Glad it was helpful. I don't think it has changed much, but I do have several GD courses I did for Autodesk on their page including a section on GD Fluids if you are looking for more content. www.autodesk.com/learn/ondemand/course/fusion360-generative-design-manufacturing-applications-expert
@@LearnEverythingAboutDesign Thank you, that resource was also helpful. So thanks to your videos I was able to create a generative fluid design for fluid through a hydraulic manifold, however when I do a Autodesk CFD simulation to compare the original to generative fluid design, it looks like the pressure drop actually increased? Does this sometimes happen??
@@koreanoguy95 Was the CFD set exactly the same? I would expect the CFD simulation to be more accurate since the GD Fluid is still technically a "beta" product. That said I wouldn't expect them to be wildly different BUT when you do a generative design study and an FEA study after there are differences. Mainly in the fact that the preserve regions are absorbed as the mesh during a study, but they are solid bodies with sharp edges in some cases when converted to a BREP. This means the Mesh from the GD study and the mesh you run in your CFD are slightly different.
@@TheShift1313 Thanks for replying. The CFD inputs were the same (for the boundary conditions and # of iterations), the mesh was autogenerated using the autosize function. Interesting point about the meshes being different, how can I make sure that they are the same for both CFD studies? Also, from watching an Autodesk video, I think what it may be is that for the generative fluid study sometimes prioritizes volume reduction over pressure drop optimization, which I think may happened in this case. The generated fluid profile has a smaller diameter which I think may be leading to overall increased pressure. The study was originally run with a target volume of 50% of original, I think I may try again with a higher percentage (75% or 100%).
@@koreanoguy95 for the mesh you can't really because if you export a mesh rather than a design from the GD study, i don't believe you can use that in Autodesk CFD. I think it needs a solid so it can mesh it on its own. For the prioritization of vol reduction that is a good catch. That would seem to make sense to me. Would be interesting to see what a rerun at 75% would do.
Interesting video and very well done. What's the best sort of use case then for this type of gen design? Will it always create a single path? I'd love it if they could make it branch and optimise cooling of a shape but respect specific inputs such as minimum path size/cross section etc.
Good question! The automated modeling right now seems to just look at line of sight and then refine from there minimalizing the design. That is mainly why I said it probably isn't good as a starting shape for GD fluid. GD Fluid won't really branch outside of that shape as much as GD Structural will. There is cooling simulation but its electronic cooling and doesn't really account for CFD. I am hoping one day CFD will be in Fusion but for right now we have Thermal problems with conduction and convection and radiation but without moving fluid around the designs. I do love the idea of some basic inputs for Automated Modeling like minimum cross section. Maybe one day!
Hi mate, new sub here but really great video and You've certainly earnt it. I just thought I'd add that I'd love to see another video based around the idea of post processing an automated model for machining in mind. With the work I've done it seems quite easy to get some great results that can easily be 3d printed (and I love that it comes with the base subscription and can be computed offline), but both generative and automated lend themselves heavily to additive particularly SLS, SLA & DLP, and I need more examples (from people like You who know how to use fusion360 so well), of post processing automated modelling for subtractive in mind. Honestly anything involving post processing automated models will suffice though, I'll listen to You talk about that for Hours :D Cheers
Thanks for the Sub! So interesting timing as I was just having this discussion the other day about that being the missing link with things like Generative Design. The outcome is great but manipulating the form body takes wizard skills. Be assured this is on my radar. I will see if I can cover it sooner than later. With Machining in mind, do you have any particular restrictions you are looking at? 3-axis from Z+/Z- for example(because holding these complex parts......) I know with Gen Design, the 2x cutting will spit out a sketch and extrude. I believe 2.5x will as well depending on machining directions. Obviously Automated Modeling isn't there.
@@LearnEverythingAboutDesign You absolute legend. Couldn't agree more, and since there's nowhere else to go other than fusion360 (for now), I just need to learn more about editing and constructing form bodies, mesh's, and surface modelling, and anything else I'm forgetting. But I'm just loving the simplicity of automated design. Did not know that about generative design, very interesting. I'll take a look. I am however almost always just 3 axis milling, I definitely think the priority for me would be refining the holding of these complex components, during multi operation milling jobs, for example, I was thinking about the process of making custom fixtures based on surface modelling a negative around appropriate areas, and creating a body from that, and even then FDM printing them (I've milled aluminium held by 3D printed fixtures with no problem, and that was before I was printing carbon fibre reinforced nylon) but I'm sure there are plenty of other ways of approaching the larger issue at hand, Would love to see some ideas from You! Thanks for the reply! :)
Yeah in Generative Design when you set up a manufacturing method you have Unrestricted, Additive(basically unrestrictive but with some feature size and overhang options), 2.5, 3 and 5x. with 2.5 and 3x you also can set which machining orientation you want, or all 6 as well as a min tool diameter and holder/spindle size(diameter not HP). With 2x cutting your preserve geometry has to be the same height and in the same plate but you get a sketch/extrude out of it. Then there is casting with draft angles and pull, but it needs a little work and still a preview i think. Yeah fixturing is a tough one on these complex parts. I will give it some thought. If you have any example parts you can email me support@caducator.com. I don't think making soft jaws for these complex parts is reasonable. I would probably overdesign some of the preserve geometry and use a fixture plate but it is so hard to say without knowing the part.
thanks for your vids, really pleasant to watch and i learn something evry time, you said that generative design is free to use but in my personal edition i didn't have access to it, is there a trick?
Thanks wared! So Generative Design Fluid is free to solve right now, but I do believe only Commercial and EDU license types have access to it. I think anything that requires cloud credits to solve(simulation for example) is not available in the Hobby/Personal license. I think that is also true for preview features like the Automated Modeling sadly. You do still get loads of great tools like some forms, mesh and design tools, but miss out in other areas. It is not always clear to me what is and isn't included in the hobby/personal license. www.autodesk.com/products/fusion-360/personal This lists CAE(computer aided engineering) as only in the commercial/edu version and Gen Design falls into that bucket.
@@LearnEverythingAboutDesign got it thanks, obviously this software is insane i don't blame autodesk for their decision, still got a lot to learn with what i have now
Yes and no. Gen Design Fluid flow is looking at a flow path with essentially the least resistance. You set a pressure or flow on the inlet and basically 0psi on the outlet. While it can do multiple inlets you might find out that it is not what you are looking for. All that is just flow path though. There is currently no mechanism in place to account for thermal transfer. While you can do some thermal simulations in Fusion, there is no CFD so you wouldn't be able to evaluate the cooling with flow. Only what would happen if say you had a block with water at X temp.
![[DOKKAN BATTLE] Worldwide Campaign Announcement Video Part 2!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JpT5Voak6WA/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for this tutorial! Way better than Autodesk's Generative Fluids tutorial on their RUclips page
Glad it was helpful. I don't think it has changed much, but I do have several GD courses I did for Autodesk on their page including a section on GD Fluids if you are looking for more content.
www.autodesk.com/learn/ondemand/course/fusion360-generative-design-manufacturing-applications-expert
@@LearnEverythingAboutDesign Thank you, that resource was also helpful. So thanks to your videos I was able to create a generative fluid design for fluid through a hydraulic manifold, however when I do a Autodesk CFD simulation to compare the original to generative fluid design, it looks like the pressure drop actually increased? Does this sometimes happen??
@@koreanoguy95 Was the CFD set exactly the same? I would expect the CFD simulation to be more accurate since the GD Fluid is still technically a "beta" product. That said I wouldn't expect them to be wildly different BUT when you do a generative design study and an FEA study after there are differences. Mainly in the fact that the preserve regions are absorbed as the mesh during a study, but they are solid bodies with sharp edges in some cases when converted to a BREP. This means the Mesh from the GD study and the mesh you run in your CFD are slightly different.
@@TheShift1313 Thanks for replying. The CFD inputs were the same (for the boundary conditions and # of iterations), the mesh was autogenerated using the autosize function. Interesting point about the meshes being different, how can I make sure that they are the same for both CFD studies?
Also, from watching an Autodesk video, I think what it may be is that for the generative fluid study sometimes prioritizes volume reduction over pressure drop optimization, which I think may happened in this case. The generated fluid profile has a smaller diameter which I think may be leading to overall increased pressure. The study was originally run with a target volume of 50% of original, I think I may try again with a higher percentage (75% or 100%).
@@koreanoguy95 for the mesh you can't really because if you export a mesh rather than a design from the GD study, i don't believe you can use that in Autodesk CFD. I think it needs a solid so it can mesh it on its own.
For the prioritization of vol reduction that is a good catch. That would seem to make sense to me. Would be interesting to see what a rerun at 75% would do.
Interesting video and very well done. What's the best sort of use case then for this type of gen design? Will it always create a single path? I'd love it if they could make it branch and optimise cooling of a shape but respect specific inputs such as minimum path size/cross section etc.
Good question! The automated modeling right now seems to just look at line of sight and then refine from there minimalizing the design. That is mainly why I said it probably isn't good as a starting shape for GD fluid. GD Fluid won't really branch outside of that shape as much as GD Structural will.
There is cooling simulation but its electronic cooling and doesn't really account for CFD. I am hoping one day CFD will be in Fusion but for right now we have Thermal problems with conduction and convection and radiation but without moving fluid around the designs.
I do love the idea of some basic inputs for Automated Modeling like minimum cross section. Maybe one day!
Hi mate, new sub here but really great video and You've certainly earnt it. I just thought I'd add that I'd love to see another video based around the idea of post processing an automated model for machining in mind. With the work I've done it seems quite easy to get some great results that can easily be 3d printed (and I love that it comes with the base subscription and can be computed offline), but both generative and automated lend themselves heavily to additive particularly SLS, SLA & DLP, and I need more examples (from people like You who know how to use fusion360 so well), of post processing automated modelling for subtractive in mind.
Honestly anything involving post processing automated models will suffice though, I'll listen to You talk about that for Hours :D
Cheers
Thanks for the Sub! So interesting timing as I was just having this discussion the other day about that being the missing link with things like Generative Design. The outcome is great but manipulating the form body takes wizard skills. Be assured this is on my radar. I will see if I can cover it sooner than later.
With Machining in mind, do you have any particular restrictions you are looking at? 3-axis from Z+/Z- for example(because holding these complex parts......) I know with Gen Design, the 2x cutting will spit out a sketch and extrude. I believe 2.5x will as well depending on machining directions. Obviously Automated Modeling isn't there.
@@LearnEverythingAboutDesign You absolute legend.
Couldn't agree more, and since there's nowhere else to go other than fusion360 (for now), I just need to learn more about editing and constructing form bodies, mesh's, and surface modelling, and anything else I'm forgetting. But I'm just loving the simplicity of automated design.
Did not know that about generative design, very interesting. I'll take a look.
I am however almost always just 3 axis milling,
I definitely think the priority for me would be refining the holding of these complex components, during multi operation milling jobs, for example, I was thinking about the process of making custom fixtures based on surface modelling a negative around appropriate areas, and creating a body from that, and even then FDM printing them (I've milled aluminium held by 3D printed fixtures with no problem, and that was before I was printing carbon fibre reinforced nylon)
but I'm sure there are plenty of other ways of approaching the larger issue at hand, Would love to see some ideas from You!
Thanks for the reply! :)
Yeah in Generative Design when you set up a manufacturing method you have Unrestricted, Additive(basically unrestrictive but with some feature size and overhang options), 2.5, 3 and 5x. with 2.5 and 3x you also can set which machining orientation you want, or all 6 as well as a min tool diameter and holder/spindle size(diameter not HP). With 2x cutting your preserve geometry has to be the same height and in the same plate but you get a sketch/extrude out of it. Then there is casting with draft angles and pull, but it needs a little work and still a preview i think.
Yeah fixturing is a tough one on these complex parts. I will give it some thought. If you have any example parts you can email me support@caducator.com. I don't think making soft jaws for these complex parts is reasonable. I would probably overdesign some of the preserve geometry and use a fixture plate but it is so hard to say without knowing the part.
thanks for your vids, really pleasant to watch and i learn something evry time, you said that generative design is free to use but in my personal edition i didn't have access to it, is there a trick?
Thanks wared! So Generative Design Fluid is free to solve right now, but I do believe only Commercial and EDU license types have access to it. I think anything that requires cloud credits to solve(simulation for example) is not available in the Hobby/Personal license. I think that is also true for preview features like the Automated Modeling sadly. You do still get loads of great tools like some forms, mesh and design tools, but miss out in other areas. It is not always clear to me what is and isn't included in the hobby/personal license. www.autodesk.com/products/fusion-360/personal
This lists CAE(computer aided engineering) as only in the commercial/edu version and Gen Design falls into that bucket.
@@LearnEverythingAboutDesign got it thanks, obviously this software is insane i don't blame autodesk for their decision, still got a lot to learn with what i have now
Is it possible to generative design a watercooling block?
Yes and no. Gen Design Fluid flow is looking at a flow path with essentially the least resistance. You set a pressure or flow on the inlet and basically 0psi on the outlet. While it can do multiple inlets you might find out that it is not what you are looking for.
All that is just flow path though. There is currently no mechanism in place to account for thermal transfer. While you can do some thermal simulations in Fusion, there is no CFD so you wouldn't be able to evaluate the cooling with flow. Only what would happen if say you had a block with water at X temp.