Hole extend start in assembly

[ObradKostadinovic]

Posting this after searching the forums and online.

I can't seem to find the extend hole start option when I want to drill in an assembly. Not sure if this is a problem with the way I use inventor or this just doesn't work in assemblies?

[ObradKostadinovic]

Posting this after searching the forums and online.

I can't seem to find the extend hole start option when I want to drill in an assembly. Not sure if this is a problem with the way I use inventor or this just doesn't work in assemblies?

[James_Willo]

That's right, extend start is not supported in assembly. 

Sorry about this. 

[James_Willo]

That's right, extend start is not supported in assembly. 

Sorry about this. 

[ObradKostadinovic]

No problem, but it would be a really useful thing to have (and less confusing).

[ObradKostadinovic]

No problem, but it would be a really useful thing to have (and less confusing).

[kacper.suchomski]

What did you want to use the holes for in the assembly?

[kacper.suchomski]

What did you want to use the holes for in the assembly?

[ObradKostadinovic]

I need to have parts without features for the way we do documentation, so I do some ops on the assembly level. But we almost always drill at an angle while trying to have a consistent minimal depth of the seat. It was easier for me to do a simple cross section sketch where I define this minimum and get my hole feature start point and have the hole use the same parameter for the seat depth - and have the extend start deal with the rest. Since it doesn't work I have do some wrangling for the start points and use a huge seat depth so I can handle the "extension" myself.

And I never answered your question - the holes are used for connecting our sub assemblies, nothing fancy.

[ObradKostadinovic]

I need to have parts without features for the way we do documentation, so I do some ops on the assembly level. But we almost always drill at an angle while trying to have a consistent minimal depth of the seat. It was easier for me to do a simple cross section sketch where I define this minimum and get my hole feature start point and have the hole use the same parameter for the seat depth - and have the extend start deal with the rest. Since it doesn't work I have do some wrangling for the start points and use a huge seat depth so I can handle the "extension" myself.

And I never answered your question - the holes are used for connecting our sub assemblies, nothing fancy.

[kacper.suchomski]

You can efficiently do this in the part environment and use model states to create a variant with holes disabled for documentation purposes.

[kacper.suchomski]

You can efficiently do this in the part environment and use model states to create a variant with holes disabled for documentation purposes.

[ObradKostadinovic]

Thanks, but I don't like the idea of having 48 different parts when their starting stock is identical. This way I can have a clean BOM without too much trouble, but I do need a clear head when I do the documentation view reps. So far this approach works, but I guess iLogic and programming in general will help me a bunch.

[ObradKostadinovic]

Thanks, but I don't like the idea of having 48 different parts when their starting stock is identical. This way I can have a clean BOM without too much trouble, but I do need a clear head when I do the documentation view reps. So far this approach works, but I guess iLogic and programming in general will help me a bunch.

[James_Willo]

Model States were designed exactly for this purpose as mentioned by Kacper.

You don't need any additional parts, you just create a new model state in each part called 'no holes' or whatever. 

Use the parts as normal in assemblies, then when you document it, switch the model state to 'no holes' instead of using Primary. 

video:

[James_Willo]

Model States were designed exactly for this purpose as mentioned by Kacper.

You don't need any additional parts, you just create a new model state in each part called 'no holes' or whatever. 

Use the parts as normal in assemblies, then when you document it, switch the model state to 'no holes' instead of using Primary. 

video:

[ObradKostadinovic]

This could work for me, except the setup is maybe more complex this way. Well, it most certainly is more complex, but I'm still using model states except I suppress the assembly level features. Thanks!

[ObradKostadinovic]

This could work for me, except the setup is maybe more complex this way. Well, it most certainly is more complex, but I'm still using model states except I suppress the assembly level features. Thanks!

[James_Willo]

With the way I showed you, you don't need any assembly level features. You add the holes at part level and you can then use the extend start. 
If you need the same behaviour at assembly level, you can link the model states. 

[James_Willo]

With the way I showed you, you don't need any assembly level features. You add the holes at part level and you can then use the extend start. 
If you need the same behaviour at assembly level, you can link the model states. 

[ObradKostadinovic]

I understand, except the way of setting everything up would be far to complex. I need differing orientations of the part instanced in the assembly so the hole positions would have to be created manually for everything. My way simplifies the hole creation, and I solved my problem using a workaround - I just wish the feature worked the same way in both contexts. And I think that would be the reasonable expectation really.

[ObradKostadinovic]

I understand, except the way of setting everything up would be far to complex. I need differing orientations of the part instanced in the assembly so the hole positions would have to be created manually for everything. My way simplifies the hole creation, and I solved my problem using a workaround - I just wish the feature worked the same way in both contexts. And I think that would be the reasonable expectation really.

[James_Willo]

I understand what you are trying to do now. This is not really how assembly features are intended to be used. 

Sorry I don't have a better solution for you. 

You might be able to do this with a derive/make parts/fill holes type workflow. Not sure how much more difficult that is. You'd be able to use extend hole though. 

[James_Willo]

I understand what you are trying to do now. This is not really how assembly features are intended to be used. 

Sorry I don't have a better solution for you. 

You might be able to do this with a derive/make parts/fill holes type workflow. Not sure how much more difficult that is. You'd be able to use extend hole though. 

[ObradKostadinovic]

Thanks, I tried a multipart and derive workflow, but since I didn't have a solution for our BOM needs this grew out of that. But why are assembly features not intended for use this way? In fact this workflow reflects our manufacturing process almost perfectly.

[ObradKostadinovic]

Thanks, I tried a multipart and derive workflow, but since I didn't have a solution for our BOM needs this grew out of that. But why are assembly features not intended for use this way? In fact this workflow reflects our manufacturing process almost perfectly.

[kacper.suchomski]

All modeling capabilities in the assembly are limited to material removal and reflect the machining process.

This is intended for production operations, which in practice are performed on previously assembled elements.

[kacper.suchomski]

All modeling capabilities in the assembly are limited to material removal and reflect the machining process.

This is intended for production operations, which in practice are performed on previously assembled elements.

[k.hendrickx]

We use semi-finished products and actually want fully detailed BOM with all subcomponents as the exist throughout production.

Example, we cut profiles to a certain length and then these get milled in all kind of different ways.

So for this I create a profile extrusion part with a certain length.

Then we create an assembly with the corresponding profile as a part and add all the milling information in this assembly.

These assemblies then get used further up the chain and so on,...

Other milled profiles can reuse that sawn profile again and again without the need for modelstates or deriving things which makes everything a lot more complex.

In the end this generates a full BOM of our production flow and also insures that we can never "add" material to a part (since assembly features only cut away existing underlying material).

So I definitely understand the OP's question to further improve the assembly features to the same level as part features.

[k.hendrickx]

We use semi-finished products and actually want fully detailed BOM with all subcomponents as the exist throughout production.

Example, we cut profiles to a certain length and then these get milled in all kind of different ways.

So for this I create a profile extrusion part with a certain length.

Then we create an assembly with the corresponding profile as a part and add all the milling information in this assembly.

These assemblies then get used further up the chain and so on,...

Other milled profiles can reuse that sawn profile again and again without the need for modelstates or deriving things which makes everything a lot more complex.

In the end this generates a full BOM of our production flow and also insures that we can never "add" material to a part (since assembly features only cut away existing underlying material).

So I definitely understand the OP's question to further improve the assembly features to the same level as part features.