a BREP body or a sketch, so I don't really find it helpful at this point.
I think it was one of the online Fusion hang-outs where these features ended up being discussed, and somewhere in the discussion this idea was mentioned as being completed. I did not think it was at all completed.
The lack of object snaps, the most basic and fundamental feature needed for any serious precision CAD design, is a major flaw in Fusion 360. The only way to create precision designs in this system is to revert back to the plane geometry techniques we used to use when drafting on paper. SLOW!!!! I am evaluating this software with the intent to adopt the platform going forward. This has put a brake on that decision and forced me to reconsider. Too bad. Fusion is a bit buggy, but not intolerably so. It's so close. I cannot imagine how anyone thought it wise to release 360 for serious engineering design without object snaps.
Forcing the use of constraints to get object snap like features is a serious barrier to flexible design. They are fine once the shape and size of an object are known, but while designing one needs to be able to create elements and manipulate them freely. Aligning them as needed. Changing sizes and shapes as needed. That is why object snaps exist in serious design tools. One should be able to use object snaps and turn constraints off completely until they are needed. Constraints are only needed when two or more objects need to interact with each other such that the geometry of one effects the other. Prior to that, when one is creating a part, for example, constraints are just a barrier to efficient manipulation of features.
The lack of object snaps and the Fusion's insistent applying these ridiculous constraints to have anything similar to object snaps is a serious, SERIOUS, lack of capability in Fusion. Too bad too. It's a really nice platform for the most part. Just need to step up to what it takes to use this tool for real world work. Trying to force the use of constraints while determining the shape and size of elements in a design is terribly time consuming and FRUSTRATING beyond measure at time. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE give me the ability to use tried and true, proper, design methodology. Please give me object snaps and the ability to disable constraints until they are needed AFTER the size and shape and position of an object in the design has been established. Constraints are ONLY necessary when objects need to interact with each other. Before that point, they are simply getting in the way.
I think what you see here is the focus onto how people in Inventor work which are often just engineers who are not involved in an exploratory phase vs designers who explore design concepts more radical before settling down to a final design description.
I fully agree - it is sad that this area is still undeserved.
@ralarock@cekuhnen Well said. As someone who spends most of my time in the conceptual design space, the ability to quickly and naturally move elements around to explore possibilities when I don't know how things will end up is crucial. Forcing constraints is a barrier to this sort of free form design process. This aspect of Fusion seems optimized for situations where the design is already specified, and just needs to be nailed down to the engineering details. It's unfortunate, since in so many other ways Fusion is a great tool for conceptual design.
@cekuhnen agreed. If the design needs to be already specified then Fusion is reduced to a tool for documenting an existing design rather than one for use in creating designs. That would be a shame. Fusion is so close to great. There are just some conceptual glitches that result in it being awkward to use in a real world design process. I hope the software engineers get this point and move on improving it. I can generate documentation of a design on lots of platforms. Documenting a design, once arrived at, is a critical piece of the whole process. But, what gives Fusion so much potential is it's use for design. Trial and error. Exploring ideas. Fusion just needs to get out of the way in the constraints department.
It is less about documenting a design. I to be honest have not touched Rhino or Alias since I came across Fusion 360.
Yes there are few surfacing tools that Fusion really misses for me to make it a complete design tool.
For example G2 fillets in Fusion like in Inventor are a disaster. PERIOD.
Also a curve network (Rhino) or Square Tool (Alias) is missing in Fusion since Fusion Loft lacks control over Rail G1 G2 weights.
Alias also offers even aligning the surface CVs when making a blend surface.
However Class-A surfacing is just a pain and I have to say in many areas Fusion does provide a more robust and easier to use
modeling approach.
Man in Rhino it is a pain when you need to have a design change. I used Grasshopper a lot to explore design ideas and what a work that was. Here Fusion with constraint sketches and the timeline is amazing for driving design changes via parameters.
So I would not say it is only for documenting. My paint was more that Fusion since it is based on Inventor clearly caters to the way how
engineers work and ignores designers - that for me is the missed opportunity.
While Fusion has surface quality issues so does also SolidWorks.
And considering Class -A pain vs Fusion surfaces I rather pick Fusion because also in the parts I manufactured I did not see problems in the surface - it was only inside the CAD data that the CV layout was just not clean. But as long as it manufactures well who cares.
omg. this needs desperately to be implemented in F360 as keenly pointed out by ralarock.
I often think that my AutoCAD experience is actually a disability with F360. There are so many simple drawing basics that are overwhelmingly complex and nonintuitive in F360. A majority of my time is spent trying to figure out how to do what I already know in CAD, in F360.
A few simple examples where traditional osnaps would be helpful and faster.
I can draw a perpendicular line from an object to absolutely nothing, but when I come to a crossing line (the line I actually want to go to), that option is not there, so I have to go past it, pick up the perpendicular snap (to nothing) and then trim the excessive length to the line I just crossed.
When I want to move something from point to point, if there isn't an intersecting line on that object, you cant select that point. So I have to go back and make an intersecting line across the locations I want to point-to-point move; make the move, then go back and remove the 'temporary' intersecting lines.
Ok, read the whole thread: yes, desired osnaps, as originally posted, are not yet implemented. Having dug into Fusion 360 over the last 6 months -- coming from AutoCAD, 3DS Max, Revit and having worked directly with many engineers taking my designs into Inventor -- I'm excited how AD has mostly succeeded in bringing these diverse workflows together. But, osnaps are still a significant missing piece.
The Align improvements mentioned earlier are nice; but, to echo the original intent of this thread, transparent o-snaps -- meaning snapping while being in another command, like move or creating a body based off existing geometry -- are fundamental to CAM-oriented designers like myself.
A specific case in point for AD developers:
If I want to create a new body based on existing geometries, I can go to Create 'box', select an existing surface as my working plane and then select a point only on the geometry whose surface I just chose. As I expand my rectangle over other bodies with surfaces on the same plane, no osnaps are made available to me. So, I need to click in some arbitrary place on my work plane, extrude my object (oh, first I have to be sure that 'New Body' is selected, again, because having selected a face on existing geometry will default to 'Join', which I rarely ever want, but that's another thread.) and then exit the Create command. Then I have to laboriously measure the distance from the surfaces of my new body to align -- not in the sense discussed earlier, more at made flush -- with existing geometry, copy that distance, do a push pull and paste the dimension. I often have to do this twice, a task that can all be solved with a single transparent osnap to some corner of existing geometry.
A fine point on this functionality is that in AutoCAD, for example, the point I wish to reference does not need to be exactly on my work plane. Remaining constrained to my work plane, I can hover the second point of my rectangle over existing points to align with them even if they are just out of plane. This is truly a designer's dream, as others have mentioned; we designers are a bit looser in our tolerances and constraints, but not that loose 8)
I really enjoy tightening things up later; but, to get through the thousands of decisions I have to make in concept phase, I would really appreciate this level of functionality. Having said all that, as someone in the CAD/CAM industry for decades, I really appreciate what you guys have done with Fusion 360. It's all encompassing workflow has me hooked. I'll find work arounds for now, but would really love to know that this particular functionality is a priority.
You point about automatic object snaps not being available within many commands is taken, but I think you might be missing a workflow in your box example.
While creating the box, if you start pressing or pulling a side, then click an object feature you want the box side to snap to, you can get the precise match you want without doing any measuring. The point you snap to doesn’t need to be on the same plane or the same object. If you want to change the snap or snap to allignment afterwards, you can do the same thing using the press-pull command. This works generally with object creating and moving in Fusion.
This was 2013. I just got Very annoyed at Fusions inability to snap a line to an intersection of a line and a constructions line, construction line I only created to give me that snap. I wonder if the developers are using the software. Sorry for the "annoyance" but this should be fixed already.
