Table driven iPart, iProperty formula needs to be different in each "child" part.

[jeanchile]

Hello all,

I am attempting to make a table driven iPart family with a formula in an iProperty field that changes with each "child" part selected. What I mean is, in the first iteration of this table driven part, the "Description" iproperty is  =PL. <THICKNESS>". But, in the second iteration, I need the "Description" iproperty to change to =PL. <WIDTH>", and in the last one it needs to be = PL. <LENGTH>".

This iproperty formula needs to change when each of the "child" parts are selected. I can't seem to figure out how to do this. Any ideas?

Here's what the Description iProperty looks like in the first iteration:

And here's what the table looks like with the proper formula in each iteration (notice the field is highlighted yellow though):

And this is the error message I get when I try to click "OK" and publish the iPart:

How can I get an iProperty formula to change similar to what I can do with a parameter?

Thank you everyone!

[Frederick_Law]

---

@jeanchile wrote:

My apologies Fredrick. I am in no way attempting to be rude or belittle you in any way, but there seems to be something about this that you're not grasping, and I am out of ideas on how to explain it differently.

---

My apologies Jeanchile. I am in no way attempting to be rude or belittle you in any way, but there seems to be something about this that you're not grasping, and I am out of ideas on how to explain it differently.

Why does it has to be different "equation"?

Doesn't a different result work?  As long as "Order Info" has the correct info?

I don't understand why you're fixated on different "equation" but not correct result.

The "equation" user type in the UI in Inventor will NEVER work in iPart Excel table.

The correct result can be obtained in Excel table which is part of the iPart setup.

Which is a different "equation" in Excel syntax.

I can finish the iPart with all 4 different "Order Info" but I got work to do.

What am I missing?

[Frederick_Law]

In short, the "equation" in iProperties will NOT work in iPart.

Even if it's done with iLogic, VBA or VB.Net.

The Excel table in the iPart will complain because of syntax error.

My guess is even ModelState won't work for the same reason.

[jeanchile]

---

@Frederick_Law wrote:

Why does it has to be different "equation"?

I don't understand why you're fixated on different "equation" but not correct result.

I can finish the iPart with all 4 different "Order Info" but I got work to do.

What am I missing?

---

In doing the quick math, your "solution" would produce more rows in my iPart table than are possible in Excel (which if I recall correctly is about a million).

In our experience, having an iPart with more than about 2000 rows produces a file that is slow and borderline useless.

What you're missing is that I asked a question in the first post that you continually fail to answer. I'm not trying to be an a$$hole here but you clearly are.

Please stop responding to this post. Your rude, uneducated banality is muddying the waters. Go back to your work you have to do and let the experts handle this. And congratulations, you're the first unhelpful d!ckw@d I've come across on this forum.

[jeanchile]

Johnson, thank you for all the time you spend on this forum helping everyone here. When you have a moment, can you or the admin get rid of this thread? I have what I need with the help of some of the good people on this forum (you included, as always) and this thread doesn't need to exist anymore.

This place is always so helpful and polite, and I don't think we need this one user destroying that. Getting rid of this is probably the best. Thanks again for all your involvement!

[Frederick_Law]

---

@jeanchile wrote:

---

---

In doing the quick math, your "solution" would produce more rows in my iPart table than are possible in Excel (which if I recall correctly is about a million).

In our experience, having an iPart with more than about 2000 rows produces a file that is slow and borderline useless.

What you're missing is that I asked a question in the first post that you continually fail to answer. I'm not trying to be an a$$hole here but you clearly are.

Please stop responding to this post. Your rude, uneducated banality is muddying the waters. Go back to your work you have to do and let the experts handle this. And congratulations, you're the first unhelpful d!ckw@d I've come across on this forum.

---

Ok that's what I was missing, too many rows.

And good luck on what you need to do.

😎

BTW I have got "rude" yet 😉

Don't need to.

But I need to pissed you off to get one missing part of the story.

Oh well.

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Jean,

Is there proprietary data shared in this thread? If not, keeping the discussion in the thread may help other users. That is how many users including me learn the tool.

Many thanks!

[Frederick_Law]

Ok, I won't reply anymore.

Promise 😇