Why aren't the lines highlighted in red fully constrained?

[theycallmevirgo]

Furthermore, why do only the ones closer to the "bottom" show any DOF? 

Thanks so much 

Joe

 

[CCarreiras]

Hi!

Even though the sketch claims to be already fully constrained, if you check degrees of freedom, you will see there's something "free in theory".

In this case, it's a small bug, and to fix it,  just use other option to constrain the geometry, as i did in the video below, and it will fix the issue.

[Curtis_Waguespack · Accepted solution]

@theycallmevirgo , if you make those notches separate sketched based features you might be better off.

see link

https://inventortrenches.blogspot.com/2011/03/inventor-101-simple-fully-constrained.html

[theycallmevirgo]

@Curtis_Waguespack, Truly, every Inventor operator should have "use multiple sketches and features" tattooed on their forehead.  My approach was very, very bad. 

That's what comes of being raised by an IT guy. You try to "optimize" by conserving system resources on part complexity and you end up with all kinds of jacked up sketches.

[theycallmevirgo]

@Curtis_Waguespack Having said that, is there any way to "combine" sketches, other than projecting geometry? Does copy and paste even work?

[CCarreiras · Accepted solution]

Hi!

Create an entire part based in a complex sketch is not a good workflow, it's better to have several simple sketches, but... also is not so positive to have lots of very simple sketches since you will have to project geometry from sketches/features previously donned... and have lot's of projected geometry is not so positive, since it is very susceptible to break due several reasons.

The sketch you presented is not that complex so, there's no big reason in have separated sketches... just apply a good set of constrains and dimensions.

[swalton]

There are lots of different ways to model.  I tend to be on the "very simple sketches with lots of individual features" approach because I find it easier to massage the part as the entire top-level model evolves.

One of my rules-of-thumb is that any geometry that I might delete during the design process should be defined in a separate sketch and feature. Another one is that any feature that is repeated should be controlled by a feature pattern, not repeated geometry in a sketch.   

Of course every rule exists to be broken.  It really depends on what I expect to change during the part's lifecycle from concept, through production and revisions.