Bolted Design Generator/ Frame Generator/ Feature Based Pattern Interaction

[lukasSU6JS]

So this is a simple example of a workflow I've got that for whatever reason won't let me pattern a part using a feature based pattern. I'm totally aware the workflow is, ahem, lacking elegance-- if anyone's got a better way that still allows the crushplate (the part I'm trying to pattern) to exist within the FG container assembly and not part of the Bolted Design, I'm all ears. The lack of a termination offset in the BDG is kinda a bummer.

However the big question is patterning the crushplate. I've been using iMates so far, but I'd love to find something that's a little simpler to deal with if the BDG holes get f'ed. I've tried doing a sketch based pattern of work points in the FG member, but no dice. Even after clicking the "model" tab of the feature browser, still can't select the pattern. Does this restriction seem right, or am I missing something totally obvious?

Thanks in advance

Inventor 2020

 

[imajar]

With some fiddling, I was able to get it to work. . . but it's not a great solution.  

I took your sketch driven pattern and added a hole that was just slightly larger than the existing hole (.001"), and included that hole in the sketch driven pattern.  Then I could successfully pattern the crush plate by clicking on the holes.  (you could probably also get this to work by adding a chamfer or other feather that is clickable on the body)

Interestingly, If I removed the hole from the pattern, (but keep the work point in the pattern, so that the pattern still exists, the crush plate pattern retains the connection and dynamically updates, so I don't think there is a limitation in referencing the sketch driven pattern with workpoints so much as there is a limitation in being able to select the pattern).

Outside of what you have already done, I cant think of any solution that is similarly robust.  I'd be interested if anybody else does - I have had this issue before as well.

[lukasSU6JS]

Ajarrett, thanks for playing with that. Glad it's not just me. These are going to be fairly tight tolerance CNC laser parts, so adding extra chamfers/ layering holes isn't super exciting. Creating/deleting them might be the way to go, but gives me doubts about long term robustness.

I wonder if this is unintentional behavior, or idea forum time...