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: 

Big issue for my company

24 REPLIES 24
Reply
Message 1 of 25
Anonymous
321 Views, 24 Replies

Big issue for my company

Hello All.

Please bear with me. This message may be a bit long, but it is important.

My company purchased four seats of IV about 9 months ago, and we have
been learning how to use it but have come up against one severe hurdle
that we can't seem to overcome. It has to do with part numbering.

A little background: We build a custom trailers. Due to the nature of
the business, we have approximately 200 aluminum, and 100 steel
extrusions that we use on a regular basis, cutting them at any length
imaginable for at least 200 different models of trailers. And, with
about 15 designers working on custom variants of these models, we will
generate an enormous quantity of parts (iParts or whatnot) for
extrusions alone, then we must address sheet aluminum, sheet steel, wood
products, etc, etc. Some preliminary calculations that I have done with
our other engineers (and some help from AutoDesk) has revealed that we
may need a few tera-bytes of server space to hit the "reusable" 80% mark
of parts if we were to migrate from AutoCAD to IV. From that point on,
we may generate maybe 20% of that value yearly in new custom parts. So
we're literally addressing millions upon millions of individual part files.

So, here are our issues:

--How do we address the part numbering?
We have had people suggest a "smart" part numbering system where the
part number includes some sort of description about the geometry of the
part (length, cut style, etc). This is undesirable for several reasons.
It forces a different type of part number for purchased parts vs.
in-house parts, it forces us to change part numbers when a design goes
through a revision, and (most importantly!) it keeps us from being able
to use IV's adaptability features. If I have to assign a part number
that defines the cut length of my extrusion, I cannot adapt that length
without also changing the part number of the extrusion.

--How do we make a bill of materials on an *.idw?
Right now if I make an ipt, then make an idw of that ipt, and put a
parts list on it, I end up with a useless parts list. Let's say I make
an ipt of a 2x2x1/4 wall aluminum extrusion with two angle cuts and some
holes drilled into it. I'll save it as 1234.ipt then I'll make a
drawing calling it 1234.idw. My parts list for that idw will simply
call out the part number 1234. That's not useful. Instead, it should
call out a part number of the 2x2x1/4 extrusion, since you must acquire
a stick of the extrusion in order to make the cuts and drills to
actually 'build' part number 1234. Okay. I've had people suggest that
I should first make an ipt of the raw material, then make an assembly of
the raw material, cutting and drilling it to get part 1234. That helps
with my bill of materials, as for calling the right raw material, but
leaves two other problems. One, I cannot dimension an assembly in an
idw. And Two, maybe I can get a quantity of 10 of part 1234 out of the
raw material stick, but according to my bill of materials, I'll always
get one full stick each time I have to use 1234 in a higher level assembly.


Any help will be greatly appreciated. So far I think everyone that I
have conversed with who uses IV, Solidworks, or ProE for their processes
have all been with companies who either build widgets, or who build one
at a time custom products. Our issue is that we have such an enormous
number of parts that we'll have to deal with (thank goodness for iParts)
but we need to share those parts across many, many custom and standard
products. So, the part numbering becomes a real problem for us.

Thank you for your patience. For my company, this issue is preventing
IV from being anything but a nice toy for small projects. I would
really appreciate any wisdom that can be offered. (My department
director would really appreciate it too!)

Thanks in advance,
-Jason
24 REPLIES 24
Message 21 of 25
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

For me the sketch dims should represent design intent, which is seldom what the shop wants
to see as far as dimensioning goes. For my stuff it would just take longer to try to
straighten out sketch dims than it does to just add IDW dims. Besides most of my files
are skeletons and don't have many dims.

--
Kent
Member of the Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program


"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
news:0B5F7604EAD1ADB0DFDE45DD24CE24B5@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Come-see come-saw, their handy for changing the dims without having to go
> back to the model, change then update the idw, but I do it both ways
> (usually depending on how sloppily I did the sketch dims).
> ~Larry
Message 22 of 25
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I concur, it depends on the drawing. Both get model dims and auto dims might
get used more if they would adjust themselves properly. They are definitely
not very smart but I still use them sometimes if the right situation
presents itself. I like the idea, but they still doesn't work right.
~Larry

"Kent Keller" wrote in message
news:ED039FED82EACF3A0AF4A8B7419FDF0C@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> For me the sketch dims should represent design intent, which is seldom
what the shop wants
> to see as far as dimensioning goes. For my stuff it would just take
longer to try to
> straighten out sketch dims than it does to just add IDW dims. Besides
most of my files
> are skeletons and don't have many dims.
>
> --
> Kent
> Member of the Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program
>
>
> "Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
> news:0B5F7604EAD1ADB0DFDE45DD24CE24B5@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > Come-see come-saw, their handy for changing the dims without having to
go
> > back to the model, change then update the idw, but I do it both ways
> > (usually depending on how sloppily I did the sketch dims).
> > ~Larry
>
>
Message 23 of 25
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

For those wondering if they were seeing double, this post was
made twice. Moderators consolidated the two message groups into
one and removed the duplicate original post.
--
Anne Brown
Manager, Moderator
Autodesk Product Support Discussion Groups
Discussion Q&A: http://www.autodesk.com/discussion

Jason M wrote:
>
> Hello All. Please bear with me. (snip)
Message 24 of 25
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Whew ... glad you chimed in Annie! I was just wondering if I should go get
my eyes checked or get a brain scan.
~Larry

"Anne Brown" wrote in message
news:3E3F120F.411E7092@autodesk.com...
> For those wondering if they were seeing double, this post was
> made twice. Moderators consolidated the two message groups into
> one and removed the duplicate original post.
> --
> Anne Brown
> Manager, Moderator
> Autodesk Product Support Discussion Groups
> Discussion Q&A: http://www.autodesk.com/discussion
>
> Jason M wrote:
> >
> > Hello All. Please bear with me. (snip)
Message 25 of 25
MechMan_
in reply to: Anonymous

Bless you Anne. I didn't realize that it got double posted and was driving me nuts that I couldn't see my post or other posts I'd swore I'd seen before.

MechMan

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

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report