Excellent - As always! Two things I would point out: 1) Fusion 360 works by default in a top-down style. This is unusual for most mechanical CAD systems and can be a source of confusion if one is more familiar with the "bottom-up" workflow used in other systems. No worries however - Fusion 360 can do "bottom-up" and other systems can also do "top-down"....you just have to know how! (new video idea? :-)) 2) Top-down designs are wonderful for designing assemblies with many interlocking parts, and are especially useful for product design IMO - but it does have one drawback: if one designs all the parts in the context of the assembly - you should be aware that if you intend to re-use parts of the assembly in OTHER models - you will have a difficult time of it. Because the parts are all defined in THIS headset assembly - if you tried to re-use any part of it in ANOTHER headset model - you would essentially be inserting the entire headset model into the other headset model as well. One can break the association - but then you lose the ability to edit the model effectively. In general - Top-Down workflows are best for complex assemblies in a company that has few models or variants, or where the variants do not share many parts. Bottom-Up assemblies are useful in companies where part re-use is frequent. Keep in mind that both methods are able to be used TOGETHER in one model with some practice and experience! (PS - this is one of my favorite subjects in CAD.....can you tell?)
😀I sure can tell! I will definitely consider doing a video on bottom up approach in the future. I was not aware of the difficulties with cross referencing components built using top down design. Thank you for pointing that out. Will definitely need to experiment more with this.
Fusion has a wonderful answer to this! Derive! It's my favorite way to share solid models between assemblies or files. It allows you to create an associative link to anything that lives in the browser tree of another file, no matter the hierarchy. You can bring in components, sketches, bodies, etc. Even more powerful is the fact that you can continue to apply features to derived bodies, changing them to meet the needs of the new assembly. If the original objects change, you'll be prompted to bring the object up to date and the features will be reapplied in the same way as if you changed anything earlier in your timeline. I highly, highly recommend looking deeply at Derive. I believe it is the most important assembly workflow tool that's been introduced to Fusion. Never insert designs again!
@@zallaun7327 Another viewer also brought up the idea of using derive. I am definitely going to experiment with this and see how I can incorporate this into the master model workflow. Thank you for the suggestion!
@@zallaun7327 - Yes....and no! Derive is a GREAT workflow which works in ways that are similar to this. It can allow you to "simplify" what you transfer over to a new file for further work, significantly reducing the data overload - and more positively - can simplify usage for the next person down the line. Either way though - using a derive still means there is a reference back to the original assembly or file from which the derive came. If you use the part with the derived geometry or information - you are by definition still making your new file dependent on the original source file or assembly. Again - one can break the link - but then most of the parametric information you would need to edit the derived part is also gone. Again - I love both of these workflows - and one needs to be mindful of parametric relationships to be able to use them well!
Nice workflow. I usually "ground" the first component (right click at component in browser) the only difference is that you will see an anchor at the component in the browser
Love your vids! I may be jumping the gun but can you recreate something more complex from start to finish? I'd love to see a motorcycle helmet or maybe even a simple two stroke engine. Something with a couple moving parts with many components
Thank you, I did agonise over the length of the video quite a bit, as it was not in keeping with the typical length. However, I really wanted to show the master model workflow using an example with some level of complexity. I tried as much as possible to cut down and speed up without sacrificing comprehension. Original cut was probably about half hour long!
Not a lot of interest to me, however, seeing the colour coded timeline prompted me to do some searches trying to work out what it was. SO GLAD I found out about the "Component Color Swatch" option - this is a HUGELY useful feature!!
I don't like how fusion shows all the individual component operations in the master timeline. After going back and forth between components a few times i eventually end up with a mess of time sensitive cross references that is impossible to untangle. To get around it, instead of creating components in the master design, I use the derive tool to create new parts from the split pieces of the master model. Those separate components can then be assembled in another design once finished. It is a bit more work, but forces you to keep your references clean and the resulting model should also load faster and respond better because you avoid a massive combined timeline.
Another few comments have also mentioned using derive. This sounds like something that I would need to experiment with and maybe show in a future video.
