Parametric to the extreme!!!

[Anonymous]

I have been given a project where I need to have (pressure vessel) parts, sub-assemblies and main assemblies and their respective dwgs, created 'parametrically'. The basic goal is to have as little of .ipt files and many different scenarios of .iam, .ipn (not necessary) & .idw (configurations)

Now, I am doing my groundwork to establish a solid foundation by looking into,

1. Derived Part
2. iPart & iAssemblies
3. Skeletal Modeling

All the major parts will have spreadsheets with the possibility of introducing tolerance as a parameter, which I am not even sure how INV will behave or if its gonna snap at me.

I have alot of experience with iParts , I know a little bit about iAssemblies, but never used derived part or skeletal modeling to acheive these results.

I will appreciate any help, guideline(s), content or prior experience.

Thank you

[Anonymous]

wrote in message news:5920523@discussion.autodesk.com...
I have been given a project where I need to have (pressure vessel) parts,
sub-assemblies and main assemblies and their respective dwgs, created
'parametrically'. The basic goal is to have as little of .ipt files and many
different scenarios of .iam, .ipn (not necessary) & .idw (configurations)

Now, I am doing my groundwork to establish a solid foundation by looking
into,

1. Derived Part
2. iPart & iAssemblies
3. Skeletal Modeling

All the major parts will have spreadsheets with the possibility of
introducing tolerance as a parameter, which I am not even sure how INV will
behave or if its gonna snap at me.

I have alot of experience with iParts , I know a little bit about
iAssemblies, but never used derived part or skeletal modeling to acheive
these results.

I will appreciate any help, guideline(s), content or prior experience.

Thank you


__________________

Hello Irfan,

I have used Inventor to model pressure vessels and heat exchangers using
skeletal modeling, adaptive modeling and spreadsheet-driven techniques. It
can be done quite successfully, but initial setup of the project to account
for all the requirements is absolutely critical. It would be easy to start
down a worng road, only to find that some essential part of the project is
difficult or impossible to achieve without a considerable amount of
backtracking. In structuring an entire design project, that's a caveat with
the techniques you listed; they are advanced modeling practices that require
a strong understanding of their nuances from the outset. Understanding your
requirements well enough to suggest a specific course of action is probably
beyond the limitations of communicating via newsgroup. If the project is
important and time-critical, you would do well to hire a consultant to come
in and evaluate your situation, then help you develop a solution and train
you in the procedures. There are expenses involved in this, of course, but
not nearly as dire as the consequences of losing time to a faulty approach.

Cheers,
Walt

[Anonymous]

Hello Walt,

thanks for replying.

The project is crucial but not time critical. I am being hired to do this job and I am very confident I can do this. Your help will be greatly appreciated.

Are you in US or Europe.

[Anonymous]

wrote in message news:5921013@discussion.autodesk.com...
Hello Walt,

thanks for replying.

The project is crucial but not time critical. I am being hired to do this
job and I am very confident I can do this. Your help will be greatly
appreciated.

Are you in US or Europe.

_______________

I'm in the US, on the West coast.

[Anonymous]

I am doing this exact thing...spreadsheet-driven derived assemblies are the way to go if you need more fluidity. (Not discrete sizes like iParts/iAssemblies). You have all of the power of your spreadsheet to drive the assembly...it's great! Funny thing is that I am doing the exact same thing with pressure vessels, etc. I have also applied this concept to equipment that is sized differently every project.

There are usually five or six ways of doing things...but if I were you I would invest in some "tinker time" to make sure you pick the right path to go down.

I would avoid linking the spreadsheet to the models. I would embed the spreadsheet within a master part...then derive each driven part from that master. This approach gets you into less trouble with file link problems...especially if you have the Vault.

You will also likely have to make a decision as to what level you want to drive your model from (i.e. each vessel, plant-level, etc.)

[Anonymous]

I have the following scenario,

A. Top Level Assy consist of
1. Inner Assy
a. Top Head
b. Shell
c. Bottom head

2. Inner/Outer Assy
a. Top Head Outer
b. Shell
c. Bottom Head Outer

The above is the basic construction, which leads to different configuration with plumbing & valves.

I strongly believe if I have one master file for each component (Heads and shells) and embed the .xls file for respective, I can derive numerous configuration for different product lines. I am really nervous about using iParts and iAssemblies with Vault, just my gut feeling.

How are you controlling the tolerance for stackups.

[Anonymous]

I agree. I also share your hesitation about iAssemblies w/Vault....but I think iParts aren't too bad.

[Anonymous]

I have used only one spreadsheet with all the data that I require there, then I link the spreadsheet to a Master Part.ipt file that contains nothing and export all the parameters of this. Then I make all the parts that require variable parameters as derive parts of the Master Part.ipt and only use the parameters of this that I need. I do the same with the sub-assemblies and main assembly (link this to the Master Part.ipt).

This way I reduce substantially the time to update the main assembly when the parameters change.

[Anonymous]

Hey Jarteaga,

you wrote,

I have used only one spreadsheet with all the data that I require there, then I link the spreadsheet to a Master Part.ipt file that contains nothing (what do you mean, no sketch/part features) and export (to where) all the parameters of this. Then I make all the parts that require variable parameters (are they included in the spreadsheet) as derive parts of the Master Part.ipt and only use the parameters of this that I need. I do the same with the sub-assemblies (working with the same spreadsheet?????)and main assembly (link this to the Master Part.ipt).

I understand, that I will have seperate spreadsheets for main components, and have you used another spreadsheet for assembly/sub Assy to define constraints for different sceneraios.

Thanks

[Anonymous]

Hey Walt, I just came across your paper on "Capturing Deisgn Intent" on mcadforums. I was wondering if you have something as descriptive and informative written about parametrics.

[Anonymous]

The Master Part.ipt file does not contain any sketch or features, basically is an empty file that is linked to a spreadsheet. There is only one spreadsheet that has all the data. Exporting the parameters (Tools|Parameters)means that you check mark in column that reads Export Parameter all the parameters that you want to export.

All the parts are then made as derived parts of the Master Part.ipt. These are not linked to the spreadsheet (at least not directly), but the spreadsheet contains the all data for these parts, including constrains for assemblies, and this data is passed to the parts and assemblies by the Master Part.ipt.

The sub-assemblies and assemblies are also linked to the Master Part.ipt. The spreadsheet is only linked to one file (Master Part.ipt) and all other parts and assemblies are linked to the Master Part.ipt.

[Anonymous]

So far I know I will have to have one spreadsheet for heads and one for shells. I may make only one spreadsheet with all that info, but I just want to be careful and seamless within each entity.

While I was looking into add in package, I ran into iLogic and Intent. Has anybody tried it or is t even worth it in this type of situation.

[Anonymous]

So far what I have learned form this thread is to have the master file with a link to spread sheet and then exporting the parameters to parts.

While I was at it, I came across INTENT and iLogic. Has anybody used it to do similar projects.

[mbodnar]

Hi

I was wondering when automating using excel spreadsheets to drive the design intent, how have you dealt with filenames?
I have used iParts/iAssemblies because it gave me the ability to define in the table upfront what my filenames/part no's will be before hand but it's been a strugle with vault and regeneration

With excel driven parts, the original part must have some kind of a generic name and i guess when using copy design in vault all parts could be named if a unique file naming convention was used

Otherwise how can you capture a entire design table of part no's/file names when using the excel sheet approach? Just interested if you or anyone else has come across this challenge

Max B

[Anonymous]

Or, alternately, give the project to someone with greater experience in designing using those techniques?
From my experience, consultants oftentimes offer very sketchy solutions and when they are being asked to go ahead and do it right there and right now, they prove to be very weak to practically apply their real knowledge.
Walt, I hope I didn't rain on your parade, though. It seems to me you do some consulting...

[Anonymous]

wrote in message news:5935795@discussion.autodesk.com...
Or, alternately, give the project to someone with greater experience in
designing using those techniques?
From my experience, consultants oftentimes offer very sketchy solutions and
when they are being asked to go ahead and do it right there and right now,
they prove to be very weak to practically apply their real knowledge.
Walt, I hope I didn't rain on your parade, though. It seems to me you do
some consulting...

________________


I do. It's true that consultants are a dozen for a dime, and I can't speak
for any but myself. When I suggest a technique to a client, it's because
I've personally proven that technique, and can both demonstrate it and teach
it. I also try to have at least one strong alternative to my main
recommendation. Two is even better.

But you didn't rain on anything of mine. I'm up to my earlobes in work, and
not looking for any more.

Cheers,
Walt

[Anonymous]

You may also want to look in the customization group. There are ways to dtransfer data both ways between parts and spreadsheets to do additional calculations. You can also use some VB to generate and or modify the parts and assemblies so that parts will always match) and make the generation as simple entering the configuration string for the part. This is a longer task to set up and get working properly, but I know it has been done.

I however am nowhere near that level, nor to we have volume of common products that would benefit from that.

Pete

[Anonymous]

Irfan,

I can help you with any questions you may have about iLogic. iLogic will do exactly what you need.

[Anonymous]

thanks for that.

[Anonymous]

I tried to contact you via your e-mail (@comcast). I haven't heard anything so far. My company will not mind working with knowledgeable consultant, who is willing to get the job done and not try to sell anything new.