Have absolutely had it with Frame Generator!

[Kerry.McInnes]

I've posted quite a bit lately with some issues I've been having. Herse another one that keeps popping up. I'm working on another set of hand rails, I notice 1 dimension needs to be changed by about a 1/4", I go into the sketch and move the line and when I come back into the assembly frame members just randomly appear on other sketches that I didn't touch.

I'm going to assume its something I'm doing but I would like to know what? Any help is appreciated.

here's a screenshot, the selected members (Blue) were not originally in the assembly and just appeared after making and edit to a sketch.

[Kerry.McInnes]

I've posted quite a bit lately with some issues I've been having. Herse another one that keeps popping up. I'm working on another set of hand rails, I notice 1 dimension needs to be changed by about a 1/4", I go into the sketch and move the line and when I come back into the assembly frame members just randomly appear on other sketches that I didn't touch.

I'm going to assume its something I'm doing but I would like to know what? Any help is appreciated.

here's a screenshot, the selected members (Blue) were not originally in the assembly and just appeared after making and edit to a sketch.

[Kerry.McInnes]

Here's the assembly files if anyone wants to give it a look

[Kerry.McInnes]

Here's the assembly files if anyone wants to give it a look

[Kerry.McInnes]

<iframe width="696" height="655" src="https://screencast.autodesk.com/Embed/Timeline/4f806432-b89b-420f-9cd4-e20854ab8419?t=0m0s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen></iframe>

here's a screencast link. don't know how to post it directly into the forum

[Kerry.McInnes]

<iframe width="696" height="655" src="https://screencast.autodesk.com/Embed/Timeline/4f806432-b89b-420f-9cd4-e20854ab8419?t=0m0s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen></iframe>

here's a screencast link. don't know how to post it directly into the forum

[Anonymous]

Thank you for posting the files. I've used frame generator a fair bit and haven't seen something like this yet. It looks like the issue is related to the reuse command. I'm thinking that certain components that were just horizontal bars that got reused turn into a full rail and show up as an extended railing. I've noticed the problem appears when the assembly gets rebuilt. Have you tried doing this without the reuse feature?

Edit: I'd also try and stay away from adaptivity. I personally have had it break things too many times to count and have found other more robust workflows to get to keep everything linked. It works ok in the final stages of design/modeling, but in the early stages where everything is based off of it I have had issues. If you would like to experiment with other possible workflows I'd be happy to help

[Anonymous]

Thank you for posting the files. I've used frame generator a fair bit and haven't seen something like this yet. It looks like the issue is related to the reuse command. I'm thinking that certain components that were just horizontal bars that got reused turn into a full rail and show up as an extended railing. I've noticed the problem appears when the assembly gets rebuilt. Have you tried doing this without the reuse feature?

Edit: I'd also try and stay away from adaptivity. I personally have had it break things too many times to count and have found other more robust workflows to get to keep everything linked. It works ok in the final stages of design/modeling, but in the early stages where everything is based off of it I have had issues. If you would like to experiment with other possible workflows I'd be happy to help

[Kerry.McInnes]

I haven’t yet tried it without “reuse”, that very well could be the issue. 

It just becomes tedious in the BOM when there are several of the same component all as different parts. 

hopefully if that is the issue they can get it resolved. 

[Kerry.McInnes]

I haven’t yet tried it without “reuse”, that very well could be the issue. 

It just becomes tedious in the BOM when there are several of the same component all as different parts. 

hopefully if that is the issue they can get it resolved. 

[Anonymous]

If you try it without reuse, keep an eye on parts like ANSI 2x .154:11 that is in the second reuse. It is a vertical bar that changes to almost the whole rail on a rebuild. Not sure yet why it is doing that, but have confirmed that it is happening. Without reuse, if the same behavior exists it will not be visible

[Anonymous]

If you try it without reuse, keep an eye on parts like ANSI 2x .154:11 that is in the second reuse. It is a vertical bar that changes to almost the whole rail on a rebuild. Not sure yet why it is doing that, but have confirmed that it is happening. Without reuse, if the same behavior exists it will not be visible

[CGBenner]

@Kerry.McInnes 

I know I've probably asked you this before, but what version is this?

[CGBenner]

@Kerry.McInnes 

I know I've probably asked you this before, but what version is this?

[Kerry.McInnes]

This is version 2020

[Kerry.McInnes]

This is version 2020

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Kerry,

I think this has something to do with the reused members. It is a combination of limitations and bugs. First of all, you did not do anything wrong here. But, I would not use Frame Gen the way you did it. You are using multiple adaptive parts to drive the frame. You might be better off just using one skeletal part (the concrete). I don't see the point of using multiple rail sketch parts.

In the video, you edit the rail sketch 4 and delete certain lines and recreate new lines. This change can lead to frame member losing references. After the lines are deleted, it is better to delete the frame members. Otherwise, you will have orphan frame members.

It looks like the impacted frame members are reused. There might be a bug here. The video does not show any error message. I suppose there should be a warning when the frame members become orphaned. I am wondering if you don't reuse the members, maybe the behaviors will be more robust. Also, the frame subassembly needs to be adaptive, since there are active adaptive members.

Like I said, it is a combination of issues. I don't think the workflow you are using is robust enough. There are just too many levels of dependency, which can lead to confusing behaviors.

Many thanks!

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Kerry,

I think this has something to do with the reused members. It is a combination of limitations and bugs. First of all, you did not do anything wrong here. But, I would not use Frame Gen the way you did it. You are using multiple adaptive parts to drive the frame. You might be better off just using one skeletal part (the concrete). I don't see the point of using multiple rail sketch parts.

In the video, you edit the rail sketch 4 and delete certain lines and recreate new lines. This change can lead to frame member losing references. After the lines are deleted, it is better to delete the frame members. Otherwise, you will have orphan frame members.

It looks like the impacted frame members are reused. There might be a bug here. The video does not show any error message. I suppose there should be a warning when the frame members become orphaned. I am wondering if you don't reuse the members, maybe the behaviors will be more robust. Also, the frame subassembly needs to be adaptive, since there are active adaptive members.

Like I said, it is a combination of issues. I don't think the workflow you are using is robust enough. There are just too many levels of dependency, which can lead to confusing behaviors.

Many thanks!

[arron.craig]

I redrew part of your wireframe inside Concrete.ipt and deleted all the other adaptive parts, replaced the frame gen componants and the model behaves and updates as expected. My advice is to never use adaptive features, There are legitimate uses for it and I am sure that many folks use it with success but over the years I have noticed the number one cause of haunted/broken models is adaptivity. It causes way more problems than it solves imo.

I also think the re-use issue was likely because you had multiple models being used for the skeleton. I always aim to have only one wireframe part, If I need multiple then I will derive an assembly as a surface body part and keep the link active. 

[arron.craig]

I redrew part of your wireframe inside Concrete.ipt and deleted all the other adaptive parts, replaced the frame gen componants and the model behaves and updates as expected. My advice is to never use adaptive features, There are legitimate uses for it and I am sure that many folks use it with success but over the years I have noticed the number one cause of haunted/broken models is adaptivity. It causes way more problems than it solves imo.

I also think the re-use issue was likely because you had multiple models being used for the skeleton. I always aim to have only one wireframe part, If I need multiple then I will derive an assembly as a surface body part and keep the link active. 

[Kerry.McInnes]

To me, it would be very difficult to model this without being able to reference the foundation (Concrete). The way I see best to model it is to have the concrete to work off of. The plan is to create all the parts in place using different sketches and then demote each rail to sub-assemblies.

I didn't actually delete any of the lines, all I did was delete a constraint so I could move that line down and was hoping the FG parts would follow. Is there a better way to go about doing something like this?

[Kerry.McInnes]

To me, it would be very difficult to model this without being able to reference the foundation (Concrete). The way I see best to model it is to have the concrete to work off of. The plan is to create all the parts in place using different sketches and then demote each rail to sub-assemblies.

I didn't actually delete any of the lines, all I did was delete a constraint so I could move that line down and was hoping the FG parts would follow. Is there a better way to go about doing something like this?

[Kerry.McInnes]

That's interesting to know, that will be something I will keep an eye on. I wish there wasn't the issue with the reuse command, that really saves a ton of headache when it comes to the BOM.

[Kerry.McInnes]

That's interesting to know, that will be something I will keep an eye on. I wish there wasn't the issue with the reuse command, that really saves a ton of headache when it comes to the BOM.

[Kerry.McInnes]

So are you turning off adaptivity on everything? The sketches and all the frame members?

[Kerry.McInnes]

So are you turning off adaptivity on everything? The sketches and all the frame members?

[arron.craig]

That's right, there is no need for adaptivity if all sketches are within the one part. 

See attached example, it's rough but should illistrate the point.

[arron.craig]

That's right, there is no need for adaptivity if all sketches are within the one part. 

See attached example, it's rough but should illistrate the point.

[Kerry.McInnes]

I'm also noticing that if I try to delete any of those frame members that its giving me the same result, members just appearing out of nowhere.

[Kerry.McInnes]

I'm also noticing that if I try to delete any of those frame members that its giving me the same result, members just appearing out of nowhere.

[johnsonshiue · Accepted solution]

Hi Kerry,

I think you may have misunderstood my reply. I am not saying you should not reference Concrete. You have to. There is no other way. The issue here is that you use multiple Rail Sketch parts, which creates secondary dependency. What I was proposing is to use just one Rail Sketch part, not 5. Or, you simply use Concrete as the skeletal part.

Regarding Adaptive, they need to be turned on all the time. Otherwise, the update will not propagate. It defeats the purpose of using Adaptive in the first place. The thing about Adaptive is that, you need to manage the adaptive relationship closely. I personally view Adaptive as using credit card or taking a loan. You will need to pay back the debt anyway. You want to know what it is for and how it should behave. Inventor can help you find out which part needs to be updated and update it for you. However, you need to know where the payment goes. If you have multiple bills to pay and the balance is low in your account, you may over-draft.

Many thanks!

[johnsonshiue · Accepted solution]

Hi Kerry,

I think you may have misunderstood my reply. I am not saying you should not reference Concrete. You have to. There is no other way. The issue here is that you use multiple Rail Sketch parts, which creates secondary dependency. What I was proposing is to use just one Rail Sketch part, not 5. Or, you simply use Concrete as the skeletal part.

Regarding Adaptive, they need to be turned on all the time. Otherwise, the update will not propagate. It defeats the purpose of using Adaptive in the first place. The thing about Adaptive is that, you need to manage the adaptive relationship closely. I personally view Adaptive as using credit card or taking a loan. You will need to pay back the debt anyway. You want to know what it is for and how it should behave. Inventor can help you find out which part needs to be updated and update it for you. However, you need to know where the payment goes. If you have multiple bills to pay and the balance is low in your account, you may over-draft.

Many thanks!

[Kerry.McInnes]

Just had an ah-ha moment. I think I see what your saying. So it would be better to create one part file and then the different sketches used for frame members in that one part file? Is that correct?

[Kerry.McInnes]

Just had an ah-ha moment. I think I see what your saying. So it would be better to create one part file and then the different sketches used for frame members in that one part file? Is that correct?

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Kerry,

Yes, that is the recommended workflow. Typically, you will create the skeletal geometry within a part (the Concrete or the Rail Sketch). The skeletal part will drive changes to the Frame and other dependent parts.

The way you currently set up requires 5 drivers with multiple levels of dependency (Concrete drives Rail Sketch, which drives the Frame). In theory, there isn't anything wrong here though. It should just work. The issue here is that the implicit driven relationship and multiple drivers can obscure the source of the problem, when things do not work.

Many thanks!

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Kerry,

Yes, that is the recommended workflow. Typically, you will create the skeletal geometry within a part (the Concrete or the Rail Sketch). The skeletal part will drive changes to the Frame and other dependent parts.

The way you currently set up requires 5 drivers with multiple levels of dependency (Concrete drives Rail Sketch, which drives the Frame). In theory, there isn't anything wrong here though. It should just work. The issue here is that the implicit driven relationship and multiple drivers can obscure the source of the problem, when things do not work.

Many thanks!

[Kerry.McInnes]

Got it, thanks. So if I do create multiple sketches within the same part, how can I break those down on the BOM to separate parts?

the way I was doing it was like in the files I uploaded, but I would then demote all of those down to separate parts. Would that work if they were in the same part file?

[Kerry.McInnes]

Got it, thanks. So if I do create multiple sketches within the same part, how can I break those down on the BOM to separate parts?

the way I was doing it was like in the files I uploaded, but I would then demote all of those down to separate parts. Would that work if they were in the same part file?

[arron.craig]

Yes, the demoted sub assembly method will not changed. This is demonstrated in the example I posted. (Reply #14)

[arron.craig]

Yes, the demoted sub assembly method will not changed. This is demonstrated in the example I posted. (Reply #14)