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

stick mass on derive or import

stick mass on derive or import

some discussions here i think warrant a case for added functionality:

 

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/Inventor-General/DERIVED-PART-MASS-NOT-CORRECT/m-p/4883558#M500800

 

maybe a new button to say whether we wish to keep mass on assemblies or parts when we derive them?

8 Comments
blair
Mentor
Add an additional button to copy in the CoG of the Parent as well. Just bringing in the existing Mass would mean that Inventor may try and adjust the Density to achieve the desired Mass. This could cause a shift in the CoG as it tries to apply the new Density to the volume of the Derived part
Mark_Wigan
Collaborator

good call blair

dan_szymanski
Autodesk
Status changed to: Accepted

Accepted idea [617]. Thanks!

lennart.losjo
Enthusiast

This is very needed.

If i have a right and left version of an assembly, i derived the right one into the part that will be my left one, then i also want the mass to come with it.

dan_szymanski
Autodesk
Status changed to: Future Consideration

We are refining procedures around idea status.  Changing this to Future Consideration.

kavace
Participant

Still relevant / missing in Inventor 2018...

This would be very useful as I have derived large assemblies which could change in the future my another designer. Not able to have a live link to the base assembly makes the mass of this item 14 times lighter than it should be (generic). When the mass in critical to the final assembly and lifting capacities of the final large assembly extra checks have to be carried out.

WK-VA
Contributor

Kind of sad that nothing happened in the course of 8 years now. "Accepted" => "Future consideration"... is that a downgrade in terms of priority? And when's the future supposed to happen? Anytime soon?

 

I think mass properties ... or let's better say density! ... should be carried over body by body. This might conflict with the data model of Inventor - however if that's the case, then it might be worth reflecting upon the data model and if it's a good design or not. With all due consequences...

By carrying over density body by body, any modification of the derived part would result in a most accurate mass as well as CoG. If the user decides to have only one resulting body, the calculated average density should be applied... that seems like a good compromise. Anyone that wants a more accurate result has to opt for a multi body result.

 

We use derived parts to do the machining of welding assemblies, as the Inventor weldment environment (same as machining in the assembly environment) sucks for a long time now and nothing changes either (no colours, no shared sketches, no patterns to be reused upstream, ...). So it's: raw parts (IPTs)=> welding assembly (IAM) => machining in derived part (IPT). Mass properties is a problem in that case, although in our case it's all steel, so we could perhaps use a "dummy material" with an average density of steel.

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

Submit Idea  

Autodesk Design & Make Report