Hello all,
Thank you for your time. I have a question about a situation that shows up on every project we do and it constantly creates confusion. We create models and drawings for complex systems that involve everything from point clouds to part drawings and literally everything in between. Our common workflow is like this:
- We create sub-assemblies that represent all of the different disciplines and all of the "pre-fabricated" items in our overall design. Nothing we do can be shipped to the site in one piece, and it is often assembled on site by a different company (often that company isn't even ours, nor employed by ours, it is often employed by a general contractor or the owner themselves).
- a. Sometimes, entirely for ease of modeling and constraints, we create "unnecessary" sub-assemblies that are just for the ease of modeling. Think of a bolt, a washer, a lock-washer, and a nut, used in 58 connections in one piece of duct sub-assembly. We often put those in a "phantom" sub-assembly for ease of modeling patterns and constraints but not necessarily on every project.
- We create a "top-level" assembly drawing showing the entire project/assembly that is usually a MASSIVE file with all the elements present but almost nothing is shown clearly, it just shows everything in its final location with overall dimensions and references to project "control points" (like gridlines from an architectural/structural world or pre-established work-points for the entire project).
- We then attempt to show the field assembly crew the "steps" or "stages" for putting the entire project together. Like first showing them where to drill and place concrete anchor rods in the existing concrete, second, how to layout and place structural steel members (columns, beams, bracing, etc.), third, how to install the vertical circulation items (stairs, ladders, etc.), fourth, how/where to install mechanical items (pumps, ductwork, pre-fabricated mechanical piping spools, etc.), fifth, how to install and fasten the grating/floor-plate/walking surface, then sixth, how to place the work-safety items (guardrails, safety gates, etc.). The “order” for these items is often jumbled like, for example, when a large piece of equipment or ducting needs to be installed part-way through the structural steel being erected.
How do we structure our drawings so that we can represent the "field assembly steps" of the overall assembly? Because the model sometimes isn't structured according to the "steps" (think back to the phantom bolt sub-assemblies), and/or because things from one step (either later or previous to the current step) need to be shown (at least in reference) in the current or other steps, we seem to be left with only using View Representations to do this. Level of Details and suppression is the wrong tool because we're not trying to save memory/RAM in our computers, we're trying to document "steps". Positional Representations are something we often use to show kinematic layouts of the mechanical equipment, and sometimes the structure, but don't isolate steps. View Representations seem to be our only option. I am constantly running into two different error messages while trying to set these up (the "The component status is associatively set by the Design View Representation Default in subassembly: blah, blah, blah..." or the "Locking a design view representation removes all associative links...") and I often get frustrated and quit (then go back to controlling drawing visibility by "disassociating" view representations in the drawing views and then turning off the individual components in each drawing view, which is incredibly cumbersome).
I know this is getting long but those who have made it this far, please hang on, I'm almost there... If I want to show a drawing view of just the ductwork, and a couple of framing members and gridlines showing their supports and overall location, how do I do this with View Representations when the existing site items created by the point cloud shown as reference geometry are done by one person, in one sub-assembly, the ductwork, done by two people in another sub-assembly, and the structure, done by two OTHER people in a different sub-assembly, both contain hundreds of other sub-assemblies, and thousands of different parts? Because, in all honesty, creating a "top-level" view rep in the overall, top-level, assembly, and then having to go through every single sub-assembly on the WHOLE project (again think about all the "discipline" sub-assemblies that usually start with the point-cloud/existing items, then a lot of those have Frame Generator sub-assemblies, some of those have Tube and Pipe sub-assemblies, then both of those often have demoted sub-assemblies inside of those, and then those often have pre-fabrication sub-assemblies representing what's delivered to the site, and then some of those have those **** phantom sub-assemblies containing all the fastener parts), just setting up a view of the ductwork could take me three days. And, then when I create those view-reps in FG sub-assemblies and such, I often get the errors because I've misunderstood something or misnamed/miscreated a view rep in one of the HUNDREDS of sub-assemblies. I cannot just click "Remove Associativity" in every error/dialog box because it causes everyone else's sub-assembly view-reps to fall apart.
What is the tool we are supposed to be using to do this? Are we supposed to be using something else other than View Representations? Because in the “old days” using AutoCAD it was a bunch of blocks, external references, and a TON of mistakes. Using Inventor for all of this is probably a mistake, but overall has cut our “error-rate” to a seriously TINY FRACTION of what it used to be and ENTIRELY removed the process of back-charges and the need for E&O insurance. For an example of a really small project like I'm talking about, see the picture below. This tiny project has a field-scan/point-cloud with existing silos/bucket-elevator/conveyors/structure and such, new structural elements, new mechanical elements, new ductwork, new vertical circulation, and new bar-grating/fall-safety elements. Our projects are often MUCH larger than something like this. For the two of you on this forum who made it all the way to here... thank you for going this far. I understand if you don't have a solution to offer. Perhaps just venting/typing this will allow me to get some sleep tonight.
