What is the Inventor equivalent to configurations in Solidworks?

[ToddPig]

I would like to create a part that has two (maybe more) options for one of the features.  In Solidworks, I create a new configuration, then either change the geometry dimensions, or add and suppress features as needed.  I would like to do the same thing in Inventor.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Todd

[Mark.Lancaster]

ToddPig

The Inventor tool you are looking for is called iParts.

[ToddPig]

I was hoping that was NOT the answer. iParts have caused so many problems for me that I have to stay away from them until I can figure out how to use them without having so many update issues, co-workers complaints, drawings not updating, loosing the ability to design within the context of an assembly, etc...

[tschaeferZNBXX]

Another option is using derived parts.

[JDMather]

When you get time - you will want to progressively work through

iFeatures

iParts

iLogic 

iAssemblies

Oh, and as suggested Derived Components.  Different and much better than other SoftWare. 

[ToddPig]

JD, I agree. But this is the same re-occurring problem with Inventor. The learning curve is insane. I'm having a hard time trying to convince myself that learning Inventor is worth it. Might be easier to convince the entire company to switch to Solidworks.

I'm on my second Inventor book, and unfotunately, neigher of them has ipart info (in fact both of them are from SDC and are full of mistakes), do you recommend a book that covers iparts?

[PaulMunford]

I recommend this one
http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Autodesk-Inventor-2016-LT/dp/1119059801
(I apologise for the shameless self promotion! )

[JDMather]

---

@ToddPig wrote:
.... from SDC and are full of mistakes), do you recommend a book that covers iparts?

---

SDC?  LOL

The book Paul mentioned is probably the best - but really, nothing replaces training and especially experience.

How much experience do you have with SolidWorks?

 Ascent usually has some good books too.

[mcgyvr]

---

@ToddPig wrote:
I was hoping that was NOT the answer. iParts have caused so many problems for me that I have to stay away from them until I can figure out how to use them without having so many update issues, co-workers complaints, drawings not updating, loosing the ability to design within the context of an assembly, etc...

---

With iparts and iassemblies there is one simple rule to avoid issues like that..

After you do any modifications to the factory file simply do the following... rebuild all... then generate members... then save..

I'm surprised you are having so much trouble picking up Inventor.. Its very similar to solidworks.. Sure there are some differences but most 3d cad programs are fairly similar..

I took Pro/E in school and 10 years later was able to pick up Inventor easily without any training at all.. 

Transitioning from Inventor to Solidworks would be a silly move IMO for any company.. Spending a little money and a few days on some professional training is far cheaper than transitioning to another CAD program.. Not to mention one thats a direct equivalent to Inventor.. Just doesn't make sense..

IMO Inventor is a simple program.. 

[JDMather]

Configurations in SolidWorks are pretty easy and powerful and much much different than Inventor.'

I think the key on this one just don't try to make Inventor act like SWx configurations.  This functionality is just too different to really call the functions "equivalent".  Will only get frustrated trying to make Inventor act like SolidWorks configurations.

[ToddPig]

JD,

Thanks for the explanation. And as always, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I only used the comparison to Solidworks in hopes of getting you, or somebody with Solidworrks experience, to answer the question. I've given up on trying to be as productive in Inventor as I am in Solidworks. With time, I'll keep getting more efficient, but I don't think Inventor is a comparable program, there are some things that you just can't do in Inventor, and other things that clearly take longer to accomplish.

[ToddPig]

Inventor is similar Solidworks in the same way that two cars are similar, different cars will both get you to the same place, but a Mercedes has the potential to get you there much faster, will be more enjoyable to drive, and easier to use compared to a 1960' VW Bug.

And you are correct, Inventor is a simple program, and NOT capable of creating drawings that are NOT simple (drawing functions are limited compared to Solidworks) I have also used Pro-E, and thought that is was not very efficient either. Solidworks has it's faults (it crashes much more than Inventor), but learning Solidworks is much easier.

[ToddPig]

Thanks for the "Ascent" recommendation, that looks like a great website.

I have been using Solidworks since the 97+ version

[ToddPig]

Thank You!!!

( I signed up for your weekly CAD tips as well)

[Anonymous]

ToddPig - I'm a 9 year SolidWorks user trying to plod through cumbersome limited Inventor this past 1-1/2 years. My analysis is a Geo Metro (Inventor) to Lamborghini (SolidWorks). Good luck on trying to figure out how to work around all the frustrating aspects.

[johnsonshiue]

Hi sohm3G4UW,

Strictly speaking, there isn't an equivalent workflow in Inventor to Solidworks's Configuration. SWX Configuration is best to describe multiple stages of a part during manufacturing or transformation. But, it should be the same part with the same part number.

Inventor iPart is for different purposes. It is for creating library parts like nuts and bolts. All the variations are captured in a table. You can use one part (iPart factory) to drive all member parts. Each member is a different part with a different part number. Certainly, you could use iPart to emulate Configuration. You will need to make sure all members are up-to-date after you make a change to the author table. The biggest complaint we get is managing the data. Each member is a separate ipt file and it has to be managed individually. We are aware of the requirement and we are working on a good solution to fulfill the requirement.

In terms of how you look at INV vs SWX, you are entitled to your opinion. However, your analogy is confusing. First, Geo Metro car has been discontinued for many years. Inventor is still on the market and our user base is growing a healthy and stead pace world wide. You are still using it. Second, Lamborghini is a super sports car maker and its market share is less than 0.01% of total car market. Its exclusivity is not consistent with how I understood SWX operates. Lamborghini's competitor is Ferrari. INV and SWX are head-to-head competitors. If you implies INV is like a Ferrari, I am glad to take it. Certainly, I don't think that is what you had in mind. INV and SWX are not like Lambo and Ferrari either.

Anyway, in some workflows, INV is indeed inferior than SWX. But, there are several workflows that INV is superior than SWX. Do you mind sharing specific examples that you think SWX is better and you are struggling with INV?

Many thanks!

[Anonymous]

I had to chuckle reading that.

Toddpig, change to SW. Save your sanity.

I'm coming to the end of a 2 yr contract, using Inventor (as part of PDS 2017). Hopefully never again. **** click-itis gave me arm pump and tendon pain!

I've got a whinge list as long as your arm but there's a special place in my heart for a few things:

- Level of Detail / Pos Reps (esp. when combined with Vault) - nasty. LoD seems largely pointless (is NOT for configurations despite indications that it was), just makes adding / editing constraints awkward (have to switch back to Master LoD every time to do anything).

- Assembly sketch patterns - Weak. Can't pick where to pattern from, has to be the 'master' feature of a pattern.

- Assembly Constraints - Unintuitive. Poor choice of colours used for highlighting. Frequently interprets orientation incorrectly. Reparing broken constraints painful - constant nag dialogs if multiple constraints affected. Min-max angle mate very ropey, have to be careful about the range used.

- Drawings - Unstable software. Ballooning a weak feature. Dimensioning and tolerancing laborious. Blind tapped hole pilot drill annotation incorrect, <HDIA>, should be <TDDIA> (as per through hole annotation). Dimensioning to virtual corners is tedious (especially in ordinate sets).

- Presentation - pathetic, frankly. Shouldn't be this hard to create and then edit an exploded view. Trails look absolutely dreadful. A separate file - really???

- Pack and Go - copying an assembly, doesn't pick up derived parts if not inserted into the assembly, even though its 'donor' part might be.

- Configurations - well, yes. 1 file with everything in it, or xx multiples which you need to refresh. Hmm.

- Vault - no tree view. Tedious dialogue box when trying to find Where Used instances. No revision increments or lifecycle status (maybe Pro is better? No desire to find out).

The kindest thing I can say is that Derived Parts and Direct Edit are quite good. That's about it for me though. 

The less said about AutoCAD the better. Moves like treacle on an i7. Oh for the days of R2000! I guess 2D's going EOL for most people.

[jtylerbc]

Several of these are pretty legitimate issues (even if I don't agree with the severity of the problem, I agree that they are problems).  But two stood out to me as issues you were causing for yourself, rather than being design flaws in Inventor.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

- Level of Detail / Pos Reps (esp. when combined with Vault) - nasty. LoD seems largely pointless (is NOT for configurations despite indications that it was), just makes adding / editing constraints awkward (have to switch back to Master LoD every time to do anything).

---

Level of Detail is intended as a memory management tool, and as far as I know always has been. It is far less useful now than it once was, but still comes into play in very large assemblies.  It was very important for performance in the pre-64 bit Windows days.  They aren't really a configuration tool, and I'm not sure what would have given you the indication that they were.  They also don't really interact that much with constraints, so I think you may partially be mixing them up with Positional Representations.  In short, they are a pain to deal with, but you probably shouldn't have been using them in the first place for what you were doing.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Blind tapped hole pilot drill annotation incorrect, <HDIA>, should be <TDDIA> (as per through hole annotation).

---

I agree, which is why I never changed it from the (correct) default setting which already shows <TDDIA>.  Now, mine is an older Style Library that has been migrated several times, so it's possible that newer installs have gotten this setting wrong.  But even if that's the case, it's just a style setting that you (or someone else at your company) can change, and then that problem goes away.

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Andrew,

Many thanks for your feedback! Let me embed my reply. John has mentioned quite a few good points that I agree with and I am not going to repeat. You are entitled to your opinions. I am not trying to argue with you. I am just trying to clarify some points from my perspective.

It is a pity that you may not use Inventor Professional in the future. Regardless, you are always welcome to come back and discuss issues on the forum.

Thanks again!

Johnson

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I had to chuckle reading that.

Toddpig, change to SW. Save your sanity.

I'm coming to the end of a 2 yr contract, using Inventor (as part of PDS 2017). Hopefully never again. **** click-itis gave me arm pump and tendon pain!

I've got a whinge list as long as your arm but there's a special place in my heart for a few things:

- Level of Detail / Pos Reps (esp. when combined with Vault) - nasty. LoD seems largely pointless (is NOT for configurations despite indications that it was), just makes adding / editing constraints awkward (have to switch back to Master LoD every time to do anything).

[JS]: John pretty much summarized what I would say. For configuring different assembly design, you should use iAssembly or Positional Rep/Design View Rep, not LOD. We are aware of the need to have more robust assembly configuration workflows and we are actively investigating and working on a solution.

- Assembly sketch patterns - Weak. Can't pick where to pattern from, has to be the 'master' feature of a pattern.

[JS]: I am a bit confused here. Do you mind elaborating it? Is it about patterning component based on part feature pattern? Or, it is about sketch pattern? If it is in assembly sketch, does it also apply to part sketch?

- Assembly Constraints - Unintuitive. Poor choice of colours used for highlighting. Frequently interprets orientation incorrectly. Reparing broken constraints painful - constant nag dialogs if multiple constraints affected. Min-max angle mate very ropey, have to be careful about the range used.

[JS]: The highlighting color is based on the chosen color scheme. You could change it using the Color Scheme Editor shipped as part of SDK tool in Inventor. I need to see an example of difficulty in fixing constraints. For angular constraint, did you use 3rd option, Explicit Vector Reference type to avoid flipping?

- Drawings - Unstable software. Ballooning a weak feature. Dimensioning and tolerancing laborious. Blind tapped hole pilot drill annotation incorrect, <HDIA>, should be <TDDIA> (as per through hole annotation). Dimensioning to virtual corners is tedious (especially in ordinate sets).

[JS]: This is quite contrary to what we hear from our customers particularly who converted from our competitors. Do you have more specific comments on Balloning, Dimensioning, and Tolerancing? Regarding the default hole annotation, I will work with project team to understand the behavior better. In terms of dimensioning virtual corners, I agree with you that the workflow is indeed a bit unintuitive. There is room for improvement.

- Presentation - pathetic, frankly. Shouldn't be this hard to create and then edit an exploded view. Trails look absolutely dreadful. A separate file - really???

[JS]: This is a design choice. It may be cumbersome for you to have an additional file managing the presentation. However, it is a requirement for other customers. It is because the person who makes the presentation may not be the same as the person creates the assembly. If they are all in one file, it would make the file bigger and also people cannot work on presentation and the assembly at the same time.

- Pack and Go - copying an assembly, doesn't pick up derived parts if not inserted into the assembly, even though its 'donor' part might be.

[JS]: This does not sound right to me. Pack&Go should pick all referenced files and linked files. What options did you use?

- Configurations - well, yes. 1 file with everything in it, or xx multiples which you need to refresh. Hmm.

[JS]: Yes, this is related to #1. Currently, Inventor parts are rigid and can only have one geometric definition at a time. There is a need to have one part being represented geometric in different states like a compressed or expanded spring. We are aware of the deficiency and we are actively investigating and working on a solution.

- Vault - no tree view. Tedious dialogue box when trying to find Where Used instances. No revision increments or lifecycle status (maybe Pro is better? No desire to find out).

[JS]: I could be wrong but I believe these are all available in Vault Pro. Is Solidworks ePDM free?

The kindest thing I can say is that Derived Parts and Direct Edit are quite good. That's about it for me though. 

[JS]: Thanks for your compliments! I agree that they are pretty good but they also have room for improvement.

The less said about AutoCAD the better. Moves like treacle on an i7. Oh for the days of R2000! I guess 2D's going EOL for most people.

[JS]: AutoCAD is the best 2D drafting tool at the moment. After 20 years of transitioning from 2D to 3D, we are still seeing a lot of users leveraging 2D geometry and 2D drawing world wide. You may not use 2D drawings in your company but others are still using it as a design agreement. And, we are still actively investigating room for improvement.

---

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the reply John.

I've learned my lesson with LoD and won't use it again, although it constantly seems to want to make its own (unwanted) instances whenever I try to hide or show something eg planes, a component etc. No idea what I'm doing wrong there.

I was using it principally to show different stages of an assembly being partially disassembled, modified, and re-assembled, so it was a means to an end and seemed more straightforward than iAssemblies at the time.

The hole annotation was incorrect 'out of the box' (2017) - I've tracked it down and fixed that now - and added the depth of tapping as it seemed odd to not have that on by default. I'll have to go through all the other annotations and make sure they're correct. Sigh.

Andy