Constraining cons

[Anonymous]

I have been using inventor 2016 now for about 6 months.  I was using Creo 2.0 before hand.  Inventors constraints are horrible. Especially if you need to do anything with tangent surfaces. I work with circular parts, things that need to spin at high speeds. such as couplings, gears, cams, bowls, adjustment rings, etc.  Flats surfaces are not the problem, it's the angles. If you have holes on an angle and you want to mount another part to that hole.  It yells at you.  Even though it should constrain no problem and it lines up just like it should.  On top of that if you ground ay components, if you try and constrain a new or existing part it will lock up. it's like the ground locked everything not just that one part. I shouldn't have to spend hours out of my day trying to fix constraints when it should only take me two seconds to do.  This needs to be fixed to be more user-friendly, or I am switching back to creo, or maybe solid works.  The frustration level with inventor is beyond bearable

[Anonymous]

I have been using inventor 2016 now for about 6 months.  I was using Creo 2.0 before hand.  Inventors constraints are horrible. Especially if you need to do anything with tangent surfaces. I work with circular parts, things that need to spin at high speeds. such as couplings, gears, cams, bowls, adjustment rings, etc.  Flats surfaces are not the problem, it's the angles. If you have holes on an angle and you want to mount another part to that hole.  It yells at you.  Even though it should constrain no problem and it lines up just like it should.  On top of that if you ground ay components, if you try and constrain a new or existing part it will lock up. it's like the ground locked everything not just that one part. I shouldn't have to spend hours out of my day trying to fix constraints when it should only take me two seconds to do.  This needs to be fixed to be more user-friendly, or I am switching back to creo, or maybe solid works.  The frustration level with inventor is beyond bearable

[JDMather]

Can you attach an assembly here that exhibits this behavior?

[JDMather]

Can you attach an assembly here that exhibits this behavior?

[Anonymous]

I have attached a mock assembly that is giving me problems constraining.
You can strain any bolts surfaces that are not standard you will see errors
pop up like this one below.
[image: Inline image 1]

[Anonymous]

I have attached a mock assembly that is giving me problems constraining.
You can strain any bolts surfaces that are not standard you will see errors
pop up like this one below.
[image: Inline image 1]

[Anonymous]

I have attached a mock assembly that is giving me problems constraining.
You can strain any bolts surfaces that are not standard you will see errors
pop up like this one below.
[image: Inline image 1]

[Anonymous]

I have attached a mock assembly that is giving me problems constraining.
You can strain any bolts surfaces that are not standard you will see errors
pop up like this one below.
[image: Inline image 1]

[JDMather]

Are you attempting to Reply by phone?

Reply from a web browser and try a different one if the one you are using doesn't work.

Also, in the MCAD world - a pretty picture is of little use in diagnosing a problem.

Attach native parts and assembly - make up a dummy set that exhibits the behavior if your actual work is proprietary.

I teach Creo and Inventor (and SolidWorks) and I am not familiar with problem you describe.

Therefore I expect an actual assembly will give me a much better clue of the issue.

[JDMather]

Are you attempting to Reply by phone?

Reply from a web browser and try a different one if the one you are using doesn't work.

Also, in the MCAD world - a pretty picture is of little use in diagnosing a problem.

Attach native parts and assembly - make up a dummy set that exhibits the behavior if your actual work is proprietary.

I teach Creo and Inventor (and SolidWorks) and I am not familiar with problem you describe.

Therefore I expect an actual assembly will give me a much better clue of the issue.

[Anonymous]

I just sent a zip file in the last email. Were you not able to open it? I
have it attached again!

Thanks,
Amanda Bralick

[Anonymous]

I just sent a zip file in the last email. Were you not able to open it? I
have it attached again!

Thanks,
Amanda Bralick

[JDMather]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
I just sent a zip file in the last email.

---

Do not use email reply.

Use web browser.

Do  you see anything attached.

[JDMather]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
I just sent a zip file in the last email.

---

Do not use email reply.

Use web browser.

Do  you see anything attached.

[Anonymous]

I am on the web page forum.  I dont see any attachments that you have uploaded.

[Anonymous]

I am on the web page forum.  I dont see any attachments that you have uploaded.

[JDMather]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

... I dont see any attachments that you have uploaded.

---

I meant - do you see anything that you attached here?

Try a different browser.

If using IE, try Chrome.  If using Chrome, try IE.

[JDMather]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

... I dont see any attachments that you have uploaded.

---

I meant - do you see anything that you attached here?

Try a different browser.

If using IE, try Chrome.  If using Chrome, try IE.

[Anonymous]

nope there is nothing attached here. What I will do is make a video and
then send that to you so you can see what is happening on my end

[Anonymous]

nope there is nothing attached here. What I will do is make a video and
then send that to you so you can see what is happening on my end

[Anonymous]

Please see attached video of constraining errors

[Anonymous]

Please see attached video of constraining errors

[mcgyvr]

This is right up JD's alley as this is going to come down to proper modeling/constraint technique and just understanding how the program works..

I'm sure he will have plenty to say (and probably request actual files)

I couldn't watch the whole video.. but

If you have an invalid constraint and you don't fix it you are going to keep having that dialog come up.. Its simply alerting you to those each time you try to make another constraint.. Its not saying that one is bad.. Just that there is a bad constraint (evident by the red X in the top middle of the screen)

At that point you seemed to assume all your constraints were invalid.. it seems

At 1:51.. Why didn't you just use 2 insert constraints from the ring gear to that bracket using the holes (maybe for dowel pins there?) ? 

I suspect that the distance between the holes is different (could just be slightly) for each of those 2 parts too which started your problem hence why the mates didn't agree..

Seems like you just want to "mate" everything.. (which is fine I guess but you do more work than you need to).. 

Oh and invest in a 3d connexion device like the space navigator.. All that awkward movement/needing to free rotate parts,etc.. will go away and I guarantee you will model much faster.. 

[mcgyvr]

This is right up JD's alley as this is going to come down to proper modeling/constraint technique and just understanding how the program works..

I'm sure he will have plenty to say (and probably request actual files)

I couldn't watch the whole video.. but

If you have an invalid constraint and you don't fix it you are going to keep having that dialog come up.. Its simply alerting you to those each time you try to make another constraint.. Its not saying that one is bad.. Just that there is a bad constraint (evident by the red X in the top middle of the screen)

At that point you seemed to assume all your constraints were invalid.. it seems

At 1:51.. Why didn't you just use 2 insert constraints from the ring gear to that bracket using the holes (maybe for dowel pins there?) ? 

I suspect that the distance between the holes is different (could just be slightly) for each of those 2 parts too which started your problem hence why the mates didn't agree..

Seems like you just want to "mate" everything.. (which is fine I guess but you do more work than you need to).. 

Oh and invest in a 3d connexion device like the space navigator.. All that awkward movement/needing to free rotate parts,etc.. will go away and I guarantee you will model much faster.. 

[Anonymous]

I did actually do that in the first one, not in the video.  The problem was when I did the axis Z to Z constraint on the gear, then went to move it.  It wouldn't move, it was like it was locked and I had only had one constraint. so I tried a different approach. But I figured with some of the assemblies that I was trying to bring together that if they weren't fully constrained in the lower level then the upper level it would yell at me. But I was having problems with individual parts that should of not of had that problem. But it's just odd that Inventor has to have a specific order of operation to constrain parts and assemblies.  If I mate hole to hole I should have no issue. also those holes were in line with each other but like I said earlier I am thinking that the reason it's not liking it, is because it's on a circular foundation and on an angle.  I seriously don't think Inventor was originally intended to be able to handle those kind of constraints.  But then again.  Who Knows. Plus I am the only one at the company that really deals with this program, there is one other person and they are also having the same problem. But if there is a more in-depth instruction manual for constraining more than just the basics that would be great to take a look at. 

Thanks again for your insight.

[Anonymous]

I did actually do that in the first one, not in the video.  The problem was when I did the axis Z to Z constraint on the gear, then went to move it.  It wouldn't move, it was like it was locked and I had only had one constraint. so I tried a different approach. But I figured with some of the assemblies that I was trying to bring together that if they weren't fully constrained in the lower level then the upper level it would yell at me. But I was having problems with individual parts that should of not of had that problem. But it's just odd that Inventor has to have a specific order of operation to constrain parts and assemblies.  If I mate hole to hole I should have no issue. also those holes were in line with each other but like I said earlier I am thinking that the reason it's not liking it, is because it's on a circular foundation and on an angle.  I seriously don't think Inventor was originally intended to be able to handle those kind of constraints.  But then again.  Who Knows. Plus I am the only one at the company that really deals with this program, there is one other person and they are also having the same problem. But if there is a more in-depth instruction manual for constraining more than just the basics that would be great to take a look at. 

Thanks again for your insight.

[WHolzwarth]

Hmm. Best way for looking here would be adding your files.

Not all are needed, simply the ones that you had troubles with. Zip them together with the IAM, and add them here (same procedure as adding the mp4)

Walter

[WHolzwarth]

Hmm. Best way for looking here would be adding your files.

Not all are needed, simply the ones that you had troubles with. Zip them together with the IAM, and add them here (same procedure as adding the mp4)

Walter

[JDMather]

Attach your assembly here and I will demonstrate the error in logic.

[JDMather]

Attach your assembly here and I will demonstrate the error in logic.

[Anonymous]

I have a zip file. 

[Anonymous]

I have a zip file. 

[mcgyvr]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I did actually do that in the first one, not in the video.  The problem was when I did the axis Z to Z constraint on the gear, then went to move it.  It wouldn't move, it was like it was locked and I had only had one constraint. so I tried a different approach. But I figured with some of the assemblies that I was trying to bring together that if they weren't fully constrained in the lower level then the upper level it would yell at me. But I was having problems with individual parts that should of not of had that problem. But it's just odd that Inventor has to have a specific order of operation to constrain parts and assemblies.  If I mate hole to hole I should have no issue. also those holes were in line with each other but like I said earlier I am thinking that the reason it's not liking it, is because it's on a circular foundation and on an angle.  I seriously don't think Inventor was originally intended to be able to handle those kind of constraints.  But then again.  Who Knows. Plus I am the only one at the company that really deals with this program, there is one other person and they are also having the same problem. But if there is a more in-depth instruction manual for constraining more than just the basics that would be great to take a look at. 

Thanks again for your insight.

---

-Inventor does not need constraints to be applied in a specific order..  It will alert you of constraints that you have attempted to apply that are not valid (which its doing here)

-It does not matter that your part is circular.. Inventor can easily handle circles, squares, triangles, a rhombus, a hexagon, complex curved surfaces and much..much more..  

Based on what I saw in the bit of the video I watched have you tried the following?

Create a new assembly with just the ring and that bracket and attempt to use 2 insert constraints on those 2 dowel holes... Did that work without constraint errors?

This more than likely isn't a problem of Inventor not being able to handle modeling a rock crushing machine.. It can very easily... Thousands of users use this program each day and don't have these problems... This is either a silly error or lack of training or expectations that CREO = Inventor or whatever.. But I will just about guarantee the program is more than likely not at flaw here... 

[mcgyvr]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I did actually do that in the first one, not in the video.  The problem was when I did the axis Z to Z constraint on the gear, then went to move it.  It wouldn't move, it was like it was locked and I had only had one constraint. so I tried a different approach. But I figured with some of the assemblies that I was trying to bring together that if they weren't fully constrained in the lower level then the upper level it would yell at me. But I was having problems with individual parts that should of not of had that problem. But it's just odd that Inventor has to have a specific order of operation to constrain parts and assemblies.  If I mate hole to hole I should have no issue. also those holes were in line with each other but like I said earlier I am thinking that the reason it's not liking it, is because it's on a circular foundation and on an angle.  I seriously don't think Inventor was originally intended to be able to handle those kind of constraints.  But then again.  Who Knows. Plus I am the only one at the company that really deals with this program, there is one other person and they are also having the same problem. But if there is a more in-depth instruction manual for constraining more than just the basics that would be great to take a look at. 

Thanks again for your insight.

---

-Inventor does not need constraints to be applied in a specific order..  It will alert you of constraints that you have attempted to apply that are not valid (which its doing here)

-It does not matter that your part is circular.. Inventor can easily handle circles, squares, triangles, a rhombus, a hexagon, complex curved surfaces and much..much more..  

Based on what I saw in the bit of the video I watched have you tried the following?

Create a new assembly with just the ring and that bracket and attempt to use 2 insert constraints on those 2 dowel holes... Did that work without constraint errors?

This more than likely isn't a problem of Inventor not being able to handle modeling a rock crushing machine.. It can very easily... Thousands of users use this program each day and don't have these problems... This is either a silly error or lack of training or expectations that CREO = Inventor or whatever.. But I will just about guarantee the program is more than likely not at flaw here... 

[mcgyvr]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I have a zip file. 

---

Thats just the iam file..

Its useless.. an iam file "links" to the component ipt/sub assembly iam files and does NOT include them in itself..

You need to either use pack and go or include all ipt (and any sub iam files and the ipts that go into them)..

[mcgyvr]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I have a zip file. 

---

Thats just the iam file..

Its useless.. an iam file "links" to the component ipt/sub assembly iam files and does NOT include them in itself..

You need to either use pack and go or include all ipt (and any sub iam files and the ipts that go into them)..

[JDMather]

Doesn't Creo use part files and assembly files?

[JDMather]

Doesn't Creo use part files and assembly files?

[Anonymous]

creo does the difference though is that creo uses the part child relationships.  So it automatically won't let you constrain out of order. Co the child would be forced to be constrained to the parent. and you wouldn't be able to move it up in the tree if that child is constrained to a parent that is above it. Where as inventor lets you move the parts all over the place and I also think thats where then the errors take place. 

Also let me see what I can do for the parts.  I am limited to what I can send. So if your not able to open the zip file and play with the constraints as is, then I will have to figure out how else I can send this. Either that or I will just create dummy parts and assemblies and re-constrain and send it that way. 

[Anonymous]

creo does the difference though is that creo uses the part child relationships.  So it automatically won't let you constrain out of order. Co the child would be forced to be constrained to the parent. and you wouldn't be able to move it up in the tree if that child is constrained to a parent that is above it. Where as inventor lets you move the parts all over the place and I also think thats where then the errors take place. 

Also let me see what I can do for the parts.  I am limited to what I can send. So if your not able to open the zip file and play with the constraints as is, then I will have to figure out how else I can send this. Either that or I will just create dummy parts and assemblies and re-constrain and send it that way.