{"id":20553,"date":"2021-04-20T12:55:50","date_gmt":"2021-04-20T19:55:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.autodesk.com\/products\/fusion-360\/blog\/?p=20553"},"modified":"2022-08-12T07:45:48","modified_gmt":"2022-08-12T14:45:48","slug":"components-vs-bodies-tips-fusion-360","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.autodesk.com\/products\/fusion-360\/blog\/ja\/components-vs-bodies-tips-fusion-360\/","title":{"rendered":"\u30dc\u30c7\u30a3\u3068\u30b3\u30f3\u30dd\u30fc\u30cd\u30f3\u30c8\u3092\u5206\u5272\u3057\u3066\u8003\u3048\u308b"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"bodies-components-fusion-360\"<\/figure>\n\n

Understanding the relationship between components and bodies<\/a> is a vital step to becoming proficient in Fusion 360<\/a>. Unless you\u2019ve been using Fusion 360 for some time or have a lot of experience with a manufacturing 3D CAD<\/a> package, however, the very notion of components is really confusing. Many Fusion 360 users were taught that Rule #1 to begin a project is to \u201cstart your files with empty components,\u201d but what does this really mean? In this article, we\u2019re going to take a look at how and why we use components and bodies in Fusion 360 and finally put the ongoing \u201cbodies vs. components\u201d discussion to rest.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Components vs Bodies<\/b><\/h2>\n

This is an interesting conundrum. Strictly speaking, you can\u2019t compare components to bodies because components are made of bodies<\/a>. Let\u2019s take a step back and think about the top-down functionality of the data structure in Fusion 360. When you start a file in Fusion 360, your browser remains quite empty. If you do not use any components, you\u2019ll see folders start to automatically populate: sketches, bodies, construction, etc. But what\u2019s important to note is that all of these folders sit under a top assembly. The top assembly is the top-level umbrella where everything else falls under\u2014it\u2019s the final point of your file, and it\u2019s a type of component in and of itself.<\/span><\/p>\n\n

\"fusion-360-timeline\"<\/figure>\n\n

What does this mean in relation to your data and structuring, and where does this fit into bodies vs. components? Now that we understand that the top assembly is a component, and the bodies sit inside that top assembly, we can begin to understand their relationship. Bodies are an element of a component, not something that can be compared to components.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\n

If this still doesn\u2019t make sense, consider this: When you have multiple separate bodies that are not part of components or a sub-assembly in your top assembly, they are unable to interface with one another in the manner components usually can. This is because you are technically trying to interface one component with itself\u2014this is why joints don\u2019t work on bodies!\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Bodies vs Rule #1<\/b><\/h2>\n

So does the bodies vs components argument matter? Absolutely, but it was important to clarify right off the bat that what people are actually asking is if Rule #1 is really a rule at all\u2014whether they should leave everything in a top assembly or create empty components and go from there.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\n

Unfortunately, there\u2019s no definitive answer to this question, but that\u2019s probably a good thing. If there were a definitive answer, everyone would probably be making the same things, which would be very boring.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\n

The real answer is: do whatever makes the most sense for your workflow.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\n

My product design process often starts off as exploratory. Then as I continue to flesh an idea out, the concept\/idea becomes more structured. Because of the nature of my workflow, I choose to start off with everything as separate, new bodies\u2014figuring out the interface, what will go where, and how I will use it all. Then from there, I start a new file from scratch with a guideline of my components and sub-assemblies laid out in the browser before I begin anything.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\n

Of course, if you have a clear idea in your head of what you are working on, you can jump straight into planning your components and assemblies before diving in.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Why does Rule #1 exist then?<\/b><\/h2>\n

Well, no matter what approach you decide to take, organizing your data into components and sub-assemblies as early as possible in your design process is beneficial. Here are a few things you\u2019ll gain from doing so:<\/span><\/p>\n

Condensed timelines<\/b><\/h3>\n

You may have noticed that when you activate a component, your timeline condenses, showing you only what is relevant to the component. This is super helpful when you have a large assembly or a complex geometry that would usually have many steps in its timeline because it compresses things to be more manageable for edits.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\n

\"condensed-timelines-fusion-360\"<\/figure>\n

Associated root parts<\/b><\/h3>\n

If you create a new component and then populate it, pattern it, or copy it, the same change will be applied to all components. This can get tricky when you\u2019re working with multiple bodies in a single component. You generally do not want to do that as a workaround to the above copy-paste tip. A component is ideally just one body inside, as operations such as joints only work at the component level. Say you have multiple unique bodies in one component. When you go to apply a joint, that joint works at the component level\u2014not the body level\u2014so it applies the constraint to everything.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\n

\"associated-root-parts\"<\/figure>\n

Sub-assemblies as file management<\/b><\/h3>\n

Sub-assemblies aren\u2019t designed for file management, but they are excellent for managing your data. They\u2019re great for consolidating a portion of your physical assembly together to perform a function. This can also work for consolidating your timeline, as mentioned above.<\/span><\/p>\n

Portability<\/b><\/h3>\n

Portability? With all that file structuring? It sounds preposterous. however, using components does make your data portable. They make it very easy to fragment data out for derives, save copies for exploring alternative designs, and push portions of a total dataset out for drawings or exporting.<\/span><\/p>\n\n

\"components-vs-bodies-portability-fusion-360\"<\/figure>\n\n

Whether you\u2019re machining<\/a>, 3D printing<\/a>, laser cutting, casting, or molding, the use of components and sub-assemblies can be hugely valuable to keep your workflow and components organized. If you\u2019re looking for more information related to Fusion 360 bodies and components, Kevin Kennedy created a useful tutorial that delves deeper into the core concepts and shows how to use them in real-world scenarios:<\/span><\/p>\n\n