Custom T&P Mepla Pipes not engaging correctly

[jessey9X6M8]

Inventor 2018 Professional with all the latest updates...

I am creating Mepla pipes and fittings from scratch.  I am using 0 engagement for the pipes, and engaging the fittings up to the flange.  When I generate a routed system, like the one shown, the pipes do not engage at all onto the fittings.  In my experience, a routed system should use the engagement of the fittings, ignoring that of the conduits, but not so here.  What have I done wrong?

[jessey9X6M8]

Inventor 2018 Professional with all the latest updates...

I am creating Mepla pipes and fittings from scratch.  I am using 0 engagement for the pipes, and engaging the fittings up to the flange.  When I generate a routed system, like the one shown, the pipes do not engage at all onto the fittings.  In my experience, a routed system should use the engagement of the fittings, ignoring that of the conduits, but not so here.  What have I done wrong?

[Jon.Dean]

Hi @jessey9X6M8

Thanks for the part files and screenshot. You need to have Engagement on your Elbow, so the pipe sits over the groove, I measured 38 mm's, see below:

Cheers

Jon

[Jon.Dean]

Hi @jessey9X6M8

Thanks for the part files and screenshot. You need to have Engagement on your Elbow, so the pipe sits over the groove, I measured 38 mm's, see below:

Cheers

Jon

[jessey9X6M8]

Thank you for your reply.  I don't think I understand.  Is the left shot what you would propose for the authoring?  Perhaps I should explain my choices.

I used "To Plane", rather than a measured distance because that distance will change when I move from one member of the family to another.  Also, this distance does not allow use of a parameter, so I didn't see how to assign different distances for different family members.

I used female rather than male because I read that the tube and pipe environment tends to respect female engagement maximums more readily than male.  I had used male, noticed this non-engagement issue, then switched to female.

[jessey9X6M8]

Thank you for your reply.  I don't think I understand.  Is the left shot what you would propose for the authoring?  Perhaps I should explain my choices.

I used "To Plane", rather than a measured distance because that distance will change when I move from one member of the family to another.  Also, this distance does not allow use of a parameter, so I didn't see how to assign different distances for different family members.

I used female rather than male because I read that the tube and pipe environment tends to respect female engagement maximums more readily than male.  I had used male, noticed this non-engagement issue, then switched to female.

[jessey9X6M8]

Here is another element of weirdness:

If I put the fittings in using a T&P route, then it defaults to the pipe's 0 engagement and greys out the option to override.

If instead I insert the fitting into the assembly and just run pipes in the route, then I can override one end of the pipe, but not the other, to use the fitting's engagement setting:

FYI: I have minimum pipe increment set to .001 in, and the min engagement is 95% of max.  There should be room for slop within those settings.

[jessey9X6M8]

Here is another element of weirdness:

If I put the fittings in using a T&P route, then it defaults to the pipe's 0 engagement and greys out the option to override.

If instead I insert the fitting into the assembly and just run pipes in the route, then I can override one end of the pipe, but not the other, to use the fitting's engagement setting:

FYI: I have minimum pipe increment set to .001 in, and the min engagement is 95% of max.  There should be room for slop within those settings.