iAssembly with content center parts

[Anonymous]

When using iParts in an iAssembly, we have the option of using a "table replace" column for each iPart in the iAssembly table. However, there is no such option for content center parts (which are a lot like iParts). So what I have been doing is converting our custom content center parts to iParts as needed (which takes some time and is counterproductive... i.e. doing double the work!) Is having the option of a "table replace" for content center parts too much to ask? Or are iAssemblies going the way of the Dodo?

[Sofia.Xanthopoulou · Accepted solution]

Indeed, @Anonymous, the "table replace" in iAssemblies are supposed to work with iPart members. 

CC standard parts may be a lot like iPart but they are not! 

I have checked this out with our development. There are two possiblilities

• make all CC standards parts as iParts
• Allow "table replace" to use CC parts

Both would be major changes which cannot be accomplished at the moment. 

Please feel free to use our Inventor Idea Station to make a statement. 

Thank you

-----------------------------
Please accept as solution if my post fully resolves your issue, or reply with additional details if the problem persists.

[Sofia.Xanthopoulou]

Hi @Anonymous,

I know this is not the answer you were hoping for, but please be so kind and mark my previous post as accepted solution, because these are the present fact. By marking an accepted solution, all readers can benefit from your experience.

Thanks a lot

[ViperRT10]

I just thought I would check back.  Has there been any changes made on this by ADesk yet?  My employer uses tons of iParts and iAssemblies, moving some/many of the iParts into CC would make huge economical and ease of use sense for us.  This many iParts and iAssemblies makes for messy upgrades, to give a rough idea we are in the neighborhood of 750,000 child files.

[Mark.Lancaster]

@ViperRT10 

Nothing has changed in that aspect but you could use iLogic to do this if you wanted to go the CC route.

[ViperRT10]

I was aware of that, I'm not sure mgmt would be a big fan of the time it would take to go that route.  We have one iAssembly constructed with iLogic we did as a test and the results haven't been strong enough to convince anyone of iLogic being a better solution.

[johnsonshiue]

Hi! I don't know exactly what you are designing. But. just based on the description, I don't believe iAssembly is the best solution for you. iAssembly is good for generating library content. Small to mid-sized assemblies will be reused in other assemblies. Their definition should be totally captured on the author table. There should not be any inter-component dependency or external dependency. iAssembly members should be standalone not subject to other changes except changes from the table.

I do believe you want to look into iLogic. You can create one assembly as the seed assembly. Next, you use iLogic rule to drive changes (parameter, component, and so on) from the top-level assembly. When you get one desirable variation, save all the files. Then use iLogic Design Copy to preserve the variation.

Many thanks!

[bryantsonnier]

Switch to Solid Works.

Please mark my answer as solution as other's can benefit from your case.

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Bryan,

I am not sure I understand your point. If SWX was the answer, INV would not have existed. If you like using SWX, please go to SWX forum and help them make it better. This is INV forum and we are focusing on making it better.

I think I know your sentiment. Basically, you are unhappy with the fact that INV lacks the Configuration workflows available in SWX. Certainly, I wish INV had the similar workflows before. We are indeed working on projects to address the gap. If you are interested, please sign up Inventor Beta (https://bit.ly/InventorBeta) and participate in Alternative Representations related discussion.

Many thanks!

[bryantsonnier]

Admittedly my post was a bit salty. Also i was a long time SWX user and the company i am now working with only had inventor so it has been a long hard road of banging my head against the wall trying to find functionality similar to the workflows i was used to.  One of my bigger problems with inventor is the workflow.  I am a design engineer that focuses on valve design.  The Inventor workflow is not friendly to multiple iterations and my design folder that is clogged with folders and files created from the factory/member ipart/iassembly workflow.  It may be the case that you guys are working to bridge the gap but what everyone sees when they read these boards is the following:

Customer:  I have a problem. My company workflow is like "X" and i can't find the functionality to support it.

Inventor:  Well you could do these 10 steps to work around a way to get the functionality you are looking for but really you should conform your workflow to the way our program works.  Oh by the way, you should probably learn to code visual basic if you want to do half the things you want to do.  If you really want this functionality, submit it to the ideas forum.

Customer: I did. 5 years ago and while it had a lot of votes it was taken off the forum.

Inventor:  Requests more than 4 years old are automatically removed.

The conversation should be more along the lines of this:

Customer:  I have a problem. My company workflow is like "X" and i can't find the functionality to support it.

Inventor:  Wow, i can see how that workflow would benefit your company and your processes.  We currently don't support it but i am submitting a features request ticket to support that.  In the meantime you can do these 10 steps to get your system to work.

Customer later:  i see you still haven't implemented the feature but your feature request board shows this feature as pending.
Inventor:  We apologize for the delay in implementation but there was actually a lot code to sift through for this but you weren't alone in your workflow process so we believe it will be a benefit to more companies than just yours.  We are on schedule to release a patch later this year which incorporates that feature.

I'm not saying this is how it actually is, but this is the perception.  That if you don't know how to code a solution yourself in visual basic then you're just doing it wrong and we can't help you. By the way i like the second half of your reply but the sentiment people feel is the first half of your reply.  I believe the issue is a customer service perception issue.

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Bryan,

I hear you. No worries about the comments! If you like SWX so much, you should find a job using it. There is nothing wrong with that. SWX is a very good CAD tool. So is INV. On the forum, we have quite a few experts know INV and SWX both very well. They can provide targeted solutions to your issues.

Regarding your sentiment, I have to say it is over-generalized. Certainly, there are some areas SWX offers better workflows than INV. There are also many areas INV offers better solutions. I am not trying to argue with you or convince you that INV is superior.

Regarding iLogic, it is a unique workflow in INV. It does not require you to become a VB.Net programmer in order to use it. It can get really involved for sure but for simple tasks, it is fairly easy to use. For example, SWX offers the ability to reference subcomponent parameters from top-level assembly. INV iLogic can do that easily too. Also, you can establish logical relationship among the parameters. It is much more powerful than Parameters table.

Regarding Configuration, I personally believe there is miscommunication and misunderstanding. iPart/iAssembly are designed to create reusable library components. They need to be clearly specified and well-defined on the author table. They should not have inter-component dependency. LOD was designed to overcome 32-bit Windows memory limit. It is also not a Configuration tool. Design View Rep helps users manage component visibility and appearance but the shape cannot be changed.

You are more than welcome to post questions here (some might have been discussed). But, your case might not be the same as existing ones. If you don't post it, you will not get the solution. We have experts around the world helping answer the questions around the clock.

Many thanks!

[bryantsonnier]

I have posted in the past or at least found issue exactly matching mine. Thank you for the quick and detailed reply.  I think with more posters like you inventor may have a future yet.

[mdejongePLLJN]

Is there a solution for this problem yet?

[bryantsonnier]

not to my knowledge

[johnsonshiue]

Hi! Indeed, Content Center still does not support assemblies. It is for part only. Regarding prior discussion about SWX Configuration, Inventor 2022 and later support Model States, which wrap multiple geometric states within one document.

Many thanks!