Community
Inventor Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Inventor Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Inventor topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Inventor 2012 revolution adaptivity in assembly

6 REPLIES 6
Reply
Message 1 of 7
phillip.shields
577 Views, 6 Replies

Inventor 2012 revolution adaptivity in assembly

I'm having trouble with a tangent constraint. I have an adaptive part in an assembly and it is a revolution. I am able to constain the top and bottom of the part so that it expands and contracts with my assembly. But, when I go to constrain the sides of my part via the tangent constraint I get an "inconsistant constraint" error. Thanks in advance for the help I've explained a little more in the attached photos:

 

adapt01.png

 

adapt03.png

 

adapt04.png

 

adapt02-t.png

6 REPLIES 6
Message 2 of 7
JDMather
in reply to: phillip.shields

Is there a reason you can't use multi-body solids and then push out the assembly rather than using adaptive technique?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Autodesk Inventor 2019 Certified Professional
Autodesk AutoCAD 2013 Certified Professional
Certified SolidWorks Professional


The CADWhisperer YouTube Channel


EESignature

Message 3 of 7
phillip.shields
in reply to: JDMather

I've never used multi-body parts. Are there any good videos showing a step by step process on how to use them?

Message 4 of 7
JDMather
in reply to: phillip.shields

In my opinion - much easier and robust than adaptive techniques.

I would use Derived Components before using Adaptive, but multi-body is really an enhanced form of derived components.

 

You will end up with one extra "Master" ipt file, but I put it all in a folder and it is all 1s and 0s to me in one folder - so I don't worry about the extra master file.

 

You model everything in one part file - but be sure to select the New Solid option for each separate part.

Then when you get done you go to Manage>Make Components to generate the assembly and individual parts.

The modeling itself is easier.

Another advantage is you can have easy to recognize descriptive names in the master and then when you do the Make Components you can enter Part Numbers.
Some considerations need to be made concerning sub-assemblies and motion constraints as everything will be initially grounded, but this is easily managed after Inventor creates the assembly.

All is associative, so changes in the master will be updated in the parts/assembly.


I'm sure there are plenty of tutorials.

See the Vacuum tutorial here  http://home.pct.edu/~jmather/content/DSG322/inventor_surface_tutorials.htm

not exactly what you need, but should give you some ideas how it makes it easy to model mating parts.

Don't forget to include realistic tolerances to your modeling dimensions as we can't manufacture exact geometry out on the shop floor.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Autodesk Inventor 2019 Certified Professional
Autodesk AutoCAD 2013 Certified Professional
Certified SolidWorks Professional


The CADWhisperer YouTube Channel


EESignature

Message 5 of 7
phillip.shields
in reply to: JDMather

Multi-body parts sound like they would work, but I don't think it will for my company. At my company we need to build our parts out of our "sheet metal template" part file because we run alot of iLogic code to generate flat patterns that work with our drawing template. If I understand you correctly, I don't think the parts I generate from the solid bodies will have the iLogic my company uses for our drawings. I their any way I can insert a part into an already existing assembly and have it "adapt" to the assembly?

Message 6 of 7
JDMather
in reply to: phillip.shields

Oops, I should have recognized that you had sheet metal parts in there.

Because Inventor multi-body doesn't support sheet metal there is on extra step.


In the derived components you must convert them to sheet metal.

This is easy to do manually, I have no experience doing this with iLogic, but I can tell you that one of my students who just graduated did a pretty impressive senior project with iLogic for sheet metal similar to what I think you need.

His goal was to have an interface that a sales-person with limited training could use iLogic dialogs to generate custom sheet metal assemblies on-demand.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Autodesk Inventor 2019 Certified Professional
Autodesk AutoCAD 2013 Certified Professional
Certified SolidWorks Professional


The CADWhisperer YouTube Channel


EESignature

Message 7 of 7
phillip.shields
in reply to: JDMather

It looks like I would have to pretty much copy and paste the code that is already generated for me which really wouldn't be that bad. I was trying to avoid doing that every time I needed one of these parts though if possible.

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report