Fusion now has Configurations, but Derive is still relevant. Configurations are best for 'variations' of a design (ie changes in properties, toggling 'childless' features, etc). It's not so great at toggling/switching chains of dependent features. By 'toggle', I mean 'Suppress' all but the active option. Derive is often the simplest option when a design requires selectable upstreamfeatures (eg different sketch profiles) which each have a chain of dependent features (eg. extrude(s), combine, chamfer, etc). AD discussed using Derive like a 'Configuration' here: ruclips.net/video/OpFSoPLSaag/видео.html&pp=ygUVRGVyaXZlLWluZyBGdXNpb24gMzYw Thanks for the vid btw 🙂
Thanks for this, was looking for a workflow for derivations (nice to see the product made it to production now too). For the holes and supports issue, Cura has a support blocker feature that can remove supports for specified areas, so that could be an option if trying Cura in the future. For the knob, creating a construction axis through the center and then using the rotate feature for the relevant faces of the part you wanted to adjust might have worked. Feels a bit kludgy to "tweak" things, but it's efficient and the move appears in the timeline and can be edited, so is a manageable approach.
Very nice work! The design looks polished. Have you gotten toolmaker feedback yet? One thing that caught my eye is the steel is a bit thin on the bottom half above the uppermost bosses and comes to a sharp edge. The other thing that caught my eye is the ribs in question that support the pcb... if you eliminate the chamfer and in its place put an offset of the top inner surface, they can support the wall of the top half. They would then help resist the top half from deforming towards the centerline if someone were to push on the clamshell from the side at the half lap joint. It probably does not matter for this product as its pretty small and looks stiff. But for a larger product that can help a lot.
Thanks. The injection molder was fine with the design before I added the extension to the ribs. I'm pretty sure they're going to use EDM for these, so shouldn't be an issue. If they do have a problem, I'll change the design. I added the chamfer to help the case halves slide into place. Given that the two halves are held together by 6 screws, I think the chamfer will also help with what you suggested. The larger version of this throttle doesn't have an issue with deforming, so I think we should be OK. I do appreciate your suggests, so please keep them coming.
How an app product instead of a remote? You could put all the functions including the wheel knob on a phone app with no investment in boards or plastic tooling. The best part is you can change the design of the buttons or display anytime you want and the users can just upload it. On the other end you could have a inexpensive interface to control the train item and it would be expandable cheap. Just a thought. :)
Phone apps have been around for years, and they're popular. But there are downsides that people don't like. For example, you get a phone call and loose control of your train. Or your phone locks just when you need to stop your train as quickly as possible. Or, you can't operate your train without looking at the screen. So the tactile feel is popular. TCS has already sold a bunch of the larger version of this throttle, and have gotten a bunch of pre orders for this one. So there is a market. People tend to have a strong preference for either the phone app or a physical throttle with buttons and knobs.
I found this video through model railroading, and clearly it's aimed more at the CAD/production end of things than being model railroad specific, but I strongly prefer a physical throttle. When operating trains realistically, you don't want to have to look at a phone screen, and having physical buttons and knobs makes control much easier. The TCS throttles are the best in the business in part due to the ergonomic design that's designed to fit in your hand naturally, vs. Existing throttles that were designed around accommodating mid-1990s electronics and manufacturing processes.
Great content! I've watched all of your videos and appreciate the depth and clarity you put into your work. It may be a little too small for your remote, but I've invested in a SLA printer for alpha prototypes. In addition, their exist SLA resins that are intended to be used as injection molds for beta prototyping (few dozen cycles). There are definite trade-offs (vs FDM/SLS for alpha prototype and vs aluminum molds from your HASS), but maybe something worth looking into. It's an inexpensive investment dollar-wise.
TCS has a Form 3 that they've used to make prints of these parts. There are several issues. First, the prints, even with the hard and tough resin, are still brittle. Sometimes they break the part while removing the support material. Also, sometimes the parts warp. I used to own an SLA printer, but really didn't like working with resin and dealing with resin that hadn't completely cured, or didn't want to wash off the parts. Finally, the Form 3 takes a lot longer to print parts than my FDM printer with PLA.
Resin parts will always be more brittle, I completely agree. (In my limited experience using Chitubox and Elegoo Mars) I have never had a part break during removal. Maybe settings or resin selection? Anyway, just wanted to bring up the point. Keep up the great work.
This throttle uses WiFi to communicate with the layout (via JMRI, etc.). The software updates are also done via WiFi, so there is no reason to plug in (except occasionally as developers).
How to injection mold tubular surfaces(Tubes) (long cylindrical surfaces inside side) without draft as with even 1 degree draft result in much diffrence at other end.
Fusion now has Configurations, but Derive is still relevant.
Configurations are best for 'variations' of a design (ie changes in properties, toggling 'childless' features, etc). It's not so great at toggling/switching chains of dependent features. By 'toggle', I mean 'Suppress' all but the active option.
Derive is often the simplest option when a design requires selectable upstreamfeatures (eg different sketch profiles) which each have a chain of dependent features (eg. extrude(s), combine, chamfer, etc).
AD discussed using Derive like a 'Configuration' here: ruclips.net/video/OpFSoPLSaag/видео.html&pp=ygUVRGVyaXZlLWluZyBGdXNpb24gMzYw
Thanks for the vid btw 🙂
Thanks for this, was looking for a workflow for derivations (nice to see the product made it to production now too). For the holes and supports issue, Cura has a support blocker feature that can remove supports for specified areas, so that could be an option if trying Cura in the future. For the knob, creating a construction axis through the center and then using the rotate feature for the relevant faces of the part you wanted to adjust might have worked. Feels a bit kludgy to "tweak" things, but it's efficient and the move appears in the timeline and can be edited, so is a manageable approach.
You have this CAD down! Nice video
Thanks Dave!
Very nice work! The design looks polished. Have you gotten toolmaker feedback yet? One thing that caught my eye is the steel is a bit thin on the bottom half above the uppermost bosses and comes to a sharp edge. The other thing that caught my eye is the ribs in question that support the pcb... if you eliminate the chamfer and in its place put an offset of the top inner surface, they can support the wall of the top half. They would then help resist the top half from deforming towards the centerline if someone were to push on the clamshell from the side at the half lap joint. It probably does not matter for this product as its pretty small and looks stiff. But for a larger product that can help a lot.
Thanks. The injection molder was fine with the design before I added the extension to the ribs. I'm pretty sure they're going to use EDM for these, so shouldn't be an issue. If they do have a problem, I'll change the design. I added the chamfer to help the case halves slide into place. Given that the two halves are held together by 6 screws, I think the chamfer will also help with what you suggested. The larger version of this throttle doesn't have an issue with deforming, so I think we should be OK. I do appreciate your suggests, so please keep them coming.
Nice🔥🔥👍
How an app product instead of a remote? You could put all the functions including the wheel knob on a phone app with no investment in boards or plastic tooling. The best part is you can change the design of the buttons or display anytime you want and the users can just upload it. On the other end you could have a inexpensive interface to control the train item and it would be expandable cheap. Just a thought. :)
Phone apps have been around for years, and they're popular. But there are downsides that people don't like. For example, you get a phone call and loose control of your train. Or your phone locks just when you need to stop your train as quickly as possible. Or, you can't operate your train without looking at the screen. So the tactile feel is popular. TCS has already sold a bunch of the larger version of this throttle, and have gotten a bunch of pre orders for this one. So there is a market. People tend to have a strong preference for either the phone app or a physical throttle with buttons and knobs.
Make sense. Keep up the videos!
I found this video through model railroading, and clearly it's aimed more at the CAD/production end of things than being model railroad specific, but I strongly prefer a physical throttle. When operating trains realistically, you don't want to have to look at a phone screen, and having physical buttons and knobs makes control much easier. The TCS throttles are the best in the business in part due to the ergonomic design that's designed to fit in your hand naturally, vs. Existing throttles that were designed around accommodating mid-1990s electronics and manufacturing processes.
Great content! I've watched all of your videos and appreciate the depth and clarity you put into your work.
It may be a little too small for your remote, but I've invested in a SLA printer for alpha prototypes. In addition, their exist SLA resins that are intended to be used as injection molds for beta prototyping (few dozen cycles). There are definite trade-offs (vs FDM/SLS for alpha prototype and vs aluminum molds from your HASS), but maybe something worth looking into. It's an inexpensive investment dollar-wise.
TCS has a Form 3 that they've used to make prints of these parts. There are several issues. First, the prints, even with the hard and tough resin, are still brittle. Sometimes they break the part while removing the support material. Also, sometimes the parts warp. I used to own an SLA printer, but really didn't like working with resin and dealing with resin that hadn't completely cured, or didn't want to wash off the parts. Finally, the Form 3 takes a lot longer to print parts than my FDM printer with PLA.
Resin parts will always be more brittle, I completely agree. (In my limited experience using Chitubox and Elegoo Mars) I have never had a part break during removal. Maybe settings or resin selection? Anyway, just wanted to bring up the point. Keep up the great work.
Is there a way to group components in fusion 360 or put them in a folder. Like for all the fasteners in an assembly.
I wish. That's something I really liked about Solidworks.
yay .... hmm over the Air need more please :)
This throttle uses WiFi to communicate with the layout (via JMRI, etc.). The software updates are also done via WiFi, so there is no reason to plug in (except occasionally as developers).
How to injection mold tubular surfaces(Tubes) (long cylindrical surfaces inside side) without draft as with even 1 degree draft result in much diffrence at other end.
I have no experience with that type of mold. This is a hobby for me, so I'm certainly not an expert.