Using sketches in an assembly for relationship, planes or axis.

[andri_janett]

I try to use a sketch in an assembly (points and lines), to add relationships to them, or add axis and planes to make relationships easier. Why this way? For example, I need to position a theoretical hinge at a certain position in my assembly to check a movement or mechanism, without having to create an additional part.

Somehow, Inventor does not let me select points and lines from sketches, added in the assembly itself. Is this a feature, a bug or an inexperienced user?

[CCarreiras · Accepted solution]

Hi!

You cannot use Assembly sketches to do that.

Instead of creating a "sketch assembly":

- Create a new part and fix the part in the assembly.

- Use this part to create your scheme sketch, work points, axes, planes etc,
Then you can use these elements to place other parts with assembly constrains.

[dan_inv09]

If I had a nickel for every time I posted:

It is very annoying when something in the assembly environment that looks just like something in the part environment does not behave the same way

[andri_janett]

Hi,

thanks for the answer, not what I was hoping for.

Honestly, this is utterly stupid! Using a sketch in part OK, using a sketch in an assembly, not okay?🙃🤔 You are forced to create a new part, that you later manually have to take out of the BOM, cause you can not suppress it, cause it is needed. The part also needs external references to have the same functionality as the sketch in the assembly, and therefore creates the risk of circular references.

Just switching to Inventor from Solidworks, and I have to say, sorry team Inventor, but it is not even close between those two. So far, I would even rate Onshape above Inventor.

[CCarreiras]

Hi Again...

You don't have to suppress the part to get it off of the Part List, you just have to set the part as a Reference:

It´s not so stupid, the sketch and operations in the assembly are used for other purposes (which i'm not going to explain now, but welding features is a good example).

If you look better, if you need to do a frame using the Frame Generator, you also need to do the wire scheme in a part, and then use this wires to place the profile elements... it's the same behaviour.

I understand your frustration... coming from other software, you tend to replicate the way you did things in the old software in the the new software doing the same steps... but you must understand that they are different: they can do the same result, but in a slightly different way.

Of course, for you, the better software is the one you know better, but along the road, when you know better the new tool, you will find that both have pros and cons, but both are good softwares... you just have to learn more and get happy to learn a new tool.

[andri_janett]

As I said, I DO have to manually make sure, that this unneeded part does not show up in the BOM.
I am aware of skeleton sketches in parts used to define an assembly, also something done in SW; but there is absolutely no reason to not allow sketches in assemblies to be used for the same thing, relationships or work features. Especially in conceptual phase where you like to work quick and dirty, this is really helpful. Therefore, I stand by my stupid rating, for restricting this functionality.

And yes, they can both do the same result, it is just a question of the amount of features and time needed, and flexibility you have afterwards to change things again. Also when I compare the learning curve from OnShape (which I learned a little while ago for private projects) to Inventor, OnShape is quite a bit better; I do not compare it to SW, because I can't remember my learning curve there. But I can compare it to the 3D Experience (makers edition) from Dassault which I also use for private projects, which is also not that nice to use, and also has its strange limitations, more like Inventor.

It's not, well, they are all the same, you just have to get used to it. 

[CCarreiras]

Just trying to help... cheers.

[andri_janett]

Thanks for the help, it is highly appreciated.

I know, every engineer has his beloved CAD, but we also need to admit the things that are not good in the systems. SW for example is pretty bad when it comes to large assemblies, or importing some other file formats. Large drawings are also horrible.

[sam]

Just curious, have you tried Fusion 360 yet?

[chris]

@andri_janett If SW , as you commented above is bad at: Large assemblies, importing other file types and drawings... what, IYO is it good at? I've been considering adding SW to my software list, but I'm curious after reading your last comment if it's worth it.

[andri_janett]

No, I did not try out Fusion 360 yet. A trusted colleague is using it for his privat projects, and quite likes it.

My next CAD I'll try is FreeCAD, mainly because it offers integration of OpenFOAM CFD simulation. 

[andri_janett]

As I said, I know Inventor and OnShape, and also had some time on SolidEdge. Overall, Solidworks beats them all.

OnShape is nice, modern interface, good UI, and a good selection of tools; though somewhat limited compared to the others. Inventor and SolidEdge both are rather ugly and do not have a nice UI. They offer a lots of tools, that were added over time, and you somehow can see it, its not that consistent.

Solidworks has a nice UI from the start, and offers a lot of customization. It offers a very wide range of tools, and they are very consistent, and easy to understand. Once you got the simple function, it is easy to adapt the logic to more complex once. So it is very powerful and easy to use, but also has a few drawbacks (that Inventor users will complain a lot about). The biggest is speed of large assemblies and drawings. But I am talking about professional level assemblies here, with thousands of parts. You still can work with them, when you understand SW and know how to build such assemblies (my biggest one had 60-70'000 parts, and it was still working okay).

For me, the SW and OnShape are the best options, OnShape for "smaller" things, while SW scales well into assemblies with 10'000 parts and can do more complex modeling. SolidEdge and Inventor are only an option, if you are already invested into either Autodesk or Siemens products, if you go for CAD performance alone, they lack behind SW. I can not rate Fusion 360 though.

Again, this is my opinion; and different people have different tastes.

[sam]

Well, I have been using Inventor since version 6 & AutoCAD since version 8 I think (1989?). And before purchasing a 3D software, I Test Drove both SolidWorks & Inventor along side another less experienced user at our company. Both softwares preformed well & we liked them both fairly equally. But the determining factors for purchasing Inventor were, #1. Its Ease Of Use! (Especially for someone coming from using AutoCAD & Mechanical Desktop.) (Autodesks Mechanical Desktop being the first true 3D Software & what both SolidWorks & Inventor were developed to mimic or at least the idea was modeled from.)  #2. Its Compatability with AutoCAD! (AutoCAD being at the time, "The #1 most used CAD software in the World".) And although that probably doesn't hold true in todays times, it is for the most part, the most popular CAD format in the world. So, in my experience from about 10 years of using AutoCAD at the time, (now nearly 40 years.) Inventor was So Extreamly Easy To Use, plus the compatability with AutoCAD, it was a No Brainer to go with Inventor. And I have used SW a lot also, & to me it requires a slightly different way of thinking to drive. Kinda like using Fusion has been for me. It's just requires a different thaught flow that seems less natural for those of us that are trained on AutoCAD. But, both are top preformers in our field & equally having their Pros & Cons. Now, who has used CATIA or NX? What has the experience been like? And how do they compare to Inventor & SW? And what about Rhinoceros? I've tinkered with them, anyone else?

[andri_janett]

I think the 2D roots of Inventor are the root cause of its issues. I started right into 3D, never really used 2D CAD systems. It may have been a smart move to keep the UI logic close to 2D AutoCAD, to win over users. But 3D is quite different from 2D. Inventor, in the current iteration feels clumsy compared to Solidworks and OnShape, neither of them has 2D roots, and are built from the ground up as 3D systems. There are just so many more clicks needed in Inventor to get the same things done as in SW. The layer and filter thinking still is visible, just adapted to 3D.

Looking at the installed licenses for 3D CAD systems, Solidworks is the front runner.

For the high end CAD systems, the actual modelling functions are not that much better then what you get in the midrange (SW, Inventor). The big difference is integration with other tools, concurrent engineering, Simulations, ERP and so on. Also handling of very large assemblies, think airplanes.

[andri_janett]

Just one example, of what drives me crazy in Inventor. The Component Pattern dialog.

You open it, it reads 0.000mm, but you hover the mouse over, and then you see its actually 720.000mm. WTF!!

I can not change the size of the window, so the field is just too small; there are also many other fields that are too small. Why Autodesk, why?!

Then there is the inconsitency; here I have a flip direction button, while in other places, I have to make the value negative. It's all those little things, all over the program.

[sam]

I was doing 3D in AutoCAD in version 8 (1989). I believe AutoCAD is to this day is probably, "The Most Powerful CAD software on the market!" You Just Can Not beet AutoCAD. It was the First in 2D & 3D and everyone and their brother has been trying to copy and improve upon AutoCAD since its conception! Just curious and wondering if your old enough to have ever done any Board Drawings?

[CCarreiras]

Hi!

The big difference between mid range (Inventor, SW, SolidEdge) and high end (Catia/NX) it's in the powerful tools to design surfaces, and that's why they are used in the automotive or aerospacial industry or complex geometry products... and to design their respective plastic molds.

As an a example, it´s almost impossible to design a car dashboard or a bumper using mid range software, but in Catia or NX you will have tools to do that and more (like it's respective molds).

Their are only used in that fields and not so much in the common jobs, because they are more complex and hard to learn, and a lot more expensive.
To do most common jobs, it's a lot friendly to use mid range software... you will not need a canon to kill a bird.