Is this normal?

[janelson33]

I'm trying to recreate our wind tunnel flow conditioner in CAD and having problems.

Why is the software so unhappy with patterns like this?

Why is my computer barely being used, yet the software performance SUCKS?

Why can I not delete my Extrusion1 reliably?

Why does Crtl+Z work 10X faster than the forward editing of my patterns?

[Anonymous]

Patterns of big patterns are bad news.

I got tired of waiting and killed Inventor.

If you just use one pattern I think you will find the performance is much better.

Not sure what you were doing with the assembly feature but you might try the pattern in attached file and see if it performs any better.

[WHolzwarth]

That's looking strange to me. Though EOP is above the pattern, pattern is displayed.

Alternatively, moving EOP down seems not possible. Deleting the pattern seems to be a time-consuming task - if possible at all

[Anonymous]

Extrusion1 is an assembly feature, this is normal display for an assembly with assembly features.

[philip1009]

It looks like you're just wanting a pattern of tubes based on height and width.  You can set up Height and Width in user parameters and then use some equations to determine the quantity of tubes in either direction instead of using an extrusion to cut out the ones you don't want.  It'll also be better if you put both pattern directions in one pattern function instead of doing a pattern of patterns, that layering will kill Inventor, the struggle also come from the amount of circular geometry that Inventor has to calculate as you go.  I've had trouble with large patterns of hundreds of holes in sheet metal parts, usually we'd relegate those large patterns to Autocad for finishing large hole patterns on sheet metal flats.

[Anonymous]

Patterning an element in an assembly is a simple matter of repeating an item somewhere in space. In assembly it doesn't matter if one element is inside another. It's an entirely different situation when patterning features. Each time the feature is repeated it has to be determined what the previous situation was in order to check if the next operation is possible and what the result is. This is true for any CAD, although there are ways to solve this smarter or less smart.

[johnsonshiue]

Hi! This is unfortunately a limitation right now. Assembly features are not the most performant workflows in Inventor. The issue is that Inventor needs to aggregate the participating components from the component pattern as bodies and then perform the cut operation between the tool and the bodies. The operations are not as efficient as in a part.

It looks like the objective here is to exclude certain members or occurrences from the pattern components, right? Using an iLogic rule to change visibility may be faster.

Many thanks!