Frame Generator Trim/Extend Issues

[michael.meierZ27GS]

Hi all,

I'm encountering an issue with the trim/extend feature in Inventor's Frame Generator, and it happens sporadically, making it difficult to troubleshoot.

My Workflow (Glazing Industry – Window Unit Fabrication)

1. Copy a template folder – Contains a frame sketch. (driven by an Excel sheet) and an assembly with misc. items.
2. Adjust frame parameters – Excel dictates window unit dimensions and updates the frame sketch.
3. Add necessary parts – Using Frame Generator and placing external parts.
4. Trim/Extend process – I trim/extend parts to planes within the frame sketch itself (never to faces of frame-generated parts, to avoid breaking constraints when swapping parts).
5. Duplicate workflow for each window – Copy the folder (including the .ipj file), rename it for the next window unit, and repeat.

The Issue

• The Pressure_Plate_Standard part should be ¼” shorter than the Face_Cap_Standard part.
• Visually, the part looks correct—there are ⅛” offsets on both ends, and the Measure tool confirms 118.25”.
• However, the browser lists it as 96.25”, and the BOM shows 118.5”.
• Fix: Deleting and redoing the trim/extends resolves it, but this isn't ideal as the issue is unpredictable.

Seeking Advice

Has anyone else experienced this issue with Frame Generator? Any recommendations to prevent this from happening or improve workflow stability?

Thanks in advance!

[BDCollett]

Hard to say without looking at it however, I would honestly skip the use of frame gen for this kind of workflow and build the members manually and use iLogic to control the trims, replace etc. Then either iLogic copy design or Vault copy design (ideally) for each new assembly. Copying folders and renaming with multiple projects is a bit messy imo.

I feel you are going to have far more control over the final assembly doing it this way. Frame gen is great for getting something done fast, I don't think it's great for a customisable assembly that is re-used.

[michael.meierZ27GS]

I would agree that a different workflow would be ideal, but this is the current state we're in unfortunately and to set time aside to rebuild a new system isn't available at the moment.