Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
Add an additional button to copy in the CoG of the Parent as well. Just bringing in the existing Mass would mean that Inventor may try and adjust the Density to achieve the desired Mass. This could cause a shift in the CoG as it tries to apply the new Density to the volume of the Derived part
If i have a right and left version of an assembly, i derived the right one into the part that will be my left one, then i also want the mass to come with it.
This would be very useful as I have derived large assemblies which could change in the future my another designer. Not able to have a live link to the base assembly makes the mass of this item 14 times lighter than it should be (generic). When the mass in critical to the final assembly and lifting capacities of the final large assembly extra checks have to be carried out.
when you make a shrinkwrap of an assembly the physical properties are the same of the original assy.
I know that this is good because, when using the shrinkwrapped substitute in a main assy, the right mass is needed for a correct total weight.
in same cases, instead, expecially when computing the external area to paint it would be much more useful to have the physical properties of the semplified part as an option. (i.e.: a frame with tubolar profiles).
something similar to wath happen with the LOD where you are asked for total mass or LOD mass.
actually I shrinkwrap the frame than export to step then I obtain only the external area.
I agree to Your suggestion! It would be nice if there would be a "switch" to remove the mass information when an assembly is derived into a part as a surface model.
I use Your method too to create new parts with geometrical information from the assembly. The method from DRoam does not work in this case as I want to have massiformation from the newly added geometry.
Here is a link to some workarounds directly from Autodesk. But I am not happy with all of them. The best one is the second. But it's not a satisfaction!
das mit der Fläche löschen kann man ja nur bei ganz einfachen Körper wie Quader oder so machen.
wenn das eine komplexe Baugruppe ist, würde es zu viel zeit kosten.
aktuell löse ich es tatsächlich so, dass ich die baugruppe als Volumenkörper ableite, dann konstruiere ich die Teile die ich benötige und dann zeichne ich einen Großen Rechteck drüber und ziehe den abgeleiteten Körper ab.
dass diese Funktion so gewollt ist kann ich leider bis heute immer noch nicht verstehen...
Kind of sad that nothing happened in the course of 8 years now. "Accepted" => "Future consideration"... is that a downgrade in terms of priority? And when's the future supposed to happen? Anytime soon?
I think mass properties ... or let's better say density! ... should be carried over body by body. This might conflict with the data model of Inventor - however if that's the case, then it might be worth reflecting upon the data model and if it's a good design or not. With all due consequences...
By carrying over density body by body, any modification of the derived part would result in a most accurate mass as well as CoG. If the user decides to have only one resulting body, the calculated average density should be applied... that seems like a good compromise. Anyone that wants a more accurate result has to opt for a multi body result.
We use derived parts to do the machining of welding assemblies, as the Inventor weldment environment (same as machining in the assembly environment) sucks for a long time now and nothing changes either (no colours, no shared sketches, no patterns to be reused upstream, ...). So it's: raw parts (IPTs)=> welding assembly (IAM) => machining in derived part (IPT). Mass properties is a problem in that case, although in our case it's all steel, so we could perhaps use a "dummy material" with an average density of steel.
I agree with this idea. When deriving geometry as surfaces, there should be a toggle for whether the mass is inherited or not. It seems to me that it would be more likely that one would not want the mass than when one would. It's much more intuitive for a surface-only part to not have any mass.
I should point out that this issue only applies when deriving as surfaces and isn't affected by which subcomponents you select to be derived. Deriving as either solid option applies the density of the assigned part material.
Das Gewicht stimmt nicht, wenn ich eine Baugruppe als Flächenmodell in ein Bauteil ableite! Es wird ein Gewicht eingetragen, obwohl eine Fläche gar kein Gewicht haben kann!
So kann man moderne Konstruktionsmethoden (Skelettmodellierung, Bauräume,...) nicht verwenden!
Bin drauf gestoßen als ich die Füllung einer mit Routed Systems erstellten Rohrleitung ermitteln wollte! Dafür benötigte ich eine Ableitung der Baugruppe!
