Frame Generator - Make Multi-Body Part

[Neil_Cross]

This would solve a lot of problems especially relating to the use of Vault.  Sometimes when creating framework, you just don't care about having an accurate BOM.  You just want a big quantity of framework there but knowing that Inventor is going to ask you to give a file name to each and every frame member, and that Vault requires that those file names be unique, makes this a lot more work than it needs to be.  Even with Vault auto-numbering this can be a laborious exercise.

And often times, the physical creation of 100+ extra new IPTs to represent that framework is just unnecessary bloat.

Can we not just allow the option of having frame generator create a multi-body part representing the assembly of framework, 1 part with 100 frame bodies rather than 100 parts?

Yes, you can currently derive the frame assembly into 1 part, but in order to maintain frame generator editing capability, you would need to retain that original design accelerator assembly and those 100 parts which defeats the purpose.

To my knowledge, the competition can do this.

[marco.centenari]

i'd like to create my frame like a multibody, so i can choose if i want to create an assembly or keep a single part like a multibody

[smokes2998]

I am guessing

They would need to 3d and 2d sketches to perform as per Solid Edge in assemblies and  be able to do sweeps within the assembly file as per Solid edge.

If they can do this they would need to redeveloped the routed systems modules as well for pipes and electrical harnesses.

[SBix26]

This is a great idea!  We generally sub out our frames, so they don't need to be assemblies at all, and this would save a lot of overhead, especially when Vault gets involved.

Sam B

[MrSmithtastic]

This would be fantastic. Multi-body parts are a fantastic way of modelling and this sort of functionality would be very useful indeed!

[dusan.naus.trz]

Frame generator in ipt as multibody.

It might be worth considering even add Bill of Materials or Parts list for ipt. Parameters and would be able to write to the BOM as the dimensions of length and other.

[brotherkennyh]

After using SolidWorks I have to say this would be a good idea. Its how it is handled in SolidWorks and it keeps things much tidier.

The problem with individual parts is the number of files generated. 100 members is 100 files. For Vault users that's also 100 files names I have to manually enter so I don't get file name conflicts later. Big headache. At least if the frame was a multi-solid part file there would only be one file name to worry about.

It would also allow me to generate my frame in my skeleton file, again, keeping things tidier.

This extends further into Vault for anyone using copy design. If you copy design a frame you need to specify new file names for a lot of members. I recently did a copy design on a large project which had many frames in it. Took me half a day just to go through all the file names. would have taken half the time if there were no frame member files in it.

[ckirkCRESTLINE]

This would help a lot with the issues we are experiencing as well. I always thought that Inventor's method of creating a subassembly in an assembly was cumbersome and odd. Generates a lot of files too.

Provided Autodesk includes a way to create drawing views for each individual member if needed this would work perfectly for us.

[inv.ideareview]

This idea is similar with the following idea: https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-ideas/frame-generator-make-multi-body-part/idi-p/6643489

[Anonymous]

Great idea!

It would save a lot of headaches.

[Anonymous]

I care about having an accurate BOM, but using Frame generator and having to maintain all those unique part numbers for every member is so much extra work. That would be eliminated if we could use mulitbody parts instead that allowed for a BOM to be created.

How different is Frame Generator in 2020?  Did this get addressed at all?

[Anonymous]

After spending the last 10 years in solidworks, I'm still in shock at the fact that you can't do frame members as a multibody part and that every time you change a member size it generates a new part file.  I understand that it takes time to get up to speed after switching software, but I can't see how this is a good idea. Obvious issues I see straight away are:

1) number of part files generated (as mentioned a lot in this thread)

2) Lack of ability to easily trim / connect frame components to, e.g., sheet metal components

3) When importing into ANSYS, a change in member size means complete loss of relationships to any ANSYS design modeler features, because ANSYS doesn't recognise the new parts.

I know there are issues with Solidworks multibody parts - files were sometimes buggy and you needed to know your workarounds for creating boms etc.  I wouldn't recommend it for large structures.  However for small /  medium frames with a mix of frame components and ordinary plate / sheet, especially when you need to do an FEA with ANSYS, I can't see how it wouldn't be 10 times quicker / more adaptable to changes using solidworks over inventor at this stage.  Hopefully Autodesk can come to the table on this (please... :))

[Anonymous]

Just wait till you try to check in a 50 part frame generator assembly and have naming conflicts!  That is when the party starts.

[dusan.naus.trz]

@Anonymous 

Hi, This is simple it wants more people like me, and Inventor will be the best. 🙂 See the attachment.

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-forum/question-for-experts-inventor-5th-november-2019/td-p/9...

[AIR_123]

This is a "MUST" feature! Any idea when this going to be implemented???

Additional problem, to what mentioned by @Neil_Cross and @Anonymous is that, if you want to use top-down technique building welded sub-assy, is that you have to create and save all plate work welded to frames in extra files, for every little plate you add. You can just implement same logic as in other CAD systems, where PL or BOM is based on multi-body part.

[frankRMLDF]

Hi @John_Holtz 

This seems to be a problem for al long time, I also run into al lot of problems with frame generator because it is a assembly instead of a multy-body part.

Is it possible that this will be a new feature in a update or a new version of inventor?

Kind regards Frank

[CAuces]

Not only should it be a multi-bodied part it should recognize which are the same and which are different and separate accordingly on the BOM, Solidworks does this for you already. Currently the unique parts frame generator creates is painful unless you know ahead of time which will always be the same then you can use reuse feature but as well all know designs change.

[dusan.naus.trz]

Yes you're right. I tried 4 examples. Reuse is complicated and has problems with the pattern, and the mirroring frame is not solved.

ilogic 01 BOM QTY Cube Correctly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVGRwyqM8dg&list=PL8JAmheIZzlwqBP8Avqel2bppw7bllM_J&index=35

ilogic 02 BOM QTY Cube Incorrectly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIlzGwPu6w4&list=PL8JAmheIZzlwqBP8Avqel2bppw7bllM_J&index=36

Solidworks frame

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qozKfvC1C_c&list=PL8JAmheIZzlwqBP8Avqel2bppw7bllM_J&index=38

Solid Edge frame

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIUParc7zB8&list=PL8JAmheIZzlwqBP8Avqel2bppw7bllM_J&index=37

[rafal69JG7]

1. I am a long time Autodesk user (AutoCad, Inventor, Revit) and the ONLY reason I use Solidworks is when I need to create multibody parts that contain frames, sheet metal parts, and any other misc parts. The ease of this is that within one part file, you can customize the name of any "body" within the part file which is automatically displayed (along with the bodies dimensional values) in a "weldment" BOM keeping it very simple to use and adjust later on if needed. Solidworks definitely has the edge over Inventor regarding this ability but SW drawing is horrendous which is why I hope Inventor eventually incorporates this ability ASAP...I will fully convert to Inventor if that ends up happening! (Fingers crossed)