Adaptivity

[AnthonyHarris90842]

I use an assembly file and then I add multi body parts to it and then model new solids in these multibody parts.

I use adaptivity a lot as I use the various multibody parts as references for ther parts.

My problem is that Inventor keeps loosing reference geometry even when I do absolutely nothing to the referenced part.

See attached pic.

Also I can be working on this assembly and all is good, then I close inventor and reopen the assembly file and I find that the geometry that I just redefined is lost again.

I am using Inventor 2021 and this version is the worst its ever been.
I am at my wits end and just about to cancel my subscription with Autodesk.
The Adaptive feature really needs loads of work as its never been great since the start and seems to be getting worse.
How can we get Autodesk to look at this problem?

[cadman777]

I agree with A.Harris.

This is something that SW has 'head and shoulders' over Inventor.

Saying 'Inventor' and 'Adaptivity' in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

[cadman777]

@AnthonyHarris90842

"How can we get Autodesk to look at this problem?"

Simple: POLITICS

Fact: Power brokers understand only one thing: MORE POWER THAN THEY HAVE.

You want change, then quit sending them your hard-earned money and return to a perpetual licensed older version of the software. When enough people do that, they'll start sucking up instead of beating down.

[Anonymous]

SolidWorks rewrote the overlay for the Siemens parasolid kernel underneath.  It is now slow, glitchy, and overrun with annoying pop ups asking if I’m sure that’s what I want to do.  All the original programmers left and now a huge bureaucracy is calling the shots.  I used to be a huge fan, not anymore.  

I still have no desire to work with Inventor.  They made it sound like they had similar functionality, adaptivity.  When I brought this to the attention of the reseller, they recommended courses to learn how to work harder to make up for inventor’s failings. Stunning.

SolidWorks isn’t what it used to be.  However, it still works.  Inventor needs to get off its high horse and fix this problem.

[cadman777]

@Anonymous 

I hear ya.

I quit using SW when I got into it w/the district manager.

He was a real 'richard cranium' to me, so I less than politely told him to 'step off'.

Anyway, I saw it coming a number of years ago and jumped ship.

Like they say, 'the devil you know is better than the devil you don't'.

Good luck w/getting the criminals at Autodesk CORPORATION to serve their customers.

ALL software is a money game, and as such they serve their INVESTORS, not their customers.

[Anonymous]

I ran into these problems years ago when trying to use adaptivity. Once I started using multibodies or derived parameters/sketches I never had to use it again regardless of how large the final assembly is. It should be off by default and never recommended. It would be nice if it worked like you would imagine but at this stage it's best to just pretend it doesn't exist for your own sanity. It's a bit like wishing for 3D sketches to ever work correctly.

[drawingsCHR7R]

Hi cadman,

I read your post and I myself have had issues with adaptivity, I generally put it down to me not knowing enough yet. Nonetheless, would you be willing to do a video or some sort of example of your workflow using the 2 levels of sketches?

If you don't have the time then I totally understand, thanks.

[AnthonyHarris90842]

Hi BenoNZ

How do you derive sketches?

[SharkDesign]

Adaptivity creates as many mistakes as it solves. Yes it's nice that I don't have to update holes every time other things change, but letting a computer update things without me explicitly seeing each change can cause other problems that are not noticed til much later on. 

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Anthony,

Each workflow has its pros and cons. There isn't an one-size-fit-all workflow. Adaptivity isn't a solution for all assembly design challenges. Though it is powerful, it has to be used carefully. It is mostly suitable when you have to reference geometry from another component in this particular context. For example, you need to drill a hole in PartA when it is on top of PartB in AssemblyC. This relationship only exists within AssemblyC, not other places. Also because of its adaptive feature, PartA becomes a part specific to AssemblyC. It may not be reused in other assemblies.

If it is planned well, Adaptivity should help facilitate the inter-component dependency. Most of the trouble in adaptivity I have seen for years, besides bugs, is usually related to excessive usage of adaptivity (almost all features are adaptive), cyclic adaptive dependency (PartA -> PartB -> PartC -> PartA), or conflicting adaptive relationship (PartA -> PartB; PartA -> PartC).

Anyway, to efficiently use Adaptive, you will need to be aware of the adaptive relationship at all time and make change carefully. But, that is a tall order for complex assembly design, particularly when there are endless levels, parts are reused or imported, and design keeps changing.

Derive, on the other hand, has been mentioned regularly as an alternative workflow to Adaptive. Conceptually, they are two different concepts for different purposes. Derive, a.k.a Skeletal Modeling, essentially spawns child parts from a parent part (or parent assembly). The idea is that these components share the same common origin geometrically and spatially. Such derivation is not subject to any context. Parent component is almost in total control. Child component can only follow (adding new features are allowed). It is a one-way relationship. You cannot have a derived part driving its source. The good thing is that it provides design stability. The key decision makers can change the parent parts. And, the change propagates to the project members. This has been primary approach for large assembly design.

Many thanks!

[cadman777 · Accepted solution]

@AnthonyHarris90842 

Maybe you know all this stuff already, but find attached a pdf showing how I do Skeletal Modeling.

This is how I do most of my modeling b/c it's very reliable.

It's even more reliable than the Macros in structural steel software like Tekla, for example.
You have much less control over what you do and how you do it in Macro-based CAD, which is what Inventor Adaptivity tries to accomplish. I'm of the opinion that a similar kind of Connection Library SHOULD BE part of Inventor's Frame Generator, which would solve all these problems with Adaptivity.

Hope I didn't misunderstand your inquiry...

[Anonymous]

Create a new part, go to "derive" (there is a button under the 3D model tab as well as the Manage tab).

From there select the part that contains the sketch you want to derive. You will get a lot of options on what you want to derive from there. Make sure you are in the Master design view and from there you can turn off everything but the sketch you want.

[AnthonyHarris90842]

Thank you so much Johnson

[AnthonyHarris90842]

Thank you Cadman
Will check it out

[AnthonyHarris90842]

Hi BenoNZ

I can derive the part as a model or parameters but not able to derive a sketch.

[gcoombridge · Accepted solution]

@AnthonyHarris90842 make sure the sketch is shared in the part you are deriving it from (i.e. it is not embedded in a feature). Then just tick it in the derive list.

[AnthonyHarris90842]

Thank you very much gcoombridge
That worked

[Anonymous]

---

@AnthonyHarris90842 wrote:
Thank you very much gcoombridge
That worked

---

Great.

Hopefully this helps you out with some of the issues you could not solve with adaptive.

[Giovanni.Eggermont]

Go and take a look at what they've done in 2022! 🙂
Here at our company we completely rely on adaptive parts. For our bussiness adaptivity is a real bless because when the client needs some changes on the design we can simply modify the "skeleton part" and all the adaptive parts do their work. We know most of the existing issues and the work arounds, however with 2022 it's a complete other story. Apparently we aren't alowed anymore to have different "model states" with the same/different parts being adaptive. Even when opening older assemblies containing LOD's, all the adaptive parts are automatically set in the "master" model state and Autodesk doesn't even let us choose in which model state they should occur! Therefor a lot of manual adaptation is required to do so... We have a rather huge library of assemblies we use to copy so there's a lot of timeconsuming (non-profitable) work still lying ahead of us... We also know the fact that workplanes and axis are "grounded projections" which are a real pain in the *ss! Wish they would do something about all these (well-known) issues, but i think they won't...

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Giovanni,

Let me clarify a bit. In the past, Adaptive is allowed in multiple LODs, because LOD is a memory management tool and it only deals with files loading/unloading. Essentially, there is only one assembly and LOD loads files differently. LODs operations do not interfere with constraint compute or geometry compute. For example, a Mate constraint has zero offset in Master LOD. It is the same in other LODs.

Model States is different though. It does alter the design and allows geometric difference. It is like each Model State is a separate assembly from another. At this moment, any adaptive component can only be adaptive in one assembly, i.e. one Model State.

To make an adaptive component adaptive in another Model State, you will need to make it unadaptive in the active Model State. Then active another Model State and make it adaptive.

Many thanks!

[Tom.DiGregorio2DPCZ6]

You asked " why Autodesk cant get adaptivity right."
Answer: Because they don't care and we keep buying it.
I have a part that someone else created with adaptive sketches and I am unable to locate the part or assembly that was used to create the sketch. All I want to see is the original path to the linked file but it is nowhere to be found.