How do you feel about iParts and iAssemblies?

[waynehelley]

I have very mixed feeling about using iParts and iAssemblies for modelling standard product ranges.  (standard product ranges which are constantly being revised, hence I wouldn't really want to put in the Content Centre)  I was just wondering how everybody else felt about them?

Pros

iParts encourage (not force) people to start thinking parametrically.  This is great as it creates consistency in how families are modelled.  This becomes very effective when it comes to swapping between components of the same family, since assembly constraints and dimensions will remain (as long as they are not attached to geometry which has disappeared).

Cons

Eventually, a situation will arise where a colleague will claim that it is 'more effort' to add a new component to an iPart family than it is to create an individual part file.  The tidy file structure has now been lost.  Furthermore, it's not possible to copy an existing component to modify since all iPart member files are 'dumb' derived parts.

Limitations

I find myself wishing that iParts behaved more like iParts which have been loaded into the CC.  It would be great to have 2 different options for generating member files.  Either 'linked derived parts' or 'unlinked standard parts'.

I have found myself on multiple occasions going back to existing iPart/iAssembly tables and breaking them up (by script) in to individual part/assembly files.  The most annoying thing in doing this is that all constrains are lost when a derived part gets swapped out for a non-derived part.

[Xun.Zhang]

Hi Wayne,

You comments are very valuable, it is indeed a limitation for current implementation.

However, We are actively working on some new thoughts and investigation, would you like to share more with project team via beta program? 

Welcome to beta program and I believe you can have more insights around it.

==============

The easiest way is to click on https://bit.ly/InventorBeta

Firstly you need to have a Beta account. If you don't already have one then you can create one from:

https://beta.autodesk.com

[mcgyvr]

I like them.. I use them when needed for "like products"..

They are just fine for me..

The "cons" you put are  a management issue and not related to Inventor IMO and not a con to me.. (employees not following standards/rules is easily fixed)..

I don't use CC so I'm not sure of the pros/cons of the limitation information you provided..

Having said that... I have never used them but my understanding is that Solidworks "configurations" are "better" in many aspects vs the ipart/iassembly functionality in Inventor.. There are many users wishing they behaved more like Solidworks functionality and I suspect thats a direction Autodesk will be headed in the future..

[Frederick_Law]

They work great but it does take time to setup.  Isn't that apply to most thing?

I find iParts and iAssemblies work better then SolidWorks configuration.  I can edit the table in Excel.  Parameter and equation are not usable in Solidworks.

I have a 35MB iPart file with rotated and mirrored feature add up to over 30 different 'config'.  That are parameter change and feature suspension.  Its easier to compare all the parts in one file then trying to compare over 30 files.

Adding and changing feature in this part is hell.  Update take a long time.  Need to check every config to make sure new one didn't affect old one.  There are complex base feature that does affect all config which define fits into another assembly.

Able to edit table in Excel helps a lot.  Setup a few parts in Inventor then move to Excel to add, copy new parts.

Its easy when used in iAssembly.  The iAssembly has 4 or 5 other iParts.  Assemble and constrain like CC parts

Time is spend on setting all properties correctly: Name, Part Number etc.  Once its done, drawings and BOM are simple.

Making drawing is easier with bunch of iParts.  Dimension the first one.  Make a copy of the drawing and change the part reference.  Don't need to re-dimension everything.

Of course it easy to over complicate and make unnecessary iPart: simple left and right hand parts.  The management time is long then just derive and mirror the part.

Also it need to be planned out well before with Part Number and File name.  Changing file name after a bunch of iAssemblies and assemblies is not fun.

[timdown73]

One CON I've come across is not having the ability to control whether or not an ipart will participate in a drawing section view or not (in the document settings). If there is a way to control this please let me know.

[Cadmanto]

I used to use them all the time.  Now I use them once in a while.  I personally don't have a problem with them.  I like using them for the most part.

Cons:

• all of the files they create when having to generate them.  Other software's I have used in the past all instances are absorbed into one file.
• If a part is already in an assembly and needs to become an ipart after the fact, the assembly does not recognize the change over.  Has to be deleted then reinserted.

All I have for now. 

If this solved your issue please mark this posting "Accept as Solution".

Or if you like something that was said and it was helpful, Kudos are appreciated. Thanks!!!! 

     

[admaiora]

iPart generative approach would be great!