promoting your mesh with Shape Generator

[Anonymous]

I really like the Shape Generator tool in Inventor. It seems like it is further along in development than AGD.

After promoting your mesh to your part, this video talks about using the "Project Geometry" command to do booleans and cuts to incorporate the mesh. Is that the generally accepted way of designing your part around the mesh or are there quicker methods?

https://youtu.be/GGOK-gqtCqM

https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/inventor-products/learn-explore/caas/simplecontent/content/sh...

[johnsonshiue]

Hi! Inventor Shape Generator is basically using NASTRAN Topology Optimization. It gives users some clue in where load may not be critical and mass can be reduced in given conditions. However, I personally do not think you should take the mesh result and try to turn it into a part. It should be an iterative process. You modify the part based on the result logically. Then you run FEA using the same load conditions to see if the reduction is acceptable. If not, you will need to change your design and run Shape Gen and FEA respectively.

Regarding Autodesk Generative Design, I was told it does more than Topololgy Optimization. If you are interested, please go to https://www.autodesk.com/solutions/generative-design for more information.

Many thanks!

[I_Forge_KC]

I think it depends on your geometric domain. What I mean is that if you're working with a flat plate, then the sketches are the way to go. If you're working with a 3D form, then there are likely some better options for you.

When I'm working with complex organic-ish 3D shapes, I'll often use the Form environment to create TSplines that are a close approximation to the generated mesh and then boolean them together with primitives (e.g. cylinders) that work as my interface geometry (e.g. bolt bosses). Another technique is to use a series of offset planes and the mesh-enabler to craft spline-based cross-sections that can then be lofted. In both cases, you're very hands-on with the geometry creation and as @johnsonshiue said, this is pretty iterative since the final form needs to be re-validated with FEA.

Autodesk Generative Design automates much of this process with its auto-SAT creation. While it's still somewhat early in its development, there is a ton of effort going into making that process even better. Where Generative Design starts to outpace Shape Generator is when you start exploring the entire design space and not a singular seed. When you have to create tens (or more) of these new forms at a time, the auto-creation is a life-saver. The SAT creation allows us to validate generated shapes quickly by tossing it right back into Nastran to confirm what Generative Design suggests is true. In the end, I typically still model our end solution in a parametric way - regardless of whether the form was synthesized by Generative Design or optimized by Shape Generator.