In drawing, replace .ipt with .iam

[NigelHay]

I have a situation where I have several drawings where the part needs to have a threaded stud attached during manufacture. I've changed the part to suit & created a .iam so that I can add the stud to the part. What I want to do now is update the part drawing so that it shows the part with the stud installed. When I open the drawing & go to 'Manage- Replace Model reference' it only allows me to select .ipt not .iam. Is there any way I can force the drawing to allow me to replace the .ipt with .iam. If not, I will have to delete the .ipt & completely redraw using the .iam.

[CCarreiras]

Hi!

You can create a simplification part from the Assembly.

That simplification part will be an ipt.

I don't know if it is the best option for that... but it's an option...

[Frederick_Law]

Similar problem here.

I use the part drawing and add a view with the stud assembly to show and balloon the stud/pem.

I don't need a different assembly part number.

I can keep them the same.

[johnsonshiue]

Hi! This is a limitation. The request has been brought up from time to time. But, we just don't have a good solution. The issue here is the the drawing view objects are source document type specific (iam, ipn, and ipt). Swapping source document type will invalidate most of the annotation association. It is as if the views are recreated.

Many thanks!

[cadman777]

Johnson, this is an issue that has foiled me many times over the years. Why can't the developers just give us that option and let us manually re-attach all the dimensions and annotations in the drawing view? Is it b/c all the dimensions and annotations will disappear (delete) from the drawing view when the type of part changes as a substitute, like it does when a completely different part is swapped for that particular view? If so, then why can't they fix that limitation too? These are the types of things that we need that should have been addressed a decade ago, b/c they are production stoppers. These are the types of things that keep Inventor stuck as a mediocre mid-range modeler, when it used to be a show-stopper (b/c we all were working in 2d when it first showed up on the scene, and using it back then made a big difference in productivity).

[NigelHay]

Johnson, I can understand that but it would still be easier for me to reattach or recreate some dimensions rather than having to start from scratch. Why can't I have that option?

[NigelHay]

I'll give that a try.

[NigelHay]

That worked OK, thanks for the suggestion. I got in a bit of a mess for a while with cyclic dependencies but that was probably down to me not thinking ahead about file names.

[cadman777]

I do the same when I download a STEP file and use it in an assembly. That way if the part has to change during the design process, I just swap the STEP file and the change does only minor damage to my assembly and drawings. I also create driven dimensions on sketches to capture the parts critical feature sizes (like holes and base thickness, etc.) so I can use those Parameters to drive dimensions in other parts or for locating constrained parts in an assembly. That's the most efficient way I found to use non-parametric part.

[johnsonshiue]

Hi! Let me use an analogy. Though they are both drawing views, their relationship is as close as apples and oranges. The objects, the properties, and the methods associated with the two are very different. There is no workflow here unfortunately. I am not disputing the legitimacy of the request. It is just there is serious technical difficulty.

Many thanks!

[3D4Play]

Use a different workflow: You have to 2-step it, through the .ipt to an .iam. Add the extra part into the parent assembly, then demote the multiple parts to a subassembly. The constraints will (should) hold...yes?

[cadman777]

So Johnson, basically you're telling us that Inventor will never have the ability to go beyond a mediocre mid-range parametric solids modeler b/c it's not designed to be one. That gets into the whole world of the politics of the money involved over the past decade of product underdevelopment...