"Bolted Connection" Workflow alternative -- is it common/supported by Autodesk?

[MechMachineMan]

The other day in making a model I came across the functionality of inserted parts into a assembly in a positional rep; essentially allowing the ability for different configurations.

This leads me to wonder whether this would be a good workflow for bolted connections -- Every bolted connection that uses the same size and number of hardware components becomes it's own PHANTOM assembly, and every different usage of this set-up that has a different component spacing is used as a positional rep.

That way, when inserting the new BC's, you simply have to select what positional rep (spacing) you want to use for the BC, and can inserting using a single insert constraint. If there were a new spacing you wanted to use, you would just have to open the BC and add it as a new positional rep, then change it to that positional rep in the file. I would think you would also want to leave the master rep with the constraints suppressed/with free DOF's in case you ever wanted to turn it into a flexible assembly and drive it for that instance.

This leads me to wonder what things might bug up with it unexpectedly, or how it will affect the load time of the various files.

Can someone please share their insight/knowledge on the situation?

Sample assembly picture attached.

Thanks,

[MechMachineMan]

@johnsonshiue as I see you have been involved in the forums commenting on Cris's posts about flexibility, I was wondering if you had any input on this workflow?

[smokes2998]

Floating fasteners... Had to do it the suit a SAP erp system setup.

You would need to put a phantom body ( i.e the frame that connectors are mounted to) in the assembly shown.

This is to stop the top level model constraint manager going do-lally when dealing with unconstrained objects.

You can also ground the fasteners but the position of the fasteners won't up date if the top level model changes.

[mcgyvr]

I just use "flexible" for bolt kits that are reused in different assemblies where their placement differs.. 

I just leave enough degrees of freedom on the sub assembly to allow me to place/constrain as needed in the top level assembly..

I can't comment on pos reps/detailed issues with it because I don't think I've ever used/needed them so far.. 

[MechMachineMan]

It would be nice to be able to use that workflow... 

However, as @Cris-Ideas continually points out, and as I've discovered myself, flexible is very unstable and causes many, many issues. Especially when working with patterned components.

ie; http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-forum/flexibility-not-working-properly-in-inventor-bug-that-h...

Maybe Cris has some input on this workflow as well??

[mcgyvr]

---

@MechMachineMan wrote:

It would be nice to be able to use that workflow... 

However, as @Cris-Ideas continually points out, and as I've discovered myself, flexible is very unstable and causes many, many issues. Especially when working with patterned components.

ie; http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-forum/flexibility-not-working-properly-in-inventor-bug-that-h...

Maybe Cris has some input on this workflow as well??

---

While I have been watching the topics from Cris they are fairly specific workflows and I personally have had no problems using the flexible functionality for years now..

I've got a few hundred models (many with patterned components) all using them and never do I run into problems..

[smokes2998]

I would never do this if  you have multiple engineers working on the same assembly.

Something is bound to go wrong!!!

Seen it happen and spent a lot of time fixing it, had to knee cap the engineer that  did it with a large hammer.