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: 

use existing body for matching parts

8 REPLIES 8
SOLVED
Reply
Message 1 of 9
GrantsPirate
640 Views, 8 Replies

use existing body for matching parts

I can create individual parts pretty well but where I don't know how to use IV is when I have several parts that are interrelated. If I have three rectangular parts that have to bolt together, as an example, after creating the first one what is the method for proceeding from there? And can they be linked together so as the sizes change on one of them, the others are updated automatically?

GrantsPirate
Piping and Mech. Designer
EXPERT ELITE MEMBER
Always save a copy of the drawing before trying anything suggested here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If something I wrote can be interpreted two ways, and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, I meant the other one.

8 REPLIES 8
Message 2 of 9
JavaLodge
in reply to: GrantsPirate

In Inventor you can use assosiative parts to do what you need.  Essentially an associative part uses geometry from another part to define elements of itself, instead of having all parts of itself defined according to its own centerpoint.  What you need to do is this:

 

Create an assembly with all the pieces you need for the bolted connection.

 

Constrain the pieces together just as they should be in your final configuration.

 

While still inside the assembly, double click on another part to begin editing it.

 

Create a new sketch on this part.

 

Press Project Geometry and then click on whatever geometry you need from whichever part you need.  

 

You can then use this geometry to contrain sketches in this part, or just simply use projected geometry as its own sketch in this part.

 

Give this a try.  If you get stuck, post what you have here and I'll help you further.

____________________________________________________________
Slow is good and good is fast.
Message 3 of 9
LT.Rusty
in reply to: JavaLodge

A better solution than using adaptive parts is probably going to be to start off with a multi-solid body part, which you then spin off into separate components in an assembly with MANAGE --> MAKE COMPONENTS.  Adaptive parts have a way of breaking, at times, and you can wind up with motion and constraint issues you hadn't planned on nor had you anticipated.

 

Rusty

EESignature

Message 4 of 9
PaulMunford
in reply to: GrantsPirate

There is a name for the technique you describe, and it is..... 'Top Down'!

 

Can I suggest that you check out this class from Autodesk University?

http://au.autodesk.com/au-online/classes-on-demand/class-catalog/2013/product-design-suite/ma2604

 

 


Autodesk Industry Marketing Manager UK D&M
Opinions are my own and may not reflect those of my company.
Linkedin Twitter Instagram Facebook Pinterest

Message 5 of 9
JavaLodge
in reply to: PaulMunford

I tend to agree with you that adaptive parts isn't the most robust technique; I've had many problems with adaptivity before.  It's just that until I looked into the methods you described I didn't really know a better way.  

 

My question is, if adaptivity has such instability and there are what looks like several different, better ways to achieve the same effect, then why have adaptivity at all?  When I discovered adaptivity it was a huge timesaver, because I could make assemblies that were very configurable, with parts updating themselves without me having to think about it.  But pretty soon, as the assemblies got bigger adaptivity would cause problems, induce noticeable lag, and I ended up just turning it all off.  

 

If, then, adaptivity should only be used on small assemblies to avoid these problems, then why have it at all?  What is the correct scenario to use it in?

____________________________________________________________
Slow is good and good is fast.
Message 6 of 9
GrantsPirate
in reply to: JavaLodge

Thanks for the reply. I have a lot to learn.

GrantsPirate
Piping and Mech. Designer
EXPERT ELITE MEMBER
Always save a copy of the drawing before trying anything suggested here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If something I wrote can be interpreted two ways, and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, I meant the other one.

Message 7 of 9
GrantsPirate
in reply to: PaulMunford

Thanks for the supplied materials. I am running up against the same wall you describe in your introduction. The training you receive is for a single part and a drawing. The methods to actually use the program for an assembly of parts is not really covered. IV is easy when doing one part, not so easy when you start to use it for real. The funny thing is that so many have told me that you have to forget everything you learned in using AutoCAD to learn IV. But the method you describe in the Top Down method is how almost anyone works in ACAD. I am in no way suggesting the two are comparable, just the general method for the TD is the same.

GrantsPirate
Piping and Mech. Designer
EXPERT ELITE MEMBER
Always save a copy of the drawing before trying anything suggested here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If something I wrote can be interpreted two ways, and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, I meant the other one.

Message 8 of 9
JDMather
in reply to: JavaLodge


@JavaLodge wrote:
... better ways to achieve the same effect, then why have adaptivity at all?  

Adaptivity has it's place, but I have seen very very few uses that know how to properly use it.

Given that my estimate is only 10% of users Inventor know how to use Inventor (not even considering techniques like adaptivity), well...


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Autodesk Inventor 2019 Certified Professional
Autodesk AutoCAD 2013 Certified Professional
Certified SolidWorks Professional


The CADWhisperer YouTube Channel


EESignature

Message 9 of 9
MikahB
in reply to: GrantsPirate

I've been using what I (very likely mistakenly!) call the "Master Sketch" approach.  I make one master IPT into which I create a number of sketches, parameters, etc.  This lets me lay out the related components in the sketch environment and add any kind of cross-geometry relationship very cleanly.  I also regularly share parameters between multiple sketches that may affect many parts.  Next, Derive requisite sketches/parameters into a new IPT in which you will do all your 3D modeling and you end up with a very robust link as well as a single point-of-edit for many changes.  Any time, during modeling, that I come across a feature I'm adding that may affect or interact with other parts, I just go add the rough geometry to the Sketch Master, update my Derive and model away.

 

There are some limitations - like I am unable to pass thread dimensions between parts/sketches, but those are relatively minor in most cases.  For the most part, I've had very good luck and very few issues with this technique.

Mikah Barnett
All Angles Design
Product Design Suite Ultimate 2014
Windows 7 Professional x64
Intel i7-3770k @ 4.5GHz
32GB DDR3-2400 RAM
GeForce GTX 670 4GB

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

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report