Links between drawing views and models

[fridtjofZM5ME]

If you have a drawing view of an iAssembly member, and then later convert the iAssembly back to a normal assembly by deleting the iAssembly table in the model, is there a way to make the drawing views reflect the normal assembly and not outdated views of the iAssembly member they once reflected?

[NigelHay]

Have you tried, in the drawing view, Manage tab, - replace model reference?

[johnsonshiue]

Hi! Nigel is right. Your best bet is Replace Model Reference or resolve workflow. However, I would argue that iAssembly isn't the solution you are looking for to solve your problem.

You are trying to configure assemblies per specs. iPart/iAssembly were designed to create library components for reusing purpose. The documentation need for library components is very limited. Essentially, you could document one member and the rest will be represented by the author table.

The true configuration workflow in Inventor at the moment is iLogic. You can focus on configuring one variation using iLogic. Then you use iLogic Design Copy or Place iLogic Component workflow to spawn the variation. And, you can work on another variation. The drawback here is that you will get multiple sets of files and also they are not driven by a table.

Many thanks!

[fridtjofZM5ME]

Thanks for your replies!

@NigelHay  I will try the replace model reference, I didn't even know it existed.

@johnsonshiue I see your point. But let's consider my case here: I'm working in a company that manufacture fire and burglary resistent steel doors, of which both properties are required to be tested by an accredited test lab, and certified by a notified body. During product development several variations on the same concept (iAssembly) is made; different placement of parts, different components included/excluded, different sizes of components etc. This is then presented to my manager as a concept with the varying options, of which one is selected to work further on, most likely with modifications of some kind.

At the point of concept presentation, manufacturing drawings are made to be used for presentation purposes. If one option is approved as-is, the drawing will be passed on to production for the test specimen to be made, but in most cases one of the options is selected to be further developed while the rest is discarded. This eventually leads to the final prototype which is to be tested. At this point it would be very convenient to have a feasable way of simplifying the model and drawings by removing the now irrelevant options and as a result have less dependencies to maintain in the main assembly when modifying the selected option, while still not having to make the manufacturing drawings over again from scratch.

I strive to have everything as simple as possible (but not simpler), but yet utilize as much intelligent modeling as possible (and/or neccesary). I like to keep the concept in it's entirety all wrapped up in one neat little package with one idw, a main assembly, sub-assemblies as needed, re-using fittings and hardware (I use "place from Vault" a lot for these kinds of parts/assemblies, as I've made a library of sorts for this), and only model the parts that are unique to the concept.

I do like the concept of iLogic, allthough my current skill level in this is very limited, but for the concepts that I'm working on, the choice of one option (iAssembly member) from the selection (iAssembly) isn't neccesarily based on logic (in the sense of iLogic) in that the selection of the particular option is a concequence of something else within the realm of the model, but rather an arbitrary choice made by people above me, based on economy, ability to manufacture with current equipment etc. (The iLogic comes to its right when the prototype has passed testing, and I'm making a general design for the prototype that I then will use with Vaults "copy design" and only change some parameters in an Excel sheet to have the finished production drawings come out in the other end every time we get a custom order of the product.)

What is the recommended way of approaching this kind of, in lack of a better word, "multi-linear converging development"?

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Fridtjof,

Many thanks for sharing your detail process! I get better understanding now. But, I still don't think iPart/iAssembly would fit your need. Like I mentioned earlier, iPart/iAssembly were designed to create library components. Each member is a distinct file (ipt or iam), totally driven by the factory. If you edit the factory constantly, the members will need to be updated. If they are not updated, any reference to the members will be outdated. Think about it, if you have an iAssembly referencing a sub iAssembly and an iPart (in multiple levels). Any change to a factory can trigger cascading updates to many members at multiple levels. Things can get out of control fairly quickly.

iPart/iAssembly work best when they are clearly defined on the table and fully elaborated (saved in library folders).

iLogic allows you to drive parameters at different levels. You can easily drive part changes without the need to use iPart or derive or adaptive. You can simply change length value of a part n-level deep from the top-level assembly iLogic rule.

I encourage you look into iLogic. It is a very powerful tool and I think it will fit your need nicely.

Regarding "multi-linear converging development", I assume you are talking about collaborative design. It means multiple teams working on different portions of the assembly. Eventually, you need to merge all the changes to the components into the thing you are building. Inventor as a file-based CAD system, you need a PDM tool like Vault to manage the traffic. You cannot merge two files into one file. You have to decide which file is the one to keep based on the version.

Many thanks!

[fridtjofZM5ME]

@johnsonshiue It's not as much collaborative design as it's me creating absolutely everything. We're a small company with less than 30 employees, and I'm the only engineer.

By "multi-linear converging development" I meant exploring the path of several solutions to the same problem simultaneously, but eventually discard all the paths but the one chosen. I do realize that by designing my concept up to the point where all possible solutions have everything in common, and then copying this "shared design" as many times as needed for the number of alternatives I come up with, I could have entirely separate drawings and models for each design solution, which is far more robust with regards to dependencies and everything that can go wrong along with it. However, if I then later discover something that needs to be changed with the shared/commom design that I've used as a basis for everything, it suddenly stops being very convenient as I then have to make the change for every design solution of the concept that I've come up with.

Regarding iLogic in general; can you recommend any litterature on the subject? I'm thinking something like an educational textbook with excercises, angled towards beginners with no prior experience with writing code. "The complete idiot's introductional guide to iLogic" so to say.

[Mirtchii]

Hi ,

About your workflow, I think Johnson is right. 

You should use iLogic to control the parameters of your part.

Below is a link to a lesson from AU that I used when I started learning iLogic

It can help you learn iLogic basics quickly.

Hope this help

Mirt,

https://www.autodesk.com/autodesk-university/class/iLogic-Everyone-Five-AutodeskR-InventorR-iLogic-R...

[johnsonshiue]

Hi! For industrial mechanical design on Inventor, you are missing out a lot of power if you don't use iLogic. I am not an iLogic expert but I do see the value. It is amazing. We have customers building highly configurable warehouse with 50K components. And, the drawings can be created automatically.

Here is a good collection of beginner samples created by my good fried and Inventor Expert Elite, @S_May 

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-customization/collection-of-ilogic-models-for-beginners/td-p...

There are tons of iLogic videos or learning materials. You can google the terms to take a look.

Another way to learn it is by doing it. When you try to drive changes at lower levels from top-level assembly, it is almost impossible to do in iAssembly. But, you can do that easily using an iLogic rule at the top-level assembly. Also, you can pass around properties in multiple levels. Think about iLogic as a robot helping you do many things in Inventor without you having to do it manually.

You don't need to be a programmer to use it. Certainly, some programming background definitely helps flatten the learning curve.

Many thanks!