Model State - Inventor 2022

[admaiora]

No question this time... Just wow!

So many things unlocked with Model States!

Thanks @ChrisMitchell01 and to the dev team.

Great stuff!

[johan.degreef]

If model states are used for simplification. Let's say 3 states:

- state A: full detail

- state B: no holes

- state C: detail (only box or cilinder)

That part file will heve all 3 states in itself, so filesize will be a cumul of state A, B and C, right?

So iy will lead to bigger partfiles. Does that come in handy performance wise? 

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Johan,

In terms of performance, the more model states you have within a file, the more RAM will be consumed. It is a little bit like you have multiple files opened. As long as you have enough RAM, it should not impact performance. Model states do make the files bigger.

Many thanks!

[admaiora]

Is it possible to math a colour to a Model State too in some way?

Thanks!

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Matteo,

I believe you would like to link Design View Rep to Model State. We have heard the request before but we don't have a good solution. It should be doable technically.

Many thanks!

[admaiora]

Thanks!

Just another question.

What about positional rep?

I see no reason for that, you can obtain pos rep with Model States too!

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Matteo,

Yes, it makes sense. What PosRep is doing could be done in Model State and more. However, the truth is they are different and they were designed differently deliberately.

Think of PosRep as a way to override position of given components, unrelated to geometry. Model State is more versatile. Almost (not all) everything surrounding a component instance can be "configured" (from property to geometry). Anything that can be listed on a table has potential being included in a Model State.

We have heard requirements to consolidate these "configuring" workflows. I fully understand the rationale. But, it is easier said than done. First, assuming Model State becomes the Uber-powerful configurator, combining PosRep, View Rep, the biggest challenge will be migration. Also, limit the impact to existing drawings.

Second, though Model State opens up many possibilities, I personally do not believe it is for everybody, and not everybody needs to use it. For users who don't need it, PosRep and Design View Rep may come in handy.

Lastly, the current Model State still lacks some workflows available in other reps. For example, the ability to control Flexible status, create Overlay views, override instance position offset, and configure appearance. So, Model State isn't able to replace other reps yet.

Many thanks!

[admaiora]

Thank you @johnsonshiue !!

---

@johnsonshiue wrote:

But, it is easier said than done.

---

Yeah...you are right. Users can't fully image all behind the scenes!

[CGComer8YEQB]

I don't mean to hijack this thread but I have a question concerning model states.

I've been working with this for a couple of days now, and Model States doesn't seem to respect Appearance overrides on a per State basis. I was hoping to use this functionality for this purpose as we have part numbers for the machined part (MPXXX) and a part number for conversion coat (MPXXX/C2), plating, or painting. Does this mean the Model States also won't allow material changes on a per-state basis? It's not a deal-breaker if model states aren't intended to have different materials, but not being able to represent an Appearance (with accompanying part number) means that we have to continue to have separate models and drawings for base parts and plated parts.

On a side note, this is important to me as I try to represent parts in our drawings as accurately as possible for our operators, as few have any training outside of high school and wouldn't know what chromate conversion coat aluminum looks like versus anodized aluminum. I try to help them as much as I can via the drawings.

[RajSchmidt]

What I found is that appearances can’t be overridden in Model States. You can, however, change the actual material. So you probably will have to define two different materials (e.g. “Steel blank” and “Steel coated”) with their respective appearances.
Makes the BOM clearer as well.

[CGComer8YEQB]

I'll have to try that. I tried changing the material Appearance and when I discovered that change was universal across all Model States I assumed that Materials would be as well. Thanks. 

I wonder how difficult it would be to implement state-specific Appearances for the development team?

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Folks,

It is true that Model States can configure anything (almost) on the model except the appearance. Yes, using different material style per model state is a way around it. Another way is sort of creating a Design View per Model State. Then automate the Design View activation by a simple iLogic rule. So that the two are lock stepped.

Many thanks!

[c_stulz]

Hello,

when I have more than one modelstate in IAM and I set one part of an pattern to "REFERENCE" all parts in the pattern change to reference. Allthough when I go back for one part to normal all parts in pattern go back to normal.
I think this is a buck. Isn't it?
When I delete all modelstates it works normal as it worked in the past and I can set every part itselve in the pattern to reference ore normal.

[RajSchmidt]

Hi @c_stulz,

it’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

It depends, where you have set the “Reference”. If you set it on a single instance of a component, i.e. in the assembly browser, the flag is stored in the assembly. You can control it with a State.

If you set it in the BOM table you will actually change the document’s properties. So it will be the same in every State. (This also applies to the Phantom setting.)

Regards

[c_stulz]

Hi,

thanks for your reply.

I know the different between referens for instance in assembly an referenc-setting in document (allthough awailible in BOM).

But here I do the same when i have only the "Master" state or I have multiple states.

Example:

- I start a new assembly and place a part

- I make a pattern with the part may be 3 times every 100mm (the BOM shows 3 parts)

- I change one part of these pattern to "Reference" (the BOM shows 2 parts)

- I create a new "Model State"

- I activate Master Model-State again (the BOM shows 2 parts) (so far it is OK)

- I change a second part of the pattern to "Reference" (the BOM shows 0 parts)
   every part of the pattern changes to "Reference"

- I change one part of the pattern to "Normal" (the BOM shows 3 parts)
   every part of the pattern changes to "Normal"

So I can't beleve that is a feature or I can't see the benefit of it

[RajSchmidt]

Hm, I haven't tested that yet. Maybe it is because of the pattern? Have you checked what happens if you place the parts individually?

[c_stulz]

Yes I tested it allthoug with individual placed parts. There is  everything ok.

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Christoph,

I think there is a bit confusion here. I believe you change the BOM property to Reference within BOM table, right? That change actually alters the document setting in the ipt file. It applies to the default BOM property for the given ipt file (across all Model States). If you just want to change the BOM property for one instance of the part, you need to right-click on the instance -> BOM Structure -> Reference (or Default, from Doc Setting). This change will be captured in the Model State.

Does it make more sense now? If not, please share the files here. I am more than happy to take a look and explain the behavior better.

Many thanks!

[c_stulz]

Hello johnsonshiu,

thanks for your reply.

But I thought I explaned it clearly, that I DID NOT change the BOM property in IPT.

In both times I ONLY changed ONE exemplar of the pattern.

[c_stulz]

Here is an easy example.

Open the Cubes.iam (attached ZIP) and try to change (only one) exemplar of the pattern with 6 cubes.
Every of the examplares will change to referenz (ore back).

But the 3 cubes out of the pattern will not change.

So if all parts are "Normal" you have 9 cubes in BOM.

After setting One Cube of the pattern to reference you will have 3 cubes in BOM. Every cube of pattern has changed.

If you delete then the modelstate, all will work fine again.

[RajSchmidt]

@c_stulz:

Agreed, it works exactly as you describe. I even counter-checked with version 2021.

In 2022 the Master Rep works the same as in 2021 (and as one would expect.) Any other rep though acts …. strange.

You should put that to the ADESK.

Regards