This does not appear to be the same assembly as the image you posted earlier?
Some part sketches are not fully constrained.
I would pattern Features rather than Sketch Entities.
In the real world there is clearance between moving parts.
Have you installed Service Pack 2?
@Anonymous wrote:
....(i made my scetchs fully constrained)
When is this assignment due? It will probably take me a little while as I will have to remodel all of the components from scratch as your sketching technique of repeating and repeating and repeating dimensions is not how I normally model a part.
Sketch1 appeared to be too complicated and too much unnecessary work to me - I decided to see if I could simplify.
I want to follow a similiar technique of simplification with emphasis on using symmetry.
In the process of using symmetry I found a questionable dimension on the original part.
The design intent would need to be clarified with the original designer to make sure these feature should not in fact be symmetrical.
@Anonymous wrote:
... i m really surprise you spend so time for me....
Unfortunately I do not have as much time during the summer to work on stuff like this.
I like to see evidence of progress in topics already covered - can you attach your new file of this part
Sketch 1 is too complicated - pattern features rather than sketch
Sketch 2 is not needed (share Sketch 1).
In a previous response - I asked you if you had installed Service Pack 2.
The iProperties of you file indicate that you have not done this.
Is this your computer? Can you install Service Pack 2?
Here is another method of modeling Part2. (examine attached file)
Oops, I just realized that I modeled that part in 2016 - you will not be able to open the file.
I would Extrude Part 1 mid-plane (symmetric).
Always make logical use of symmetry when possible.
Inventor might not "care" about non-clearance contact, but in the real world there must be allowance for manufacturing tolerances.
The largest diameter must be smaller than the smallest slot when accounting for normal manufacturing tolerance. The side of the cylinder touching might not be as critical depending on the rest of the design.
It is good practice to design up-front with the necessary clearances in mind.
It is easier to manufacture cylinders than it is to manufacture "slots", therefore I recommend making the cylindrical feature smaller with tight tolerance and the slot larger with loose tolerance. Tight and loose tolerance are relative terms - important considerations of manufacturing process and cost (and of course - the function of the parts in the assembly). In general, use the loosest tolerances possible with appropriate dimensions for clearance that will result in an assembly that functions as needed.
Now that I have experimented with your assembly - I see why you offset this to one side.
Tomorrow I will come back and explain why I choose to use 2D Contact Joints rather than 3D Contact Joints.
