Community
Inventor Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Inventor Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Inventor topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Using Different Object Styles on a drawing based on hole type.

8 REPLIES 8
SOLVED
Reply
Message 1 of 9
RNDinov8r
440 Views, 8 Replies

Using Different Object Styles on a drawing based on hole type.

So, I've been searching all thru the Styles & Standards editor, and I am not seeing a way to do this. Ideally, I don't want to have to write code/iLogic that fires on a save or the like either.

 

We use Helicoils on some of our plastic parts. I have edited the Thread.xls spread sheet to incorporate this specific type of tapped hole. I.E. a helicoil for an M5x0.8 uses a larger tap drill than a standard M5. Currently, I have created an object Style called Helicoil, such that when we apply a thread note to a Hole that is made using the Helicoil Family, It looks like this.

RNDinov8r_0-1640117580843.png

 

For refernce, the holes are created like this:

RNDinov8r_1-1640117637478.png

 

In order to apply that style, I have to manaully set the Object Style from the pull down menu. While this is not time consuming, it is prone to error, in that if someone other than the designer them self does the detailing of the part, they may not know that hole is for a helicoil.

 

So my question is this. Is there a way to make an object style automatically apply based on the Hole Type outside of custom code?

 

This is what my "standard" tapped hole call-out looks like, in IV 2022 default, for reference. 

RNDinov8r_2-1640117868875.png

 

8 REPLIES 8
Message 2 of 9
Gabriel_Watson
in reply to: RNDinov8r

I feel your pain, as we recently did just add a Helicoil table ourselves to our thread XLS.

 

First, I do not think there is a codeless way to swap styles on the same command. Here is how we did what you are looking for:

 

1) We set up our table in thread.xls to give as much information as possible for the designers to input the appropriate countersink and thread depth (besides other dimensions) to the model when generating the hole. There is a reason we used the size suffix for most info, because that is mostly a tooltip at the hole tool and does not show up in the drawing. The Custom Thread Designation is the most important for your drawing note:

 

Capture3.JPG

 

The reason why each size has two rows is because of the two classes available for each (5H and 4H5H):

 

Galaxybane_0-1640123166816.png

 

2) With all this info, the designers have to be diligent in the 3D modelling tool to use the information given in the prefix/tooltip:

Galaxybane_0-1640229794889.png

 

3) Then, what you get in the final drawing when applying the Hole and Thread annotation is this:

 

Galaxybane_1-1640123416880.png

 

I have attached to this reply my thread table sheet with helicoil sizes. We extracted the dimensional info from Stanley:
https://www.stanleyengineeredfastening.com/-/media/web/sef/resources/docs/heli-coil/hc-2000_rev11_we...

 

Message 3 of 9
RNDinov8r
in reply to: RNDinov8r

So, this looks like it may be my answer...very clever. It brings up another questions, it appears that you are driving thread depth using the thread Designation column, and add the term "DEEP". Or is that controlled by the Thread depth column (see image below). is there  a way to drive the drill depth? For my machine shop, They always want to have the drill depth be 3.5 mm deeper than the thread.

 

I presume that this is where I would change that? 

RNDinov8r_0-1640125071715.png

 

Message 4 of 9
Gabriel_Watson
in reply to: RNDinov8r

So, the thread designation column is just there for show, just like the size suffix, and you may use those as tooltips, but the Custom Thread Designation column is the one that gets on the print.

Also, there is actually no Thread Depth column in our helicoil table. The user needs to specify the thread depth according to what is given by the prefix/tooltip. Experiment with adding such column for thread depth if you see this working in other tables/sheets. I guess it could give you what you are looking for if Inventor can leverage that. I will experiment later to confirm as well.

The "Tap drill" column relates to the tap tool used to make the tap, just in case that was not clear too.

Message 5 of 9
RNDinov8r
in reply to: RNDinov8r

@Gabriel_Watson 

 

I am going to accept that as a solution, and play around iwth it...and share what ever else I discovere to add to this thread.

Message 6 of 9
RNDinov8r
in reply to: RNDinov8r

@Gabriel_Watson ,

 

What does your note format settings look like? This is what I have, and I am not seeing that custom desgination appear.

RNDinov8r_0-1640201806698.png

 

So, I was able to use some of your spread sheet, and add it to mine. It appears my hole feature menu is correct and matches yours, above, but for some reason, the custom designation does not appear in the note.

Side question. Do you have to manually set the C'sink diameter? I am not seeing a way to have that be set, let alone match the number in the hole style.

Message 7 of 9
Gabriel_Watson
in reply to: RNDinov8r

Sorry, I should have specified this as well... to have the hole note show up as I exemplified above we used this:

 

Galaxybane_3-1640230646068.png

 

Sadly, the countersink diameter and angle, as well as depth of helicoils are all manually entered in the hole tool inputs. The helicoil length is not the same as the total drill depth or the total tap depth (both taller than the helicoil length). At least through this method we have everything available for the designer without having to consult a table, or rely on design checkers.

 

Message 8 of 9
RNDinov8r
in reply to: RNDinov8r

that manual stuff is fine. for me, its more important to get taht helicoil part number in there. I see you have "uncheck" the custom desgination box? I would have thought it needs to be checked.

Message 9 of 9
Gabriel_Watson
in reply to: RNDinov8r

I am not 100% sure of what that box really does, but it could be used for hole table grouping perhaps. For us, it works without it, and I have left it off as it were. I may test this on/off later and post the results here for you.

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Technology Administrators


Autodesk Design & Make Report