Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Level of Detail for Parts

Level of Detail for Parts

The ability to suppress features and create Level Of Detail representations in part files would be very useful.

 

Example 1:

I have a bent tube that goes into an assembly in the formed state. However, I would like to detail this part to show both the pre-formed and formed states of the part on my drawing. Currently I can not do this without creating additional files (derived parts or iParts).  Ideally I would be able to suppress the Bend Part feature as a LOD to place the pre-formed part view.


Example 2:

I have a part file with a lot of detailed edges and surfaces and I use this part over and over in my assemblies, I would like to be able to suppress features as a LOD an use the simplified version in the assembly, but still have the detailed version for my part drawing. Again we'd like to be able to do this, without having additional files to track.

 

 

90 Comments
jletcher
Advisor

Agree

acad-caveman
Collaborator

Frankly, I'm quite suprized that there aren't more Kudos to the idea, let alone the ones who think it

being a bad one.

 

May not be a meaningful implementation for designers, but in the manufacturing environment this is something that's done all the time with shop drawings, operation sheets, inspection sheets etc.

 

For what it's worth, this is one of the major reasons why AutoCAD is still the primary tool for process documentation, where the user can do anything and everything required to properly convey ONLY that

information which is required for the opration at hand.

Furthermore, suppressing features from a view can also aid in much cleaner and easier to read drawings

showing ONLY the dimensions and features that is relevant.

 

I know for a fact that some other CAD packages are capable of this, as I often get blueprints where a view is copied and certain features removed for clarity.

 

The difference between doing this in AutoCAD vs. Inventor is obvious: Efficiency, relation retention and guaranteed accuracy.

LT.Rusty
Advisor

This would be tremendously useful for me.

 

I do a lot of parts with ridiculous numbers of fillets, and what I do currently is create an iPart with one factory member with fillets and one without.  Most of the drawing will show the part without the fillets, just because it's a lot easier to dimension a lot of things that way.  The last page will show the factory member with the fillets, with callouts for where to use what radius. 

 

It would be a lot easier - and less disk-space intensive - to be able to use a single non-iPart .IPT file for this.

sgwilliams
Collaborator

@LT .Rusty: We played with the iPart idea a few years ago. A couple of us engineers put together a couple to see if there was an eficiency to using them for our products. We decided that the way we manufacture and the nature of our business would not allow us to use this feature. It would work fine for an out of the box pre engineered family of parts but not for the many specials that we make where part geometry changes completely from one special to the next.

 

I see the way you use it would be ok but I find it much faster to create a second model, derive the 1st ,model, then add the required geometry to it and create my drawing view.

 

Thanks for the Kudos.

sgwilliams
Collaborator

After much discussion in a different thread (which can be seen here) I think that Feature Representations would be a great idea, it would be similar to Positional Reps and View Representations. It would require the ability to create Feature Representations where a person could create a Feautre Representations for each stage (op number) of manufacturing the part where we can turn feature(s) on and off.  Then you would have one model to maintain and you could either create multiple views or mutliple sheets to represent the stages of production.  You would be able to easily follow through the Feature Representations to see the evolution of the part throught the Manufacturing process.

 

This would be a great for items like a shaft that gets features added to it for each Manufacturing Operation such as this example:

 

op-10: Cut Steel Blanks (Round stock cut to a specific length)

op-20: machine one end of shaft with a partial profile which takes into account the addition grind stock required for a future grind operation. and a center in one end.

op-30: flip part in the collet and the profile is finished on the second end along with second center

op-35: form roll threads on one end of shaft

op-40: heat treat

op-50: grind required diameters to finish sizes by mounting on centers

op-60: coating / plating

 

 

The above example shows the different stages of a shafts manufacturing process. each stage requires new features and diferences in diameters. some times a shaft or component has to be heat treated, and grind mutiple times, and each stage the diamemter will get smaller until the coating op which means the diametrs will have the thickness of what ever plating it is getting. The model needs to reflect these changes in order to drive dimensions correctly to ensure the stability of part creation.

Tags (1)
jletcher
Advisor

Just gave you kudos...

 

 I like this way better.....

dan_szymanski
Autodesk
Status changed to: Accepted

Accepted idea [409]. Thanks!

dan_szymanski
Autodesk
Status changed to: Gathering Support
Hello, this idea is a duplicate of http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/Inventor-IdeaStation/Level-of-Detail-for-Parts/idi-p/3822718 Please cast your kudo for the parent idea as to no split them. Thanks!
lucmartzz
Advocate

This is a nice one, actually I use iParts with supressed features for go into each manufacturing stage.

 

The bad thing is that iParts creates a folder where is located each configuration, so would be an improvement to keep just one file with all configurations. 

 

sgwilliams
Collaborator

I cast my Kudos..Thanks Dan I did not see this other. I still like my explaination better.

nicolas.striebig
Enthusiast

It could be useful to add this possibility for parts. For exemple, we could have differents configurations for a part in the same ipt file (with feature suppressed or not).
And in assembly : have acces to this level of detail (for part).

Thanks a lot.

BramosB
Contributor

Regards. I like this idea, shouldnt be good growing it with a relate plus in the document enviroment, due for generating diagrams of operations, so the person could get an smart file made in the part enviroment (.ipt) associated for each stop/node of the diagram. Symbols were be incluided, ready to use it for a the further arrange of a layout in the .idw for manufacture and documenting purpose. I like it as enhanced approach for that kind of job as needed. Yes, I hope it were really taken into next versions. That could be adapted for documenting mfg procesess that involve shrinks dimension in the part as Ceramic clay and its burned phase, even for 3dprinting part modelling process, isnt it?

Thanks at all. Sorry my english. Waiting further advices.

 

BrotherkennyhDWR
Enthusiast

Hi,

I seem to have this problem over and over, as do many others I have worked with. The solution seems to me to have the ability to make materials/part files flexable or allow some kind of compression. I appreciate that this might be quite complex.

 

For example if I were to model a compression spring;

I can model the spring in either a compressed or free state to use in a drawing. How do I use this part in an assembly effectively?

I appreciate I can make the spring adaptive, but this isn't fully effective. Adaptivity drives the spring to a certain static size and that size is true for all occurances of the spring. I can move the assembly by changing the constraints to resize the spring, but again all occurances of the spring change to meet that size.

What if I want the spring to exist in more than one length at a time? I cant see how to achieve this.

One way would to allow parts themselves to be flexible instead of adaptive, assemblies can already do this, but parts cannot.

 

Another issue specific to springs is the difficulty in modeling accurate springs that can be fully compressed. I have found that if I model a spring accurately at it's free length it will not compress fully. The coil feature breaks as self intersection occurs. Coils need to either allow self intersection or ideally recognise when one section of the coil is pushing against the next.

 

Another example of where materials would need to be flexable would be in the case of pipes or hoses. To me this is affectively bending of a part that is driven by assembly. I cannot create accurate pipe lengths for flexible pipes while also allowing them to be used in an assembly. To make them an accurate length for a manufacturing drawing we need to make them straight. To make them fit in an assembly and look realistic we need to use a 3D spline. 3D splines cannot be given a set length so the pipe cannot be made accurately. If only we could have the ability to take a straight pipe and bend it into place as a flexible part in the assembly.

Tags (1)
ThomasSwanson
Advocate

Currently you have the abiltity to create a new design view in the part, but the only option you have for the part features is to supress and not turn off the visibility.  This makes the design views unusable because suppressing the feature suppresses it across all views.  I would like to see the visibility option given to the parts just like the assemblies have.  That way users can have different views for the part files.

 

For example, if I have a burnout part that is cut to size and then I drill a hole in it.  On the drawing I don't have a way to show both the burnout and the finished part from the same ipt. 

 

part views.jpg

dan_szymanski
Autodesk
Status changed to: Gathering Support

There is a Master Idea being tracked for this request here:  http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-ideastation/level-of-detail-for-parts/idi-p/3822718  Please be sure to cast your kudo to it, as to not split up votes.  Thanks! -Dan

Heathos88
Enthusiast

Do we think this new and great idea will been implemented in Inventor 2015 or 2016? 🙂

petestrycharske
Advisor

All,

 

I ran across the topic of creating multifold sheet metal parts as iParts, with each member row being a different state of the manufacturing process.  This is a fantastic idea and got me thinking.  What if I wanted to conceptualize a part and during that process I may end up suppressing different features.  I thought it might be nice to have a way of controlling when the features are suppressed or active, similar to the Level of Detail for components in an assembly.  There are likely other ways to accomplish this, I suppose, like using multiple solid bodies or something, but I thought since we had the ability to suppress features it would be nice to have some controls besides having to make an iPart.  A Part Level of Detail might be a little faster than editing an iPart table, especially if the part is complex enough.  If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.  Hope all is well and have a most blessed day!

 

Peace,

Pete

Tags (7)
CeesNooij
Enthusiast

Hi Pete,

 

Great idea. I was using this lately thinking it would work this way, but apparently not.

 

Cees

h.schkorwaga
Advocate

Solidworks has a feature like this (for years now).

 

I used this to have resource-friendly assemblies on old machines.

petestrycharske
Advisor

Falconeer, there are other ways to control the suppression of multiple features in a part using a technique called Conditional Suppression.  It still isn't as fast as Level of Detail, but is another potential tool for you to examine.  I blogged about it recently and here is the link.

 

complex2014, there is a Level of Detail in the assembly environment that contols the suppression level of parts and subassemblies.  My idea is to add similar functionality in the Part modeling environment to control feature suppression.  Since you mentioned assemblies, I just wanted to make sure that I clarified in case I had introduced any confusion. 

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

Submit Idea  

Autodesk Design & Make Report