Any Problems with Tube and Pipe?

[Michael_Walker]

I am trying to find the best way to use the tube and pipe within a production setting (we do not run a job shop). However, I am not finding it very useful. Here are my current thoughts:
PROS:
-Creating a new tube is very intuitive and easy to use.
-Generating the Bending Machine Output is great and accurate. (Data format within file could be improved)
-Generating the initial drawing is just like usual.
CONS:
-If a tube is changed, the drawing loses all it's dimensions and they have to be recreated. VERY BAD!
-If a tube was created from Assembly1 and then constrained in Assembly2 , then the tube is modified, it will lose all it's constraints in Assembly2.

Basically I find that starting from scratch is great and very efficient, but if the tube has to change it is very difficult and not very efficient. In fact I am finding that the efficiency is so low that we may not be able to use it.

I would really like some feedback on different ways this module is being used. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

We looked into the missing dimension issue, as well as the sick constraints, and we have found the source. The fix will likely not make it into a service pack. So, R10 at the earliest. Thanks Mike, for pointing this out. George Hudetz Product Designer, AIP "Michael Walker" wrote in message news:31221780.1090519965799.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum2.autodesk.com... > I am trying to find the best way to use the tube and pipe within a production setting (we do not run a job shop). However, I am not finding it very useful. Here are my current thoughts: > PROS: > -Creating a new tube is very intuitive and easy to use. > -Generating the Bending Machine Output is great and accurate. (Data format within file could be improved) > -Generating the initial drawing is just like usual. > CONS: > -If a tube is changed, the drawing loses all it's dimensions and they have to be recreated. VERY BAD! > -If a tube was created from Assembly1 and then constrained in Assembly2 , then the tube is modified, it will lose all it's constraints in Assembly2. > > Basically I find that starting from scratch is great and very efficient, but if the tube has to change it is very difficult and not very efficient. In fact I am finding that the efficiency is so low that we may not be able to use it. > > I would really like some feedback on different ways this module is being used. Thanks!

[djohnson1976]

George,

We too are exploring our options with tube and pipe. One of our hang-ups is that the beginning and ending flanges (and gaskets) are not included in the pipe run. We currently include the end flanges and gaskets in our pipe-run drawings...but since they aren't included at the same assembly level as the runs, the drawings aren't turning out how we need them.

We use the welded style, but the flanges on the ends can't be defined because there is no flange option for the welded style.

These are just observations we have, though we may be wrong.

[ruth-chunhua.hu]

Which Inventor version do you use now? From Inventor 2008, there have been two options for Butt Welded/ Flanged styles in Tube & Pipe Style editor. You could check them to create styles according to your request.

Hope it helps.

Thanks,
Ruth Hu(Autodesk)

[KobusE]

The problem Ruth is when one uses a combination of the two. For instance starting a line with a flange, but using buttwelds from then on, not using flanges on fittings (too expensive both labour and equipment), only using flanges where one needs to break the pipe run like at valves, strainers or where one needs to do it for practicality, i.e. removing a piece when needed for maintenance.

However, I do not see the issue really as I use only buttweld and then insert my flanges as and when its required. Having my hierarchy based on line numbers (runs) which generally is the same size, I insert any special fittings or equipment or anything other than normal into the line at that point. Opening the line number then allows me to generate a bill of materials which will include all these extra fittings and I can generate a drawing from that.

[djohnson1976]

We use IV 2009 Routed Systems


1. 1st paragraph of kerasmus: Exactly.

2. 2nd paragraph of kerasmus: I will have to look at this closer. However, it would be much easier if you could create (1) a standard gasket, then (2) a standard flange to start and end each run (as part of the style). The idea is to reduce the amount of steps. I'm convinced that Autodesk could enhance this part of Tube and Pipe.