Using an Iassembly inside assembly using View Rep

[jesscadd]

I have a question. I am using different view representations to show different configurations of an assembly. The problem I have is when using an IAssembly inside the upper assembly. When I try to choose a different IAssembly component for different View Rep's it doesn't stay. 

example:

display assembly - View Rep non touch

                                - View Rep touch

Touch PCB (Iassembly) - non touch  or touch

Trying to get the touch or non touch IAssembly to stay for it's specific View Rep doesn't work. Whatever IAssembly is picked stays for all of the different View Reps. I tried to add View reps into the IAssembly, but that didn't work as well.

Suggestions or recommendations. Do I need to add additional IAssembly components in the upper assembly and use the View Reps for each specific IAssembly Component?

[joseph.hoermann]

@jesscadd Unforunately, the use of view representations is not a recommended workflow for configurations with iAssemblies. I would recommend designing the iAssembly such that your touch vs non touch view representations, are visibility properties specific to the iAssemblies configuration.

Please reference the passage below from our knowledge network article Assembly representations and configurations.

What makes representations different from configurations?
Autodesk Inventor separates these topics into distinct tools to give you ultimate flexibility in the design process. Representations are intended to be a set of modifiers on a base, or master, design. While View representations, Positional representations, and Level of Detail representations can cause an assembly to appear quite different from the master, they are used for the purpose of making modeling more efficient, validating design, and generating proper documentation.

Configurations are intended to maintain a group of assemblies, each with a different master state. Such differences could include BOMs, component placements, and parameter values. They are the definition of the members, not just modifiers from a master.

Please let me know if this answers your question by marking it as such. I hope you have a wonderful day.

[jesscadd]

This doesn't answer it. I tried to add a visibility property but it did not work. 

If I have a standard assembly.

Then I place an IAssembly or IPart in to it, such as a screw.

I have the screw placed.

But different assembly configurations require different screw lengths at the same location. How do you handle the different configurations at the assembly level that are requiring different IPart/Iassembly components?

LODs are not acceptable from what I have read everywhere. LODS were intented for 32 bit with the 3G switch. I don't have that issue. So what allows the changing of the Ipart components when choosing different configurations of the overall assembly? Do I just need to add a duplicate ipart at the same location with the different length? If so, then what advantage there was for the Ipart is lost.

[johnsonshiue]

Hi! I am trying to understand the issue better. Are the design views in the iAssembly set to be included on the table?

Many thanks!

[jesscadd]

I'll be honest, I tried to set the view in the Iassembly table. It didn't make a difference. Now I may have done it wrong, could you give an explanation of putting the View Rep information into the table?

[swalton]

This is my understanding of your issue:

1. There is an iAssembly (bob.iam) for some component.
2. It has several members bob-01.iam, bob-02.iam, bob-02.iam and so on.
3. You have an upper-level assembly (Carol.iam) that requires different members of bob.iam.

The as-designed workflow would be to create Carol.iam as an iAssembly as well.  Member assemblies Carol-01.iam would use bob-01.iam, Carol-02.iam would use bob-02.iam and so on. 

Remember: The only way for an inventor file (.ipt or .iam) to have different physical shapes or components is to make the file a iFactory.  There are some tricks with design view reps, position reps and illogic, but those can be complex.  

[jesscadd]

We do not want to make Carol an Iassembly. IFactory is too cumbersome for an upper level assembly to use in my opinion. If the interface was updated to actually be more user friendly, maybe, but right now it is not a viable direction for an upper level assembly. The fact the IAssembly component needs to be updated when there is a change is a pain as well. 

So to be able to use a lower level IAssembly or IPart in an assembly that is not IFactory, I will need to import multiple versions of the IAssembly or Ipart and view them off for specific view reps, correct? Talk about cumbersome. 

So does everyone else just make IFactories of all their assemblies? How do others handle multiple configurations in the same assembly file? At first I thought LODs were the answer, then after reading up on them, I saw their shortcomings, Then I saw that View Reps worked properly with the BOM, I thought this was the answer. But the fact that once the View Rep is locked, it loses it associativity, this causes issues. The option to lock and unlock without losing the association should be implemented.

Can you use different View Reps to create the IFactory?

So how is everyone else doing this?

[johnsonshiue · Accepted solution]

Hi! If you have multiple Design View Reps in the iAssembly factory, you can edit the table -> Exclusion -> add the Design View Reps to the table and ensure each member has the right View Reps. If it is not doing what I described, please share an example here so forum experts can take a look.

Regarding "Configuration" workflows, I assume you are talking about SWX "Configuration" workflows. At the moment, Inventor does not have the exact "Configuration" workflows like SWX, i.e. one iam or one ipt representing multiple geometric states. LOD is a memory management tool and iAssembly/iPart are meant for creating library, reusable components. Neither is meant for Configuration. Design View Reps can filter out invisible components on PartsList but the BOM table remains the same.

The closest workflow is probably iLogic IsActive(). You start with an assembly as a base. You use iLogic IsActive() statement to control if a given component is included. Also you can use iLogic rule to drive parameter changes in multiple levels. When you need another variation, you can use iLogic Design Copy to make a new set of files.

Many thanks!

[jesscadd]

Yes. I have updated the table to have them. I don't see a reason to have them in table though. Since the component that the view rep would be turning off is already going to be excluded or included in the factory. What does this gain me??

[johnsonshiue]

Hi! Sorry I was confused! I did not know that the invisible components are already excluded. No, you don't need Design View Reps in this case. It is like redundant overrides.

Many thanks!