Hi Rob, you may use a manufacturing model instead. it is located into the manufacturing environment. You will then benefit from all the parametric model simplification features while staying inside the same original fusion file.

That is definitely an option. There is always more than one way, but without putting effort into explaining different ways to use 2D chamfer, I just went with the default method won't work for this example. Thanks for watching.

Came here to post this. I only found out recently that you could select the inner contour of a modeled chamfer and the 2d chamfer tool paths works well.

You can insert any fusion Design as a component in a new design. When you derive a part into a new file, that also gives you a file you can insert into other files.

That depends. Again, one of main reasons I showed this workflow was to simplify the number of manufacutring setups in one model. If I had 10 components that each needed at least 3 setups, I would have over 30 or more setups in the same file. Using derive, I can spin each of those files into a single document with only the setups needed for that part. The other goal was to not dirty the designers files. Again, this may or may not be a problem. If you have a company that is also doing lifecycle management, they may consider a part "released" when the final CAD work is done. At that point, adding sketches for CAM toolpaths may not be allowed. Deriving these into their own files allows the original design files to not be altered, yet still used for things like CNC programming.

Mostly in the videos I just use shift + middle nous button for orbiting and middle mouse button for panning. The mouse I use is just a Logitech M720 marathon www.logitech.com/en-us/products/mice/m720-triathlon.910-004790.html I do have a SpaceMouse wireless but rarely use it in the videos. 3dconnexion.com/us/product/spacemouse-wireless/

Creating setups in general? If that is the case I have some playlists created for creating setups on the channel.

Creating setups from a multibody part... Noone has that on yt

Im good now tho...a coworker explained it

I've had nothing but problems with manufacturing model especially if there are multiple parts that need to be machines like this example. I've had much better results using derive like this and keeping the original file intact. Each of our folders has an original numbered part, an associated drawing file, and a derived CAM file. Changes to the original carry over to both the drawing and derived cam. Works pretty well!

@@M_a_t_t75 glad to hear I'm not alone in seeing weirdness with the mfg model. I mean I'm not glad, lol, I guess I am glad it is not just me!

@blacksmokeDMax @matt For a while, I was under the impression that MFG models were going to be phased out. However, that isn't the case. I don't have a lot of experience with MFG models one way or the other. I would encourage you guys to post when you have issues to forums.autodesk.com under the Fusion MFG forum.

Not currently. This is something that I think we can expect in the future.

@@MechanicalAdvantage today I dove in to figuring out how to do this, moral of the story you can copy and paste gcode files together, or just copy and paste designs into the same fusion file and setup from there... lame. Looking forward to that future feature or possible plugin!