Change the orientation of derived part?

[LOONYLEN]

Is there a way to change the orientation of a derived part in the "new" part file?

[JDMather]

Can you right click on the view cube and reset to desired orientation?

Can you use the Move (and rotate) body command to reorient?

Can you attach example file and derived file here to clarify your need?

[LOONYLEN]

I would like to change the model's relationship to the origin planes and axis.

You can recreate my situation easily. Create a circle sketch on the (Origin) Y-Z Plane, then revolve it around the "Z Axis" to create a donut. Open a new part file and derive the donut into the new file.

This is where I would like to change the axis through the donut, from Z to X. Not the view, the actual planes and axis relative to the model.

The reason I would require such an absurd edit is as follows:

In the past my company created stand alone standard models. They were used in standard assemblies. We've updated standard geometry, created configurators (with the addition of iLogic) and instituted the use of iParts/iAssemblies. Everything "newer" that is created (standard assemblies and the like...) is working great. It's when I have to resolve an old assembly to the new standard iPart/iAssembly member files or have to change the reference of a derived part, that I encounter an issue.

If there is a PartA in an assembly derived from Part1 ("old" standard part), then PartA's reference must be updated to reflect the new standard iPart (Part1 iPart). No problem, easily done. The other parts in the "old" assembly have a constrained relationship to the origin planes of PartA. Part1 has been deleted and replaced with a Part1 iPart. Part1 iPart was built using different planes and axis than Part1 so, this means the newly derived part will be incorrectly oriented when placed in the assembly. All of the other parts will now be disoriented also.

If I could reorient the PartA iPart, then the other parts in the "old" assembly will orient properly.

I know it may seem a bit convoluted, but it's actually a very easy workflow and possessing the ability to orient a derived part would make it even easier.

Does this make any sense?

Len

[JDMather · Accepted solution]

---

@LOONYLEN wrote:

I would like to change the model's relationship to the origin planes and axis.

You can recreate my situation easily. Create a circle sketch on the (Origin) Y-Z Plane, then revolve it around the "Z Axis" to create a donut. Open a new part file and derive the donut into the new file.

---

 Your right.  It was easy.  (see attached)

[LOONYLEN]

I'm a bit embarrassed that it was that easy of a solution.

Sorry for wasting your time, but thanks for the answer anyway.

[JDMather]

I guess then, that you figured out how to Move (Rotate) a body about an axis as indicated in the second sentence of the first response?

This is a common question that comes up here frequently as there is a bit of a hidden trick in the Move Body command.

[haydee3]

hello, Im trying to change my cviews cube orentation from options, and I click ok but nothing happens, no changes at all, it keeps the x,Y and Z axes as I dont need them, do you know why it happens?

[JDMather]

This sounds like a different problem than the problem that is the topic of this thread - but I am not sure.

Can you post a screen shot and the *.ipt file?

Is this an Inventor question or is it an AutoCAD question?

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/ObjectARX/Associative-array/m-p/5114116#M31619

[eflory]

I have these problems with trying to 'Derive' parts.  I want to derive an assembly to cut one part from another, and then use it in an NASTRAN FEA.  The trouble is that it orientates itself all wrong.  I have issues with orientation, mates, and planes/axis. derived parts (or configurations in SolidWorks).  Inventor is like SolidWorks, but when you really get to the nitty gritty, SolidWorks is hands down the better program.  I am at a new company, and they have Inventor, and I believe it to be almost a detriment to design as it is not as capable as SolidWorks in many ways.  If there are ways to get these things in Inventor, then I need to get some help in doing this.  My belief is there is not as I have been studying Inventor 2019 for almost 7 months now, and I am a 20 year SolidWorks and Simulation expert.  Please help!!

[johnsonshiue]

Hi! Do you mind elaborating the issue you are encountering? Generalized comments are not actionable. INV and SWX are both popular mechanical design tools in the world. If one was better than the other, the other should have been abandoned.

I would like to understand the exact issue you are having. Please share an example so I can look into further and offer suggestions.

Many thanks!

[eflory]

How do you get 'configurations' first of all?  This is a function of SolidWorks that you can make changes to what seems to be 'derived' parts in Inventor, but Inventor Derived parts doesn't work as nicely.  Also, in Solidworks, you can add a part into a part, and then combine them (either delete, get the intersection, or add).  It's much easier in SolidWorks, and let me know how I can do this as easily in Inventor, and get the same orientation of these 'configurations' when inserting them into assemblies...meaning to 'replace' part with a slightly modified and not loose all the mates.  If we start with this one first, then we can do the rest.

[johnsonshiue]

Hi! The short answer to your question is that INV does not have the equivalent of Configuration workflows in SWX. Each Inventor ipt or iam file represents unique geometric definition. You cannot have one ipt or one iam representing two geometric states at the same time. If you have been told otherwise, the information was false.

Inventor iPart/iAssembly is to create library content (like bolts, nuts, and actuators) for reusing purpose. It is not to represent one part in different states.

Inventor Derive is for skeletal modeling referencing purpose. One can sort of use it to represent a family of parts. One part can drive geometry in another part.

At the moment, when you need a different configuration, you have to create a different part or assembly (via Copy Design). We have heard requests like yours, we are working on a project called Alternative Representation, which should address your concern. If you are interested, please sign up Inventor Beta (https://bit.ly/InventorBeta).

Many thanks!

[eflory]

Autodesk is taking full advantage of all the engineers using AutoCAD, and having an easy time of conversion, only it is dumbing-down our capabilities, and making it harder to be productive, or just ignorant to what is out there now, and how productive we can acually be with another product.  And just so you know; I started using Inventor in 1999, and was a master at AutoCAD/Mechanical Desktop, and made all my 3D models in AutoCAD in the 90s.  I just feel confined now that I have to use ONLY Inventor, and I hope that the rest of my issues can be resolved.  Ok, the next thing; so I would like to get involved with the beta version, but what will that do for me?  Also, I want to talk about the poor mating (compared to SolidWorks assemblies).  Do I need to start another thread with the correct heading?