Part hole adaptability problem

[MTheDesigner]

I am trying to make an adaptable railing. I want to control the height of the rails using a constraint and control the length of the rails based of the sketch of the floor. But i keep getting constraint errors when i try to constrain the center hole on the blue post to the center hole of the red rail. I can't see any reason that this would fail. Does anyone know what is going on?

I know that i can do this by using math and parameter links to make this all work. but it gets tedious and difficult. it would be way easier to give it a couple of numbers and relationships and tell inventor to figure it out.

[johnsonshiue · Accepted solution]

Hi! I took a quick look. In theory, it should work. However, when solving assembly constraints, there isn't any particular order. As long as the solution can fulfill the given constraints, the result is valid.

In this case, Part3:1 and Part4:1 are both adaptive. Part3:2 isn't adaptive because it is implicitly adaptive (the same definition as Part3:1). You may try two options to make it work.

1. Ground Part3:2 and proceed with constraining the holes.

or 2. Turn off adaptivity of Part3:1 and proceed with the constraint.

Many thanks!

[MTheDesigner]

I see. It seems that I misunderstood the function of part adaptability. I was hoping that it could do a lot of the math for me when making parameter driven assemblies. I can still go in and figure out the equations for myself, but it would be a lot easier if I could let the program sort out the trig and just give it parameter inputs.

[MTheDesigner]

Wait, actually why isn't there an order to solving? Wouldn't that let you make a kind of compound adaptability if you could get it to solve in a particular order and have some parts be parents and drivers to others?

[johnsonshiue]

Hi! In assembly constraint solve, there isn't a particular order. Sometimes it could be creation biased but it is not always the case. As long as the solution can satisfy given active constraints, it is valid. This is why when there are two free components, you don't know which one will move when you apply a constraint.

In terms of driving parameters at all levels, another workflow you may consider is to use assembly-level iLogic rule. In this way, you get access to all parameters at all components within the assembly. You can control which parameter to change first if the change order is important.

Many thanks!

[MTheDesigner]

Hey @johnsonshiue, I want to clarify this workflow you are talking about. Are you saying that I can use iLogic to toggle part adaptability one at a time in a particular order to have inventor figure out all of the math in a series?

[johnsonshiue]

Hi! Yes, that is an option. You can control which part is adaptive at any given moment. But, with the ability to drive all parameters in all parts, there is no need to use Adaptive.

Many thanks!