topic Re: Best practice for multiple variations of part consisting of two components? in Inventor Forum

Best practice for multiple variations of part consisting of two components?

MBartylak — Wed, 03 Aug 2022 11:43:13 GMT

I'm working on a personal project, where I want to 3D print a series of parts that each comprise of two components. For now component A has two versions (let's name them A1, A2), while component B has 4 (B1,B2,B3,B4) but this might increase in the future. They are joined by sharing one rectangular face. I want to be able to work separately on each component and then easily access the complete parts (A1B1, A1B2, and so on) and export them to *.obj.

I can see several ways of achieving this but I'm wondering what would the best practice to minimize the effort of working with these parts in the future. I'm using Inventor Pro 2023 if that matters.

EDIT:

Also worth adding that different versions of one component are entirely separate models, not mere parametric variations.

Re: Best practice for multiple variations of part consisting of two components?

mcgyvr — Wed, 03 Aug 2022 12:08:24 GMT

Devil is always in the details but from what you've stated I don't see any reason that this "part consisting of two components" isn't just created as an assembly (iam file) where each "component" is a part (ipt file) and you can use model states to make the variations of each as needed.

Part model states

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQ-KX4P9IA

Assembly model states

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oZWYjku5qw

Re: Best practice for multiple variations of part consisting of two components?

MBartylak — Wed, 03 Aug 2022 12:19:57 GMT

I'm fine using assemblies for this but wouldn't using model states mean manual work for each additional variant of a component? From my understanding if I had an assembly setup for A1-2, B1-4 then adding A3 variant would require manually setting up 4 new states: A3B1, A3B2, A3B3, A3B4. Isn't there any better way?

Re: Best practice for multiple variations of part consisting of two components?

mcgyvr — Wed, 03 Aug 2022 12:46:42 GMT

@MBartylak wrote:

I'm fine using assemblies for this but wouldn't using model states mean manual work for each additional variant of a component? From my understanding if I had an assembly setup for A1-2, B1-4 then adding A3 variant would require manually setting up 4 new states: A3B1, A3B2, A3B3, A3B4. Isn't there any better way?

Well.. At some point you need to define what is/what isn't changing because the software can't read minds.. Heck.. Its not even clear to me at all what you mean by variants and what specifically is changing for your needs as you didn't provide any examples or details to go off of.

Model states can quickly be created by editing an excel spread sheet or just by toggling to certain members and changing parameters/dimensions.

If you provide more details/examples as to what specifically you think can be "automatically" done then we can potentially offer alternate suggestions.. But the typical definition/usage of "variants" would be done by model states (or older iparts/iassemblies) and yes there is some work to fully define those variants to the software.

Re: Best practice for multiple variations of part consisting of two components?

Cris-Ideas — Wed, 03 Aug 2022 13:34:44 GMT

If your variations can be parametric than most likely you can automate everything.

If your variation are closer to free form changes deeply changing structure of the model you will need to build your variations but then you can substitute them parametrically.

If you build your parts smart you can potentially use iLogic rule to just substitute components in your assembly and than you will not need to define any model states. But this assembly will be "stand alone, single combination" container.

Which will most likely be enough if you only want to export from it and not use further in your other inventor models.

Re: Best practice for multiple variations of part consisting of two components?

MBartylak — Wed, 10 Aug 2022 17:33:32 GMT

I had to pause this project for a few days but after coming back to it and some further research I've settled on using model states. Thanks for the support!