What are the draw backs to using Frame Generator?

[chris]

I was in a design meeting today and the discussion was whether or not to use Frame Generator for a design or do it the regular way of with iLogic. I was just looking for some feedback from "FG" users as to any known issues or drawbacks to using the frame generator.

The design has 1-3 different design possibilities and will come in a variety of different shapes and sizes. 

I know the frame generator is a good resource for simple designs using a skeleton part for rail placement, but what are its drawbacks and limitations?

[BDCollett]

You probably came to the same kind of conclusions.

It's great for designing things quickly.

For a flexible design that needs to be configurable you then need to weigh up if the extra time to use normal design methods and iLogic will result in something that is more robust.

The Autodesk sample "Brewmain" is a good example of this. The frame is built without frame generator, and the sizes are controlled by model states. It's a good one to look at.

Inventor Sample Files | Inventor 2022 | Autodesk Knowledge Network

[Frederick_Law]

Maybe difficult to "Copy Design".

FG work well when you don't need to machine the frame before weld.

FG do a "perfect" cope which nobody do.

It also do stupid cope which nobody do.

Like everything else, you need to work out the process.

[chris]

Thanks for the feedback, yes, I normally take the time to "build-out" my designs with iLogic, I've used the frame generator before, but it was for fast basic shaped structures.

[Gabriel_Watson]

A fundamental issue with FG for me in the past was the fact that with every trim/notch we would make an individual part unique and not repeatable. We don't really have a choice to reuse components that are trimmed in the same distance/angle, and call them with the same part number. I like FG for making concept work, but if your company is the one to handle the steel cutting and machining, you want to be more careful and exact (foolproof) about each part's detailing.

[cadman777]

I agree with @BDCollett & @Gabriel_Watson in practice.

I use FG for railings mostly.

All my work is one-off custom.

If I was making a template and associated fab drgs to be used for various lengths on level railings and various pitches on stairs railings, I'd do it all the hard way (no FG). You don't have the control using FG compared to doing it the hard way.

Also, if you use FG, and if the library is missing or on a different machine or server, you can't edit it. So you're stuck. Also, sometimes FG breaks when you edit the model too many times, so you end up doing it over again. That includes if you copy the whole project and make a new one with modifications like I did on a gate job. It had many gates that were all similar, yet slightly different. At one point some of the members in the model broke and I had to replace every one b/c they didn't update when I changed the underlying sketch to make the gate shorter or longer. It was the x-braces that broke, due to the angle and copes. That extra work wreaked havoc on the related drgs, which was a MAJOR time waster and PITA. If I could redo that job, I'd do it the hard way w/o FG.

Like @Frederick_Law says, you have to work out your own method, what works best for you according to your company standards. iLogic is a good choice if you have many permutations. But if you just copy your design and make a different length or whatever, but use the same basic patterns and parts, then you don't even need iLogic.

[Mario.VanWiechen]

I use FG a lot, works well for us.

BUT I am interested in seeing a frame built with I-Logic, does anyone has a simple one they could share?

I am using 2022

[CGBenner]

I used FG for years to design skid frames.  From project to project, these usually came under the heading of "same as, except...."  In Inventor, they are very difficult to copy, but with Vault Copy Design, some practice, and a LOT of patience, that got to be pretty straightforward.  The manufacturing methods we followed did not require full detailing of each member.  Overall dimensions and locations of all copes and miters were enough for the welder to fabricate these frames.  Any holes needed were drilled by the assembly team.  A robust part list detailing how many of each profile and what cut length made the prep work more manageable.

It comes down to the designs you are making and what tool works best for your unique situation (which is why you're here, right? 😁)  But, I personally found FG to be the right tool for these skid frames, and after some practice, pretty easy to use.  I'm not just saying any of this because I work for Autodesk.  😉

[BDCollett]

---

@Mario.VanWiechen wrote:

I use FG a lot, works well for us.

BUT I am interested in seeing a frame built with I-Logic, does anyone has a simple one they could share?

I am using 2022

---

https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/inventor/troubleshooting/caas/downloads/content/inventor-samp...

Take a look at the 2022 BrewMain-Drawing-ModelState.zip from the above link.  This is configured with iLogic and a Form.

The idea would be that you use Copy Design to copy the whole assembly with a new filename, all the parts that would change would get new filenames, all the standard parts (Castors etc) will be re-used. 

With this method you would still end up with some parts that are identical from the last design, but this is hard to get around with any method when reusing and configuring a design.