how to start using inventor to make (design) something in real life ? ipt or iam

[Anonymous]

hii,

i am so confused. i watched a lot tutorial on how to do 3d part design..

but as i know slightly more, i realized that i might have being at the wrong "dimension"

i think i should start my new furniture design project using iam mode instead of ipt..

i am so used to autocad doing 2d designs that i am trying to do 3d (which is what i always wanted to do), i realized autocad is sucks at doing 3d.. so much work... maybe i missed out something.. because i started using autocad R14... until now-a-day don't know autocad how many already.

can somebody who is really into both autocad and inventor pls brief me

1. what 3d design i can't do with autocad that i have to use inventor ?

2. i mean maybe due to the evolving of autocad fr R14 to God knows autocad how many thousand , the original 2d CAD software is now 3d CAD already.. just that i didn't have time to learn autocad to do 3d . is autocad now a day is as capable as inventor in doing 3d furniture design ? 

3. i mean if autocad is as good , then i will save my time to learn autocad instead of inventor.. (i always thought the way to use inventor is same as the way autocad is used (because they are merged to a same company, why should 2 model of cars from the same manufacturer is totally different way of driving ? ), just topped with some more great 3d feature that save my time).

4. because all those good feature of autocad , all those "snap to " , and all those 2d modifying command ...mirror , etc.... are not in inventor... that is the thing that made me so sad and angry when using inventor... .. so sad.. it is like i have to start learning airplane to drive a car....

5. if inventor is better than autocad in designing parts (real world, everything is made of 3d so 2d autocad shld not so practical), then pls enlighten me the "concept" of inventor "thinks". should start designing with *.iam, then 2dsketch to make *.ipt.. and at the end all ipt parts assembled in the current iam file..

6. in inventor, can i not just draw parts (be it 3d or 2d) in all the available space in a 2d sketch, and with 3d part then extrude individual to become a 3d parts while the "2d lines" i just leave it there in space as guide and reference for my 3d part design ? and after all 3d parts are done , then i explode each solid object into "inventor assembly space" to be assembled ?  isn't that good ?

sorry guy, i am just a bit upset after strungling and confused in using inventor...

if any nice guy can help me out  will be superb.

andrew

[Curtis_Waguespack]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

1. what 3d design i can't do with autocad that i have to use inventor ?

Editing the solids is the biggest difference between AutoCAD 3D and Inventor. Inventor retains the part "history" so that you can make changes and updates to your model quickly, in AutoCAD 3D it was more difficult to do this. Related to this, it is important to know that Inventor is parameter driven. Meaning that the dimension you create in become parameters that drive the model. Changing the length of a part is as easy and changing that parameter (assuming the model was done well).

2. i mean maybe due to the evolving of autocad fr R14 to God knows autocad how many thousand , the original 2d CAD software is now 3d CAD already.. just that i didn't have time to learn autocad to do 3d . is autocad now a day is as capable as inventor in doing 3d furniture design ? 

AutoCAD's 3D tools are much better than they were in R14, but not as strong as Inventor's. I would recommend Inventor over AutoCAD for doing 3D furniture design. One reason is the 2D print of the 3D design is much easier to create and update. This includes the parts list / Bill of Materials, but also the details views, section views and so on.

3. i mean if autocad is as good , then i will save my time to learn autocad instead of inventor.. (i always thought the way to use inventor is same as the way autocad is used (because they are merged to a same company, why should 2 model of cars from the same manufacturer is totally different way of driving ? ), just topped with some more great 3d feature that save my time).

see answer 4

4. because all those good feature of autocad , all those "snap to " , and all those 2d modifying command ...mirror , etc.... are not in inventor... that is the thing that made me so sad and angry when using inventor... .. so sad.. it is like i have to start learning airplane to drive a car....

You might think of them the same because they are delivered by the same company, and used for much the same general purpose. But they are 2 different applications, created and maintained separately. You must accept that they are just different applications, and you will use them differently.

So you do not have to learn how to fly an airplane to drive a car... you have to learn to fly an airplane so you can fly an airplane.

Remember these 10 things:

1. Inventor is not AutoCAD
2. Inventor is not AutoCAD
3. Inventor is not AutoCAD
4. Inventor is not AutoCAD
5. Inventor is not AutoCAD
6. Inventor is not AutoCAD
7. Inventor is not AutoCAD
8. Inventor is not AutoCAD
9. Inventor is not AutoCAD
10. Inventor is not AutoCAD

Also AutoCAD is not Inventor.

5. if inventor is better than autocad in designing parts (real world, everything is made of 3d so 2d autocad shld not so practical), then pls enlighten me the "concept" of inventor "thinks". should start designing with *.iam, then 2dsketch to make *.ipt.. and at the end all ipt parts assembled in the current iam file..

Start here maybe:

http://inventortrenches.blogspot.com/2011/03/inventor-101-simple-fully-constrained.html

Autodesk Inventor Practice Part Drawings.pdf

I would suggest you create your parts one at a time at first, and then assemble them in an assembly. This will allow you to focus on the part modeling and then later on the assembly modeling, and learning each set of tools separately. This is generally called "Bottom Up" modeling. Starting at the assembly and working down is referred to as "Top Down" modeling.

Eventually you might prefer the Top Down approach for your work. But in order to learn the fundamentals of Inventor first, it would generally be advised that you start with Bottom Up.

6. in inventor, can i not just draw parts (be it 3d or 2d) in all the available space in a 2d sketch, and with 3d part then extrude individual to become a 3d parts while the "2d lines" i just leave it there in space as guide and reference for my 3d part design ? and after all 3d parts are done , then i explode each solid object into "inventor assembly space" to be assembled ?  isn't that good ?

Yes and No. You could do it that way, but it would not be the best way to start out, as it takes an intermediate understanding of the Inventor tools to do it that way, and even if we were to do it that way, we'd do it a bit differently than you described. 

Instead, start each part as a separate file, and keep them simple. Then assembly the part files in the assembly.

---

I hope this helps.
Best of luck to you in all of your Inventor pursuits,
Curtis
http://inventortrenches.blogspot.com

[dgorsman]

Inventor and AutoCAD have different design roles, much like a complete tool chest vs. a Swiss Army knife.  You can build a car with the former, but it requires knowledge of both the tools and what is being built.  Not to say that you cannot do so with the latter but unless you're MacGyver it's not going to work out well.  Even then there's only so much that can be done.    Sometimes that tool chest is overkill for certain tasks, and there are some tasks it cannot do at all.

As a real-world example, consider a refinery that converts oil into various products - fuel, lubricants, solvents, and so on.  Chances are it was designed on an AutoCAD platform with an extension specific to process plant design.  No need to know the thread details of the bolts holding the flanges together, or know all the inner workings of each and every valve.  That's overkill.  But the electric motors, compressors, heat exchangers, and so on are designed using Inventor (usually something equivalent from another developer but lets pretend...), because that level of detail *is* required in order to build them.

[Anonymous]

Hii Curtis,

I need your help!!

I decided to redo everything from the beginning.. do it right step by step using metric mm only.

i created a new iam project, trying to use top down approach (because i have an existing furniture, this new furniture has to be tailored to fit to it).

* i am trying to explain my scenario to you, that you may be able to help me create a video file that i can learn from, but this time i need you to help me solve this "unit" issue first.

while in the mean time, i am creating a dwg file with dimension that you might teach me how profi go about doing this design the profi way (hopefully not so complicated way).

pls take a look at my step by step new iam creation, then ipt... and i noticed it is in inches instead of metric.

note, i started a new iam project selecting metric and standard mm iam.

here i created a new ipt.. but there is not other option that i can choose apart from standard.ipt

could it be the standard.ipt if wrong ? it should be standard.ipt in mm (because i have chosen metric at the very beginning)

so created a new 2dsketch in ipt file. when the rectangle is drawn, it is in inches.

the rectangle that i sketched is extruded .

pls take a look into my attached ipt. iam files..

pls teach me what's wrong with it ?

teach me how i can create project in the future to be correct metric unit.

thank you in advance .

andrew

[Curtis_Waguespack]

Hi andrew_ysk,

You can use this button to choose from the other available templates.

I hope this helps.
Best of luck to you in all of your Inventor pursuits,
Curtis
http://inventortrenches.blogspot.com

[Anonymous]

hii Curtis,

i am designing a staircase storage cabinet .this cabinet is located touching the side of my highbed.

the important thing  is there should be a step that is level to the height of the horizontal frame of H structure, and another step which is level to the height of matress , the highest step of the cabinet shld be higher than the matress (so that i can put a laptop there or some sort). the length of the cabinet should be exactly the width of the bed so it does not protruding out of the bed.  the width is not important.

the highbed structure and the matress, these are an existing structure. it is drawn into it just for the sake of creating the staircase cabinet, so that i will not design something that doesnt fit to the existing structure.

that's all that i am trying to learn to create using top down method in 3d modelling.

can you pls help me make a video how you guys - profi tackle such a situation, where u have to draw an existing structure into just for the reference of design the correct furniture . because there is no layer feature in inventor.. how are you going to achieve this using inventor method ?

your help and guidance will be very much appreciated.

i say thank you in advance..

i hope you will be manage to read the small annotation on the right, saying the big rectangle is matress, and the flat bar is the plane where matress is located. and the H shape is the high bed structure.

this thing i poorly drawn with bitmap is the high bed stands beside the staircase storage cabinet.  sorry for the childish drawing..  it is approaching mid night here..

can you show me how to hide and unhide the x -y axis line (as shown here as cross in the following pic), because sometime it hinder me from seeing where the line (when the line is exactly on the axis it appears to be disappear, which make work difficult for me.

thank you.

andrew

[Curtis_Waguespack]

Hi andrew_ysk,

So it's late when you reply, and late when I reply... but I have a workflow in mind to share, so please check back, and I'll try to post a video as soon as possible. It looks like a lot of fun, so good for you!

I hope this helps.
Best of luck to you in all of your Inventor pursuits,
Curtis
http://inventortrenches.blogspot.com

[Anonymous]

Hii Curtis,

I think i missed out this msg of yours. u said previously i can use this drop down to choose different ipt template.. but i have only these template available for me to choose on.  sheet metal.ipt and standard.ipt..

so i can only choose standard.ipt. and the dimension comes in Inches.

am i missing some template here ?

can you explain to me why when i have chosen to start an assembly project - iam choosing standard metric mm at the very beginning, yet the system is not smart enough to link all my ipt or dwg or iam in metric unit ?

it has being very obvious that  i specificly instructed inventor to start a project with metric mm as standard unit.... why it comes out to be inches ?

thanks

andrew

[Anonymous]

Hii Curtis,

thank you for all your help. appreciate it.

where should i be expecting your video ? are you posting it in this exact thread or youtube ?

i won't want to miss your video.. waiting for it.

thanks

andrew

[SBix26]

Andrew, I think you didn't get your default templates configured right: try Application Options > File > Configure Default Template...

Hope this helps,

Sam B

Inventor Professional 2017.3
Vault Basic 2017.0.1
Windows 7 Enterprise 64-bit, SP1
Inventor Certified Professional

[jtylerbc]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

can you explain to me why when i have chosen to start an assembly project - iam choosing standard metric mm at the very beginning, yet the system is not smart enough to link all my ipt or dwg or iam in metric unit ?

it has being very obvious that  i specificly instructed inventor to start a project with metric mm as standard unit.... why it comes out to be inches ?

---

The units of the assembly are separate from the units of the parts.  They are actually separate files (another key difference between the way Inventor works versus AutoCAD).  So you have to also set each part as millimeter, by clicking the button to the right of the drop-down list and selecting the Standard (mm).ipt.

This may seem confusing at first to someone coming from AutoCAD, but it is a much better representation of real-world objects than AutoCAD.  As an example, I normally work in inches (or foot-inch architectural dimensions).  But sometimes I have a component that is metric, for example a bearing.  I can make that one bearing part from a metric template, and make everything else from inch templates.  I can then model everything in the system without doing a single unit conversion.

As a side note, if you have a part that is primarily one unit, but have a particular dimension that needs to be a different unit, you can do that by just changing the units when you enter the dimension value.  For example, I stated already that at my company we typically use inches.  However, we sometimes are matching up to European (mainly German) equipment which will have bolt patterns or other interfaces that are designed in millimeters.  Rather than converting the units, I just enter the value I really want, including the unit identifier, such as " 100 mm ".  The part file is in inches, the assembly it is used in was probably in inches also, but that one specific dimension can be metric.

To contrast this with AutoCAD - AutoCAD has no real understanding of units in the first place.  It is all a matter of scaling, and you as the user defining that "1 unit" in the drawing is 1 mm, 1 inch, 1 foot, etc.  As an example, in an AutoCAD file with units set to millimeters, draw a line 24 mm long.  Then use (create one if you don't have it) a dimension style that uses "Architectural" units, and dimension that line.  AutoCAD will tell you that the line is 2 feet long!  This is because it doesn't actually know what millimeters, feet, or inches are - it just knows to divide by 12.

[Curtis_Waguespack]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I think i missed out this msg of yours. u said previously i can use this drop down to choose different ipt template..

---

Hi andrew_ysk,

Use the button I circled in the previous image, not the drop down. The button looks like a small white sheet of paper. That button will open a dialog box that will allow you to choose any of your templates.

The options that SBix26 shows will allows your defaults to be metric, so that might help, and make the button unnecessary in the future. I looked for that setting yesterday, but could not remember where it was, and thought I was not remembering correctly when I didn't find it.

---

andrew_ysk wrote:

where should i be expecting your video ? are you posting it in this exact thread or youtube ?

i won't want to miss your video.. waiting for it.

---

 I'll post the video right here later today.

I hope this helps.
Best of luck to you in all of your Inventor pursuits,
Curtis
http://inventortrenches.blogspot.com

[Curtis_Waguespack]

Hi andrew_ysk,

Here are some quick videos. This shows a multi-body approach, which is not really top down, not really bottom up, but a bit of both.

The general workflow is to create the "parts" as separate solid bodies all in one part file. Then use the Make Components tool to write them out as individual part files and place and ground them in an assembly.

• You can toggle each solid on and off as needed.
• My example is in inches, and does not follow your design, but just serves as an example.
• The key to this approach (and using Inventor in general) is to keep your sketches simple.
• Keep in mind that this approach is a bit more advanced, and we wouldn't typically want beginners to start off using a multi body approach, but it seems the best fit for your project, and your experience with AutoCAD solid modeling.
• Don't forget to click the New Solid button for each extrusion that you want to be a separate solid body. If you do though, you can edit that extrusion feature and make it a new solid.

Post back if you have questions.

I hope this helps.
Best of luck to you in all of your Inventor pursuits,
Curtis
http://inventortrenches.blogspot.com

[Anonymous]

Hii,

Curtis ,

unfortunately, during the 3d assembly process in my iam, i somehow ungrounded my base object and rotated it .. and worst, i saved it .. hence my bedframe is not aligned properly on axis. it doesn't look good and annoying.  

since this happened, then i take this opportunity to learn from it. i don't want to create a new similar (which will be a lot faster i guess).

i attached my files to make thing easier to show.

i only attached relevant file here, the rest of the ipt i just leave them out. it shld still functions.

thanks

andrew

[Anonymous]

and also the ucs icon on the right side.. that was because i was trying to use ucs icon to salvage the position of the bedframe.

how to remove the ucs icon thing on the right side (the one that i added it)

thx

[TheCADWhisperer]

Apply Mate-Flush constraints between the XY, XZ and YZ planes of the assembly and highbedstructure.

View tab>Unselect Center of Gravity.

What happened to your dimensions in Sketch1 of highbedstructure?

Also, you are missing several Vertical, Horizontal and/or Perpendicular constraints that Inventor should have placed for you automatically?

[Anonymous]

😞 i deleted the constraints...  i thought it will not harm anything, i just assemble it..  my fault.

[Anonymous]

i think i messed up the ipt.. haha

i deleted the extrusion but kept the sketch. how when i try to extrude the sketch back, it prompt : no visible, un adaptive sketch..

why shld my bed frame sketch be adaptive ? i don't need to be adaptive, because it is not going to be change..

any more salvation for my ipt ? it seems like the more i play with it, the deeper i sunk .. oh boy.

andrew

[Anonymous]

hii CADwisper

I didn't manage to apply your technique because it no longer let me extrude my sketch... 

[Curtis_Waguespack]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

i think i messed up the ipt.. haha

i deleted the extrusion but kept the sketch. how when i try to extrude the sketch back, it prompt : no visible, un adaptive sketch..

why shld my bed frame sketch be adaptive ? i don't need to be adaptive, because it is not going to be change..

any more salvation for my ipt ? it seems like the more i play with it, the deeper i sunk .. oh boy. 

andrew

---

Hi andrew_ysk,

In this case I think you are editing the assembly not the part, and there is not sketch at the assembly, so that is what the message is telling you. The part about adaptive is just a "red herring".

As for salvation for your ipt, is this something you started using the Multi-body work flow I showed in the videos? It doesn't look like it. I would start over.

You want simple sketches. I would not expect to see a sketch containing much more than a simple rectangle for you what you are doing. The sketches should be fully dimensioned and constrained, as discussed here:

http://inventortrenches.blogspot.com/2011/03/inventor-101-simple-fully-constrained.html

I hope this helps.
Best of luck to you in all of your Inventor pursuits,
Curtis
http://inventortrenches.blogspot.com