Pattern Component with Existing Pattern

[Anonymous]

Hi, I am having issues creating what i beleive is called an associative pattern.

In the assembly environment I have placed two components, one is a large part file with an existing hole pattern (rectangular). The other is a smaller assembly composed of three small parts. 

The small assembly is supposed to line up with each hole on the large part, so i want to take that assembly and pattern it using the already existing hole pattern on the large part. Please see the picture below.

For some reason everytime i go to use the Associative Pattern function within the assemblies rectangular patter feature, It will not let me select the exisitng hole pattern on the large part. 

Could someone PLEASE help me figure out what I am doing wrong. Please note I am fairly new to Inventor.

Thanks

Sandro

[Anonymous · Accepted solution]

Go to Aprroximately 8:50

[Anonymous]

Wimann, Thanks!

I guess all I was doing wrong was that it wasnt it "Model View" When i was trying to select the existing pattern. 

Also, the Exisiting Pattern had to already exist on the part itself. For some reason it couldnt be done on the part within the assembly envitronment. 

It did exactly what i asked in this thread, but not exactly what i need because i need the FIRST and LAST occurance of the pattern to be suppressed but it doesn't seem like there is a way to do that while keeping the patterns adaptive. when i increase the lenght of the part (therefore adding more occurances) the occurance that once was "last" is somewhere in the middle but it still suppressed. 

Ill start a new thread about this sometime..

Thanks again!

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Wimann, Thanks!

I guess all I was doing wrong was that it wasnt it "Model View" When i was trying to select the existing pattern....

---

That part gets everybody. 😉

As far as suppressing the first and last occurrence, you're right. This, if it can be done, is a difficult thing to do in just the pattern. I'm not sure that I've ever found a way. What I would do instead is start the pattern "late" (at the second occurrence) and end the pattern "early" (at the second to last occurrence). Would that accomplish what you're looking for?

[Anonymous]

Will,

That may accomplish what I am looking for but at the moment all I know how to do is start the pattern late. This however makes a couple occurrences off in mid air. What I understand of ending the pattern late is to simply suppress the unneeded occurrences. This however is a problem because when I increase the height of the assembly, there will be a couple suppressed occurrences right in the middle of the assembly.

At this point in time I am starting the pattern late and leaving it like that unfortunately. When I resize the assembly I will just have to remember to suppress the unneeded occurrences wherever they are.

Thanks for your help regardless 🙂

[Anonymous]

Sandro,

Starting the pattern late and ending it early should simply be a matter of adding an extra sketchpoint (or two) and making your equations in your pattern reflect the un-needed occurrences.

This would probably be a good time to ask if you're able to zip your files and attach them in your reply to this post. It will be challenging for me to convey with words what I think you would need to do but if I can open your part files, I can show you. However, if you can't, the simplest way I can put it would be to make the equations in your patterns reflect the concept that two of the occurrences do not exist.

[Anonymous]

Will,

I can not zip files. What I have done is constrain the component to the second occurrence in the pattern. When I choose to associate the component pattern with the hole pattern on the part, it starts the pattern where I have constrained the component, but then adds an extra occurrence in mid-air as well as the second last occurrence that I do not need.

If you know exactly how to do this I might be able to understand your explanation without having whatever visual you were intended on providing lol.

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

I'll throw something together. To clarify though, are you wanting to suppress the first and last because it's overlapping? In other words, are you wanting to achieve this:

o o o o 

o       o

o       o

o o o o 

(option 1)

or this:

x o o x

o       o

o       o

x o o x

(option 2)

[Anonymous]

Just from taking a stab at what I think you may have been going for...

see attached.

[Anonymous]

Will,

What I am looking for is a combination of both your options. The end result should have a hole layout like option 1, but the component I want to pattern along the vertical side should not be placed at the start or end like your option 2. I took a look at the part you attached and I think it actually might be exactly what I'm looking for. I haven't had much time to fully look at it and understand how the formulas that you used are working, but I will let you know as soon as I do.

Thanks again, this has been very helpful!

Sandro

[Anonymous]

I've attached a version that does precisely what you want it to do.

The trick is to place the holes nearest to the corners as their own stand alone features. Then place the first hole of each pattern at the appropriate spot between the corner holes. You then pattern that the appropriate number of times and place/pattern your object with relation to the inside holes.

My files will do a better job of explaining this than I can. You can check the equations there and see how they work. There may be more effective ways to get the result that is obtained by those equations but they were kind of thrown together and then a little guess and check made sure I got the right number of occcurences and spacing.

[Anonymous]

Will,

First, let me just tell you how much I appreciate your help. I am in awe every time you reply that someone is actually willing to help me.

Anyway, I looked at the part you attached and I think we are almost there. I looked at each rectangular pattern and the correct occurrences are left out (corners), which is perfect.

The only problem is the spacing. You have a consistent spacing of 2". The spacing of my hole layout is not a consistent number. How we space our holes is "the least amount of holes per side, without going over an 8" space between centres"

I believe this actually changes the formulas you used quite a bit but I could be wrong. Let me know what you think.

Thanks again!
Sandro

[Anonymous · Accepted solution]

No worries. I just happened to be the one who jumped into your thread.

I think what you're describing is still very possible. What I would do is first make the plate considerably bigger (comparable to your use) then change the formulas anywhere it says "2" to "8". OR, better yet (and I considered doing this but didn't), create a "MinSpacing" parameter and use that instead so that it is easier to manipulate (see attached).

But the concept and the strategy still works. You just have to size everything up. And since the plate is the limiting factor, you kind of want to size that up first to help avoid errors.

EDIT : So after having actually tried with my part file (in an attempt to get you a file), I found that there was a little more tweaking to be done to the equations. You'll see. I made a "MaxSpacing" parameter to control what you want the patterns maximum spacing is. The equations had to change ever so slightly because my original was based on a minimum spacing not a maximum. You'll see all that below though.

[Anonymous]

Will, 

Thank you so much for your help, I have finally figured out how to acheive exactly what I was looking for. I tried to attach a file of the formulas I used using the "pack and go" feature for the first time so im unsure if it will work. 

I used your basic formulas only tweaking them slightly. Check it out if you can and thanks again for all of your help!!

Sandro

[Anonymous]

Well I may have to mark this thread for later reference. Unfortunately, I'm not using IV 2016 yet so I'll have to wait until my company upgrades then I can open and check out your files.

The one I sent you should be nearly exactly what you were looking for besides the hole diameter and the edge clearance. Oh and I guess the fact that you're replicating the process in your own part file rather than using the one I sent you...

[Anonymous]

Will, 

Sorry im not sure how to make the drawing available for you to see other than this screenshot. As you can see I basically used your exact formulas with minor tweaking for my needs. Now when I go to constrain that small assembly to the hole pattern, it works perfectly!

 I hope this helps you understand what I did, 

Thanks again!

Sandro