CAD Forum

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2023 9:19 am Back to the ipad, it's 10 years old. I just want to run the old software that was available for the device at the time it was current. Nothing fancy and its still a good and fast device with the few apps on it. I shouldn't have to "jailbreak" it. I just wan to install old apps on it like an mp3 player or book reader, pdf reader, etc.

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 10:18 am I hate hackers and evil people in the world. Ever since our company decided to open our networks to global teams and vendors.... I have to "authenticate" multiple times a day on my phone. I feel like I'm wasting 5% of my day playing authentication roulette every single day of my working life.


image.png

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 10:18 am I hate hackers and evil people in the world. Ever since our company decided to open our networks to global teams and vendors.... I have to "authenticate" multiple times a day on my phone. I feel like I'm wasting 5% of my day playing authentication roulette every single day of my working life.


image.png

bnemec wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 10:53 am What if the companies selling the security services and products are hiring the hackers?

SPerman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 11:01 am About once a month I have to help one of our employees delete and create a new authenticator account. Because Microsoft.

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 10:18 am I hate hackers and evil people in the world. Ever since our company decided to open our networks to global teams and vendors.... I have to "authenticate" multiple times a day on my phone. I feel like I'm wasting 5% of my day playing authentication roulette every single day of my working life.


image.png

KennyG wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 12:35 pm It would be nice if everyone could centralize on one authentication app too. I currently have 3 I have to utilize.

Jaylin Hochstetler wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 4:31 pm The 2023-2024 Solid Edge interface. Just started using it and it's
Everything is so close to the same color
image.png
If only the marketing team wouldn't have gotten ahold of the interface...
I'm getting used to it though...

bnemec wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 9:31 am I read a while back they were aligning icons with NX. I wonder how many users that actually helps; how many use both systems and need the icons to look similar? I mean, they're vastly different systems, why need same icons?

When we started Fusion, one of the areas that we decided to try to improve over more traditional CAD software was the area of assembly modeling. Customers new to CAD often struggle with such abstract and mathematical concepts as "flush" and "mate" for describing relationships (especially kinematic relationships) between components. So, we decided to try to elevate the concept a bit to terms that are more familiar to mechanical designers: Joints. In our thinking, a "revolute joint" was more obvious than "Mate" between two linear entities that just happened to result in a circular degree of freedom. So, we decided to go "all in" on the joints approach, and not offer traditional assembly constraints at all. It was a bit of a risk. To our knowledge, no CAD software had tried this joints-only approach to assembly modeling.



In our (admittedly biased) opinion, this works very well for describing kinematic relationships. It seems pretty easy to created jointed component relationships. Especially in a top/down workflow, with "As Built Joint", I find it really easy to create most common mechanisms.



In the interest of honesty, where this approach still requires some tuning is in trying to position components rigidly with respect to each other. Fusion has always had Rigid joints, which definitely solves part of this workflow. But the joint positioning choices didn't always result in exactly the correct relative positioning of components relative to each other. So, over time we have added a few commands that help. One is Rigid Group. This command allows you to select a set of components and make them rigid with respect to each other in ther current positions. The Align command allows you to position components with respect to each other, by aligning geometry, and Move allows you to do more freeform moving of components. So, a very useful workflow is to use Align or Move to position components, then put them into a Rigid Group.



The other workflow is one that works well with top/down design. If you create components in a top/down design manner (for example, one sketch that is used to create 3 components), and you build these components in the orientation with each other that you want, then a simple As Built Joint with a type of Rigid works very well.



We are always looking for ways to improve workflows in Fusion. If you have ideas in this area, please let us know.



Jeff Strater (Fusion development)


Jeff Strater
Software Architect - Fusion 360

SPerman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 8:09 am Joints in Fusion 360 make no sense. How can you take something as simple as mating two components and make it so convoluted a person can't figure it out?

They've adopted a DSS type attitude of solving a problem that didn't exist, and then digging their heels in saying, "but its better, you just don't get it."

8 years later, and I still can't figure out how to mate 2 components together.

KennyG wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 11:59 am It's the other way to "innovate". Take something that already exists (spatial relationships) and couple it with an idea that few use (kinematics) and BOOM... a new innovation was born! Then defend it because otherwise there is nothing new.

Example: It's no longer a turning indicator, to simply indicate if you intend to turn left or right on your car. We have combined it with the compass and it's now a directional indicator that will indicate whether you are turning North, South, East or West in relation to your current direction of travel

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 12:47 pm I'm reviewing a report. It has "five feet tall," "9 feet tall," and "180 inches" IN THE SAME SENTENCE. So let's just arbitrarily spell out some values and use the numeral for others, and throw in one relatively large dimension in inches while smaller ones are given in feet. To top it off, the one in inches is shown as feet in the drawing, so the writer had to do math to come up with the value for inches.

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 4:47 pm Investigating a SolidWorks assembly performance issue:

800 parts
90 unique
30 sub-assy
9 unique sub-assy
860 top level mates

I was thinking, why so many mates? Fasteners mostly it turns out. There are sheet metal parts with lots of holes, some round, some hex, some key slots. The user built the parts with no pattern features at all. Just sketched 15 hexagons and cut extrude here, then sketched a coupled of key slots and cut-extrude there. Sketched some round holes and used a sketch pattern...then extruded everywhere.

Bottom line is, in the assembly, there are no fastener or part patterns, every single fastener was mated individually with at least 3 mates.

When we were just one division in the US designing a product, it wasn't too difficult to train and herd 40-60 designers and engineers. Now that our investor overlords have taken charge, and mandated that each division in 8 countries each design a part of the new product and share those pieces, modeling standards have went to the dogs. Herding hundreds of engineers, in different countries, speaking different languages, is a near impossible task.

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 4:47 pm Herding hundreds of engineers, in different countries, speaking different languages, is a near impossible task.

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 4:47 pm Investigating a SolidWorks assembly performance issue:

800 parts
90 unique
30 sub-assy
9 unique sub-assy
860 top level mates

I was thinking, why so many mates? Fasteners mostly it turns out. There are sheet metal parts with lots of holes, some round, some hex, some key slots. The user built the parts with no pattern features at all. Just sketched 15 hexagons and cut extrude here, then sketched a coupled of key slots and cut-extrude there. Sketched some round holes and used a sketch pattern...then extruded everywhere.

Bottom line is, in the assembly, there are no fastener or part patterns, every single fastener was mated individually with at least 3 mates.

When we were just one division in the US designing a product, it wasn't too difficult to train and herd 40-60 designers and engineers. Now that our investor overlords have taken charge, and mandated that each division in 8 countries each design a part of the new product and share those pieces, modeling standards have went to the dogs. Herding hundreds of engineers, in different countries, speaking different languages, is a near impossible task.

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 4:47 pm Investigating a SolidWorks assembly performance issue:

800 parts
90 unique
30 sub-assy
9 unique sub-assy
860 top level mates

I was thinking, why so many mates? Fasteners mostly it turns out. There are sheet metal parts with lots of holes, some round, some hex, some key slots. The user built the parts with no pattern features at all. Just sketched 15 hexagons and cut extrude here, then sketched a coupled of key slots and cut-extrude there. Sketched some round holes and used a sketch pattern...then extruded everywhere.

Bottom line is, in the assembly, there are no fastener or part patterns, every single fastener was mated individually with at least 3 mates.

When we were just one division in the US designing a product, it wasn't too difficult to train and herd 40-60 designers and engineers. Now that our investor overlords have taken charge, and mandated that each division in 8 countries each design a part of the new product and share those pieces, modeling standards have went to the dogs. Herding hundreds of engineers, in different countries, speaking different languages, is a near impossible task.

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 10:18 am I hate hackers and evil people in the world. Ever since our company decided to open our networks to global teams and vendors.... I have to "authenticate" multiple times a day on my phone. I feel like I'm wasting 5% of my day playing authentication roulette every single day of my working life.


image.png

AlexLachance wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2024 11:37 am Has this been resolved on your end? It shouldn't be happenning, once your connection has been authenticated, it shouldn't necessitate another authentication unless you log off. Sorry for the late reply.

We also have Authenticator around here, the only annoyance I have with it so far is the requiring authentication every time I log in to whatever, even e-mails and also, as @SPerman stated, transfering authenticator because people change phones over time and need to transfer it from one phone to the other.

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 4:47 pm Investigating a SolidWorks assembly performance issue:

800 parts
90 unique
30 sub-assy
9 unique sub-assy
860 top level mates

I was thinking, why so many mates? Fasteners mostly it turns out. There are sheet metal parts with lots of holes, some round, some hex, some key slots. The user built the parts with no pattern features at all. Just sketched 15 hexagons and cut extrude here, then sketched a coupled of key slots and cut-extrude there. Sketched some round holes and used a sketch pattern...then extruded everywhere.

Bottom line is, in the assembly, there are no fastener or part patterns, every single fastener was mated individually with at least 3 mates.

When we were just one division in the US designing a product, it wasn't too difficult to train and herd 40-60 designers and engineers. Now that our investor overlords have taken charge, and mandated that each division in 8 countries each design a part of the new product and share those pieces, modeling standards have went to the dogs. Herding hundreds of engineers, in different countries, speaking different languages, is a near impossible task.

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2024 3:07 pm Nope, still the same for the most part.

AlexLachance wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2024 7:57 am Have you looked with the IT guy of your company or the subcontractor who set it up? I know we have a few tweaks to do at first, but it didn't take too long to get everything running correctly.

SPerman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2024 4:28 pm Ain't nobody got time for that.