Inventor 2022 model states can not be used for skeleton modelling

[N-Roith]

I have a skeleton.ipt with sketches to drive parts (geometry and position) in an assembly. I want to use model states to select model states in the parts/skeleton (with derived component function). When you use derived component in a part, you cannot connect the model state of the part with the model state of the derived component (skeleton) I attached a simple example for a cylinder with 2 positions (open/close) . (Note: In general the skeleton will drive later different part sizes and LODs, so it is not possible to use constraints). Is there a workaround?

Thanks, Norman 

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Norman,

This is not a supported workflow in Model States. Sketch source cannot be configured on the table. I believe you still need to use iLogic Design Copy to spawn variations.

Many thanks!

[N-Roith]

Hi Johnson,

to get a complete running workflow I hope this function will be possible soon. We have a project where Inventor and Revit catalogs should be driven central with skeletons,

(BTW I realized that copy object allows to handle data from one ipt in another one with switching between model states)

thanks,

Norman

[johnsonshiue · Accepted solution]

Hi Norman,

I cannot promise when this requirement will be fulfilled. In the meantime, I believe you want to use iLogic Design Copy. You only need to focus on configuring one variation (iLogic rule helps drive parameters at any level). Then use iLogic Design Copy to spawn the variation and you can work on the next variation.

Many thanks!

[esaldana]

Big disappointment for me!,

Just moved to 2022 and I was so happy with the new model states feature, but how to use them when all my projects are skeleton model based,  Is this for stand alone parts?

Is there a way to take advantage of these two great tools? any ideas how to make this to work?

@N-Roith , please let me know if you find a solution to have this workflow, Appreciate, Thanks.

[N-Roith]

I just found partial workarounds.

When you have different sketches, I use sketch blocks in the skeleton and use then the different sketch blocks in different model states in the part to drive.

for parameters, a linked (not embedded) xls for the skeleton and the parts to drive helps.

[esaldana]

Thanks, N-Roith.
Interesting approach, I will certainly try it.

Please keep me posted,
Appreciate,

[johnsonshiue]

Hi! This is indeed an interesting approach. But, I have to reiterate that the ability to drive component geometry across levels in Model States has to be done by activating a Model State in a subcomponent. For example, a subassembly or a part has two Model States. The hosting assembly can access the subcomponent shape via the Model State.

Many thanks!

[esaldana]

Thanks for the feedback, Johnson
One aspect that is not clear not me, you can certainly help me with that:
before the model states i used to have a level of detail (LoD) called "ilogic" to perform operations suppressing components without error messages.
Are these previous iLogic limitations been fixed in the new "Master" on Model States ? and I don't have to do anything but just run the rules in the actual 'master' model state?
Or do I still have to create a 'Ilogic' Model State to take care of rules for suppression of components?
This is really where I'm still a little confused.

Thanks for your help,

Eric

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Eric,

In theory, everything should just work out-of-box. However, it still depends on the iLogic rule. Model States is quite different than LOD. One major difference is that LOD is a memory management tool. It does not alter the design of a model. LOD Suppress simply unloads the component file from the memory. The definition is the same across all LODs.

Model States is more like a mini file within a file. Each Model State can lead to geometric difference (based on the same recipe but different parameter values and feature suppression status). It is like iPart members wrapped in one part file.

If you have an example showing a legacy iLogic rule does not run on 2022, please share it with me directly johnson.shiue@autodesk.com. It could be a bug or the rule may needs to be modified a bit.

Many thanks!

[esaldana]

Thank you, Johnson.
Let me try different scenarios and as soon as I encounter any issues I'll certainly ask for your help,

Really appreciate,

Eric

[BDCollett]

---

@esaldana wrote:
Thank you, Johnson.
Let me try different scenarios and as soon as I encounter any issues I'll certainly ask for your help,

Really appreciate,

Eric

---

From my experience you should just be able to use the MASTER model state and the rule will work as before. I have had no problem with this so far. Of course it will depend on your rules.

The reason you needed a "iLogic" LOD in the past was due to suppression requiring it. This is no longer the case.

[esaldana]

Thank you BDCollett,
These are great news, that was probably my biggest concern,
I was kind of discovering that when I was applying old rules and no having error messages even while using the Master LOD, now I'm more confident.
I'll stick to the Master and learn more about model states to slowly incorporate them in my models.

really appreciate your input.

Eric