Hi Cray,
i am not sure on which results do you want... anyway i show you same way..hoping that there is what you mean.
Admaiora
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
Ok Cray,
There no direct constraint that allow this particular position
more or less something like this?
Nothing more came to me better than this at the moment.
Admaiora
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
This is easily done with the Insert Constraint and a "trick".
Attach your assembly here or at least indicate what version of Inventor you are using (I don't want to work up an example, only to find out you can't open my files.)
It seems like some variation of this problem comes up here every week.
To see the "trick" edit Sketch1 of the Sphere.
With trick do you mean additional sketch geometry? i Am curious
Admaiora
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
No Insert..but is it near?
Admaiora
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
@admaiora wrote:
With trick do you mean additional sketch geometry? i Am curious
Nice!
Thanks JD for sharing
Admaiora
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
You could also do it like this, using only constraints:
With a fair warning that this has 2 solutions, if you drag the sphere it can go to the other side of the hole.
So you might have to ground it to make it stay in place.
I think JD's method is the most robust for removing degrees of freedom, just wanted to show another method.
Niels van der Veer
Inventor professional user & 3DS Max enthusiast
Vault professional user/manager
The Netherlands
I would take a similar approach to what JD has suggested except I might just use work geometry on the line that represents the hole in your plate instead of splitting the solid. That's my personal preference so that the part doesn't appear to be split on a drawing. However, it all depends on how you move forward with it and what works for you. I do agree to adding the extra geometry in your sketch though.
People at my work are alwasy asking me how I can get something to bend a certain way or how I can get complex geometry to solve itself without having adaptivity or iLogic. The answer is really simple. Sketch out your requirements in the part file that requires the flexibility. If done correctly, you should have a part that works out it's own complex geometry.
Anyway, hope this helps.
Jean,
I've seen that method but I feel like using sketch geometry to fully contrain it is still the more reliable way. It's more flexible. Using the method you describe, any change to the size of either piece means you have to repeat the process. Using the sketch method, changing the size of the ball means you have zero processes to repeat, and changing the size of the hole only means you need to change that parameter in the sketch in the ball part file.
That's my 2 cents.
Thanks,