Multi-Material Parts / Different Material per Feature

[petestrycharske]

All,

I have heard that it is possible to assign individual materials to each feature in an Inventor part, but I haven't been able to replicate on my end.  For years I didn't think it was possible to assign separate materials to a part, however I would be ecstatic to discover a method for doing so.  Haven't found anything else on any forums, so I am curious if anyone has discovered a way to do this.  If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.  Hope all is well and have a most blessed night!

Peace,

Pete

[MuratIslamCEngMIMechE]

You can't force Autodesk Developers to create something that works for you... They create a product that solves their problem, and if it works for them that's good enough.

There is no way to assign different materials within a Part unless you create a multibody part and "Make Components" in a new Assembly...  Their terminology is different to what we expect.. We think if it is a Composite Structure and it should still be called a "Part.ipt"  but they think otherwise and say No, it is an assembly of individual parts so it is called "Part.iam", which sort of makes sense but forces you to create unneccesary junk files that take space on your folders, eat resources and take more time to create a drawing or perform an analysis.  Another Autodesk Non-Sense basically...

To me, if there is no movement in a product, it can be a Part and not necessarily an Assembly.  After all, you can now mold and 3D print multi material parts...  To be honest, I think they should remove assembly format altogether and incorporate both Part and Assembly features in a single environment and call it Component or sth.  If we want a detailed component drawing or FEA simulation, we should be able to isolate them anyway.  Why do we have to create multiple version of the same part over and over.. Such as "Part-mirror.ipt" etc that have to be created when you parttern a component is a total non-sense.. Projecting geometries that can't be updated is a non-sense... Crashes every day is a total non-sense..  Asking for 3D models whenever there is a crash is a non-sense..  Still we have to use Autodesk because that's what we bought years ago and people don't want to move on basically....  I'd move on tomorrow if it was up to me...  Years of non-sense that has never changed or transformed into something that works for me...

[pcrawley]

"You can't force Autodesk Developers to create something that works for you..." but you can influence its evolution.  I'm only posting this because I was one of the early responders on this thread and I would still love to see some type of multi-material capability in a part file.

The Idea Station is a great place for constructive suggestions - although it is wise to recognise that what makes total sense to you might be nonsense to the next user.  What makes the idea Station so useful is that the idea can be discussed and refined before being adopted.  You can become even more involved in the product development by joining the beta-program and getting to know the actual human beings behind the product.  I'm constantly in awe of the way "ordinary users" give genuine constructive feedback and the responses they get on the beta forums. 

[MACKTEK]

There is not a good reason why multi-material parts cannot be easily created. It would be relatively simple to add an option to any additive operation for "Material" in the advanced options. But, they have never done it. However, there is a "Workaround" although it is (unwieldy, cumbersome, time wasting etc) You can create a Derived Part from 1 or more .ipt files. This will give each part derived its own material AFAIK. A quick example: 1 cube and 1 Sphere created as separate .ipt each with its own unique material. Then make a new .ipt and add them both in as derived.

[blair]

When I see a multi-material single part in the non-digital world, then I'll wait for ADSK programmers to come up with a multi-material single part. Any of the multi-material parts are really two items fused/bonded together, which by definition is an assembly.

The other question, would be, how many people require this functionality to justify the cost of developing it.

[MuratIslamCEngMIMechE]

Hi Peter

I appreciate your comments totally. Constructive feedback requires time and great effort.  We ordinary users will only explain our problems whenever we are frustrated to a limit that we need to steam off or when we need very urgent help.  We read help files and forums, watch tutorials on various platforms to resolve our own problems rather than asking for help straightaway.  

I could probably write a dozens of things that don't work for me on Inventor, but I can get around them by applying a different method.  Usually it comes to manual edits, breaking links and projections, creating mirror part files.  Why do we need seperate part, assembly and welding formats?? Can we not have it all on a single fileformat.  If they introduced a 1st time use activating features, then resource usage would reduce immensely.  Why load the screen with 100s of icons while you only need to use 10 of them to build your part.  There are many things that can be done in a complete different way...  They just need to hire the right people for the right job and provide them with some imagination and inspiration.

My problem is, many problems are ongoing for years now and nothing is actually changed or better said "transformed".  Inventor needs a complete re-think and better programmers to reduce resource usage and crashes.  AutoCAD was about being fast and efficient.  Seeing Inventor performing so poorly is just a shame.

Regards

Murat

[MuratIslamCEngMIMechE]

Hi Blair

It sounds to me that Autodesk is only "firefighting" over the past few years and not "Inventing" as suggested by the product name.  Your vision should be being the leader in the market, not pacthing up your software whenever someone is asking for a feature.  You should analyse what your market is demanding and will likely to need in near future and develop your products in a way that nobody has ever thought could be made...  This is what an INVENTOR does.

Sincerely

Murat

[MACKTEK]

Its necessary to think "outside" the box occasionally, because not all "feature requests" actually address the issue properly.

Perhaps the "Proper" way of putting in the request is not "Multi-Material" part, but "Create multiple Parts" without leaving the current "part file".

In other words, Autodesk could fix this whole problem by simply allowing an "additive" operation to have a checkbox for "Make Derived". They would also need to store the derived part information in the current part, which of course might be considered an assembly.

But the "consumer" does not care about the "how" its stored. What the consumer wants is to be able to make the parts "easily". So, by giving them the power to edit and add in "Derived" parts within a part, they can improve workflow by bypassing the whole process of creating new .ipts and new .iams and mashing different parts together and then editing them. I hope that is more clear?

[blair]

I'm trying to figure how to "un-follow" this thread. As soon as people use the "out of box" phrase, I know they don't have a single idea worth listing to.

sincerely,

[MuratIslamCEngMIMechE]

Autodesk Customer Relations is at its best.....  customer hasn't got a clue about what they want.......  

I suppose that's what I was expecting anyway....  

[SBix26]

@MuratIslamCEngMIMechE: you do realize, don't you, that this is a peer-to-peer forum?  Autodesk employees may look in and answer questions from time to time, but @blair is not an Autodesk employee and donates his time to be helpful here, as do we all.  No "Customer Relations" happening in this thread, at least not recently.

Sam B

[MACKTEK]

While I do appreciate the help offered by Blair, especially his first several posts, I find his last post about my "ideas" to be countreproductive and overly critical.

My suggestions may not meet his approval, but they were given without sarcasm and were an honest attempt to provide ADSK with some ways to achieve the goal of multiple materials in one .ipt file... ie multi-body ipt.

If he has experience or insight as to why those ideas may be invalid, I am willing to listen.

[MuratIslamCEngMIMechE]

My apologies for thinking him as an employee at Autodesk after reading "AUTODESK EXPERT ELITE" under his name and him mentioning costs of product development. My mistake. 

Still I see my comment relevant and applicable. That's exactly how I see Autodesk customer relations.

Regards

Murat

[wimann]

This thread has gotten kind of out of hand. Kind of silly to be honest.

Alright.

1. I'm on the ship that two different materials put together make more sense as an assembly than as a part.

2. Assembly files actually use less memory than part files (for those using the "clutter and performance anchoring" argument) since an assembly is just a map that points to the parts for geometric information and tells them how they are assembled (based on user constraints).

3. Feel free to treat an assembly file as a part file and create your part files in place if that makes you happy. I do it all the time and I don't have to close or open anything - I just build all the parts I need right there in the same window and constrain them together.

4. If creating an assembly that has separate parts constrained together is too much work, consider making a template to help streamline the process.

Personally, I see no advantage to the idea of having a cube.ipt and a sphere.ipt and then deriving them both into cubesphere.ipt over putting them together in spherecube.iam. There's... no advantage. I could probably argue that it's easier to drop parts into an assembly than it is to derive them into a part. Plus since I know their different materials, I would want them in an assembly so that they maintain their properties and I get correct calcs for the assembly.

I've seen many people complain over the past couple of years about things that other design software does that Inventor doesn't or just things that they want it to do that it doesn't. My advice is this: Submit an idea. Maybe it will get traction, who knows? But after you're done with that, learn how to work with the tools you're given.

Think of having two boards that you need to attach to one another. A software like Solidworks (for example) might provide you with a hammer and a nail while Inventor provides you with a screwdriver and a screw. One is arguably better/easier/quicker than the other but if you've got Inventor then you look like some kind of an idiot trying to hammer a screw in with a screwdriver because you can't fathom doing it any other way. If this comes off as offensive to you then you may be the guy trying to hammer in the screw with a screwdriver. And this illustration is not to say that in every facet, hammer and nail (Solidworks) is better than screwdriver and screw (Inventor). I don't think I need to point out that they both have their strengths and weaknesses.

On the topic of crashes, Inventor crashes are pretty avoidable. Could be a hardware issue? Could be an erroneous install? Problem just might be in the chair in front of the screen. See it all the time. Mind how long Inventor has been running and the size of the models that have been opened and closed over time. If Inventor starts behaving strangely, save, close, restart (Inventor). I check the amount of memory Inventor is using every so often to make sure I know how much I'm asking of it. Get your task manager open and sort the processes by memory. I usually make plans to restart Inventor when it reaches about 5-6 GB of Ram. If I get to 8 Gigs and I haven't saved and it crashes, that's on me. I know better.

Take care everyone.

[WHolzwarth]

---

MACKTEK schrieb:

This has been missing from Inventor for a long time now, it would be nice to be able to have multiple materials PER PART. 

---

If I'm understanding well, this is in IdeaStation as an accepted Idea.

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-ideastation/different-materials-for-each-solid-bodies/idi-p/5...

Time will tell, when we see it.

For me, it would be an improvement. I can think of many plastic or electrical parts with more than one material. Looking at BOM/parts list, there's no need for modeling them in separate IPTs, instead of using a multibody.

Walter

[MACKTEK]

The problem with using multi-part .iam (as a workaround) is that you can't share a sketch between the parts.

Some quick research shows that there were forum request for that (sharing sketch to make parts in assembly) feature in 2014. Not sure if its now possible with 2015 or 2016...

So, making a multi-material assembly from within the .iam has very poor workflow efficiency without the ability to share a sketch to make more than 1 part in an assembly. If sharing a sketch was possible then that would make multi-material assemblies very easy to make, and when people ask for mult-material parts, they could be redirected to doing that in an assembly without too much frustration.

As it stands now, the workflow issues are quite frustrating to achieve the goal either way (multi-material parts or building multiple parts from within an assembly that results in mutiple parts each with their own material) because the former is not possible without deriving from multiple source parts and the latter is not possible from shared sketches.

[SBix26]

What's wrong with the current workflow of creating a master part with multiple bodies and using Make Part/Make Components to push those bodies out into individual components with their own attributes such as iProperties, materials, etc.?  This has all the advantages of shared sketches, even shared features to design and modify the parts, but each one having its own properties as in real life, along with the constraints, BOMS, etc of an assembly.

Sam B

Inventor Professional 2016 R3 SP1 Update 1
Vault Basic 2016 SP1
Windows 7 Enterprise 64-bit, SP1

[wimann]

---

@MACKTEK wrote:

The problem with using multi-part .iam (as a workaround) is that you can't share a sketch between the parts....

---

I mean... technically you can. There are ways. There's lots of different ways to make parts relate to one another. I guess the best route depends on the amount of information you need to parts to share. In other words, if two (or more) parts need to be same length, you could resort to adaptivity as a means of sharing the length across parts. I don't normally recommend adaptivity since I've found in practice that I prefer other methods for their greater stability but under certain circumstances, it can suffice.

If you need to have a larger amount of information shared, you can derive your "parent" part into as many other parts as needed. This may sound cumbersome and it certainly can be BUT deriving a part does not always mean deriving everything from the parent. I've done derived parts where the only information pulled from the parent is handful of parameters. If you need shared sketches, this could be done the same way. You just check the items you want during the derive operation and leave out the ones you don't want.

I wouldn't dare say that having the capability to assign different materials to different bodies within one part file is at all unreasonable. And in certain cases, I'm sure it would save some time and could be very beneficial (though fundamentally I would still say that two different things put together are, by definition, an assembly). But Inventor doesn't allow us to do that (sad face). So in the meantime, we gotta find a way to use the screwdriver.

I find very often through the people I work with on the daily basis (shhhhh!) that there is merit in the phrase "The poor craftsman blames his tool".

[WHolzwarth]

Hmm. A proposal:

Make a Google search for Festo Y-PK. You can see pictures of a plastic part with brass tube ends.

This is a simple part with different materials, and can be downloaded from the vendor's website as a single part.

Only few people would make an IAM of it, and there are lots of other purchased parts, where there's no download available. Users have to do that by themselves, but should they build IAMs of these components?

Walter

[SBix26]

If they truly need material properties of every component of these parts (and I'm sure that Festo's more complex part models do not have all the internal parts modeled accurately), then modeling all the parts into an assembly would be the best way.  But vendors normally don't provide their production models, nor do users without electronic models actually disassemble the whole component in order to accurately model all the internal details.  It is very rarely needed.  If we want the component model to look realistic, we use Appearances, possibly add fillets, etc.

For the Festo 3-way barbed tubing connector that Walter references, I would change the material to Brass, then change the appearance of the plastic faces to Sky Blue (or perhaps "Festo Blue").  If I really need an accurate weight for dynamic purposes, then I manually change the Mass iProperty to match.

I think the idea of stuffing all the functionality of Inventor into one file type is silly.  Parts are parts, and assemblies are assemblies.  Parts can be used in many assemblies.  With multi-body solids, we have a more efficient way to define related parts for use in an assembly, and for a very simple assembly it can even be used as a sort of substitute.  But don't make the mistake of trying to make that the normal.  Imagine trying to design a complex custom assembly line in one file.

Sam B

Inventor Professional 2016 R3 SP1 Update 1
Vault Basic 2016 SP1
Windows 7 Enterprise 64-bit, SP1

[WHolzwarth]

It's a matter of personal taste, Sam.

If Autodesk will provide multi materials in multibodies in a future release, I'd use it in my parts.

On the other hand, I didn't see much benefits for me with iMates.

Have a nice weekend

Walter