Multiple constraints

[sparkin208]

It would be nice to be able to select more than one feature at a time to constrain. For example when I have ten parts in my assembly that I want to constrain flush with each other I have to click face of A to face of B then face of B to face of C then face of C to face of D and so on. It would be much quicker to just select the face on each part and constrain all of them at once. Along with that if I end up having to delete one of those parts such as C I loose the constraints between B and D so I end up having to remember to connect them again. So it woud be nice if that flush constraint remained between the remaining parts after deleting the one part.

[MDS-MQ]

Or you could constrain one of them and use a pattern...

[sparkin208]

That doesn't allow you to delete one in the middle and keep the constraints. Also sometimes you want to line up different parts. One of our main products uses up to 50 pins that are similar but have 15 different lengths and for custom orders sometimes they individual pins have to be removed.

[sparkin208]

I understand that there are other ways to accomplish this like setting up a work plane and constraining all of them to the plane. But a simple multi-select would be alot quicker.

[ccamara01]

This has always bothered me.  Seems like it should be basic functionality.

[DRoam]

It would be really useful if the constraint command allowed us to select the parent, and then select multiple children for that constraint. For example, if I want the midplane of several identical parts to be constrained to an origin plane, I currently have to create a new constraint for every part, when I could instead start the constraint command once, select the assembly origin plane as the parent, then go to each part and just pick the plane to constrain. If I add new parts, I just edit the constraint and add them. This greatly reduces the work required as well as the number of constraints in the assembly.

One instance that this would make much simpler is when several parts are sort of in a "pattern" but aren't spaced evenly, so the pattern command won't work. Using this multi-child constraint, you could easily align them all to the first instance of the pattern, then adjust the spacing as necessary.

I've made a really crude mock-up of what it might look like below.

[_DanSolo_]

The whole constraint menu needs an overhaul. 

There also seems to be a weird lag time between selecting a constraint and when it actually occurs.

[SMGordon]

I think this could work well if you picked your first selection, and then for your second selection you were able to shift+click multiple faces and it would create multiple constraints as if you had made them individually. I think this would be very powerful and speed up constraining significantly.

[TimXHL4R]

If you have multiple components constrained to one feature, like a surface of a part.  If you want to constrain those components to a different feature, you have to edit each component constraint individually.

It would be nice if there was a way to click on the surface that parts are constrained to and edit all the constraints on that surface by the constraint type.  

The workflow would go something like this:

1. Select the surface that components are currently constrained to.

2. Select the constraint type that you want to edit (for example if there are 5 components with a flush constraint to the surface, you would select flush)

3. Click the new surface you want these components to be constrained to, or even select to change the constraint type. (change flush constraints to mate constraint)

After this is completed, all of the component constraints would be edited and the parts will move to their new surface, or flip around to make a mate constraint.  

[DRoam]

Great idea. If this were implemented, I would want to be shown a list of all relevant constraints and be able to deselect ones I don't want to be affected.

Please consider also voting for the following similar idea: Multi-child Constraint

[DRoam]

It would also be great if, whenever Inventor lost reference to one side of a constraint, it would at least remember the "I.D." for whatever it was constrained to. In other words, remember that constraints A, B, and C were constrained to the same thing, and constraints D, E, and F were constrained to the same thing. Then I could say, "replace whatever A, B, and C were referencing with this new reference", and "replace whatever D, E, and F were referencing with this other new reference".

Basically, a lost reference replacer that lets me replace several references to a single lost feature at once.

[DRoam]

Another great solution to the situation I described in the description would be this: Table driven patterns.

Rather than placing a bunch of instances, constraining them with a multi-child constraint, and then constraining them to control their spacing, we could just create a single table-driven pattern.

The only instance when you would need to use constraints, and the multi-child constraint would come in handy, is when you want to "pattern" a bunch of different parts in a line.

I personally would rather see the table-driven pattern first because I think I would use that more often. Then a multi-child constraint added later would be great.

[asiu]

Very useful, I am just puzzled that this is not considered.

Competition does it for many, many years...

You have 50 different components that all have to have a common face with a base plate, you have to select the pairs until you die... You cannot use patterns because the components are different.

We want to work smart, not hard.

It is time to focus more on allowing users to create workflows and increase productivity.

[bjacoby00]

An option for choosing one entity (face, edge, axis, etc.) to constrain multiple parts to. This option would be similar to the Fillet Weld command. In the Fillet Weld command, you choose one face as the main or base and then choose multiple edges that run along that face to place a weld. This new Multiple Part Constraint function you would first choose the common entity you want to constrain the multiple parts to and then choose the faces of the multiple parts. The end product could be 2 options:

1. Option one is to link those constraints. This would associate those constraints to act as one constraint, so that if you wanted to edit it, it would change for all of the parts that were originally selected.

2. Option 2 would be to separate those constraints. This would not associate the constraints and leave them acting as individually editable constraints.

Example:

See attached for screenshot of Fillet Weld command.

See attached for the common face selection and multiple parts to be constrained to.

See screencast

[DRoam]

Please vote for this related idea as well to help get this need recognized: Assembly Component Replacement and Fixing Broken Constraints.

@TimXHL4R, your idea is essentially the same as what I described in "Part 2 Side B" on that idea: you want to be able to replace all constraint references to a single piece of geometry with a new piece of geometry, for multiple components. (i.e. Multiple components, single geometry replacement).

[imajar]

Agreed.  This is a Solidworks feature I have greatly missed since jumping ship.

[richard_grove]

Totally agree.  This is the #1 feature I miss from my days as a Solidworks user.  

[rckygrhm]

When creating any mates there is a need to click on each part in turn. With a multi-mate you can click on the first part and then single click on each other faces. I used this in Solidworks - its a big time saver.

[SMGordon]

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-ideas/multiple-constraints/idc-p/7329778#M20314

[mindink]

Please bring this feature! The ability to flush/mate multiple parts at once is a huge time saver for big assemblies.

[johan]

I would immensly appreciate that this option would be possible. Simply clicking the shift key would be a great help.
Then, as an in between step, the multi-mate would be created as independently constraints...