I tried posting a response last week but the page wouldn't take it. Probably saving me from myself.
I can't post the original file per confidentiality, but here is a test sample assembly- I would need to find the volume inside the outer container, minus the exterior volume of parts inside it. I need accurate results because an important component of what we quote is the fill material based on volume. The weight of our product is also tailored to the volume that we fill, and being able to adjust the volume of the objects inside versus the fill material to optimize price.
..., but here is a test sample assembly-....
I recommend you sign up for a class on Inventor. An assembly without parts is useless.
I would recommend you stop answering. I had read other people's remarks about your rudeness, and while I appreciate assistance here, please don't answer to my posts again. Thanks. You are the reason it is a very good thing my responses didn't got through. I had much nastier things typed up in response last week.
It should be a simple enough solution that someone of your "caliber" should know without needing a part anyway. I don't know why you insist on always needing a part file unless you just intend to trash people for not modeling to your "standards", which you tend to do a lot. This site has had problems working in general- I tried last week five times to get my response to upload before it finally did. It wouldn't upload with more than one part attached and a second response hasn't uploaded yet regardless of how many times I have tried it.
I spend my time working, not sitting online, so I don't have time for 15,000 plus posts.
iProperties of your assembly file indicate that you are using Inventor 2011 - you would not be able to open anything I attach here as a possible "solution".
You should state when you are not using the latest release.
Over the years I have learned that it often turns into a game of 20-questions to figure out the true problem description when someone does not post their actual data files. It is generally far more efficient to see the actual files (or at least representative examples that exhibit desired behavior).
Inventor is a professional program and probably deserves (requires?) a professional level of preparation.
An assembly file is simply a list of hyperlinks to the individual part files and a record of assembly constraints and a bit more. Even if the only resource you have it to learn the program on your own using the built in tutorials and on-line ressources and at least one book, it should be quickly discovered how assembly files work.
The usual method of attaching an assembly here is to place all of the parts and the assembly file into one folder. (If not already in a single folder - the easiest way to do this is to File>Save As Pack and Go (be sure to check/uncheck the extraneous stuff).
Then in Windows Explorer right click on the folder and select Send to Compressed (zipped) Folder. Attach the resulting *.zip file here.
Sometimes even zipping a file (folder) does not make it small enough to attach here (I think the limit is 1.5Meg).
In that case open each part file individually and drag the red End of Part marker (EOP) to the top of the browser hiding all features. Save the file in a rolled up state. Then zip and attach (individually if required).
If the dataset is still too large the limit is 15 Meg over here http://www.augi.com or use one of the several file sharing sites and then post link here.
Many of the users here have learned the program by tackling the problems attached here.
If you can't afford training (or even if you can) "collaboratories" (collaboration laboratory) like this internet user forum can be very powerful in learing the software and tricks and tips. Users of open forums often come together to formulate unique solutions to problems that working individually - even the best user would not discover the optimal solution.
When I see "garbage" I call it as I see it. The first step in learning how to use the program in a robust and efficient way is to aviod creating "garbage" that is messy to work with. I see too many students who expect a "trophy grade" just for showing up (or less).
We are all students.
Looking at your picture you will probably want to become familiar with Shrinkwrap as a method of creating a Composite Surface Body Derived Component with the hole patching function.
You will also need to become familiar with Sculpt and perhaps Boundary Patch and user Workplanes.
Shrinkwrap to close most holes.
Boundary Patch workplane to create water tight volume.
Sculpt to "flood fill" the volume.
I would need to see the assembly to give exact steps.
The general problem has been posted here many times in the past.
You might search on potting and similar terms.
I am posting an original assembly- this was thrown together as an example of the issue I am having, but it is not as complex as the actual (confidentially limiting) assemblies. We model them to have space for weld gaps, etc, and I need a way to find an exact volume. Hopefully this will at least give some insight. This is something I have posted about before, and I have tried the tutorial on the oil pan volume, which is great except for that my assemblies need a lot of stitching between components that I have yet to be able to figure out, because they don't always intersect nicely.
How do I make this assembly watertight so I can use the oil pan method of finding the volume, subtracting out all internal components and matching exactly the contours of the outermost assembly components?
Here is a picture of an example of what makes this so difficult. The inset part is a common part, and it doesn't fit the assemblies exactly in math, but when welded it fits fine. The stamped part doesn't get constrained in such a way that it can fill the void, and a thicken on the part fails so it won't close up the gaps that way either.
The proprietary files are much more involved in fixing for use than the attached assembly- this is just one of many examples that make this process of filling the assembly something that has yet to be able to do with the oil pan tutorial method.
I've had to do similar volume calculations on void spaces with tank weldments before too.
These parts, or assemblies, obviously haven't been constructed in a way that makes the interior volume calculation straightforward. There is no tool for measuring void space. There IS a tool for measuring a volume that IS there. So a common approach is to create/model a part that fills the void space. Then rely on Inventor to calculate the volume of the void space part in the iProperties.
Overall the first question to ask is ... how much precision is needed? It probably isn't necessary to model every nook & cranny of the void space part to get a reasonable approximation. So ... create an In-Place component & start filling in the space until you get as much detail/precision as you need.
In some cases that answer will be too much work ... so don't do it that way.
But in the cases where you have to have an accurate answer ... you have to go to the trouble to get that answer & a void space part where Inventor does the volume calculation for you can work nicely.
Dan's suggestion is great for voids in parts.
This skill builder shows a very important concept, but this workflow doesn't work with assemblies.
The same basic idea can be borowed to do the same in assemblies.
Create a part to fill the void space. Then calculate the volume of the "void space part".
I need a fair amount of precision, as I need to use the filled volume as a specific fill material, input the density, and then calculate the center of gravity based on those parameters. Our customers specify a tolerance on the CG that we have to meet. Not only has been making the part accurate enough been difficult, it then gets more time consuming every time that we have to change the assembly, moving preload materials around to get the CG right.
I figure that the best way to use the oil pan tutorial method is to create the assembly, derive it to a component, and then go about the tutorial. I tried that and with limited success- I just created another post having issues with the derived subtraction result. It didn't subtract all the parts for some reason, so it failed to created a lump inside to use as my fill solid. This has cost the company (and possibly my career) some difficult losses as we recently have had a customer come visit twice now and the model information didn't translate to reality, so we had to start over and rework an expensive weldment.