Recognise feature pattern in derived part when creating assembly pattern

[robmatthews]

I often want a RH and LH assembly, and the "major" part in the two assemblies will be mirror images, and when there are feature patterns on this part that correspond to part instances in the assembly, it makes sense to use a Component Pattern, based on the feature pattern; but in the derived (mirrored) part, the feature pattern(s) is/are not recognised.

It seems that it would not be too big a leap to let that information flow though. I mean, there is no problem with recognising holes as such for the purposes of a hole note in the idw of a derived part.

[SBix26]

This applies to more than just mirrored parts.  Using multi-body solids to model small assemblies is very efficient and works great, but all the components are derived from the master.  If there are any feature patterns, they are of no use in the assembly, because the pattern information doesn't flow through the derived components.

Sam B

[dusan.naus.trz]

Hi all,

Thumbs up. good idea.

it's not the same but similar, please kudos for:  http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-ideastation/derived-parts/idi-p/3801906

[SBix26]

@dusan.naus.trz, there's no particular need for the other idea you linked to, since multi-body solids are the easy and very robust method to handle mirrored parts (other than the pattern issue addressed by this idea).

Sam B

[DRoam]

All, the following is an idea requesting an overhaul of iParts and Derived Parts to allow this functionality, as well as other needed improvements: Improvements to iParts, Multi-body, and Derived Parts. Please cast kudos for it if you think the additional changes would be beneficial.

[marek_szturc]

I agree with user DRoam

[dusan.naus.trz]

Hi all,

I also agree on DRoam.

it is needed to speed up the work with large assemblies. And make it possible to reuse this for Derived parts Pattern on assembly level for Pattern and Content Center parts Placement.

[Anonymous]

A derived part has no features/patterns, only solids.

You can select a component pattern with "Feature pattern select" in the normal part, but not in its mirrored counterpart.

This is also the case with iParts, where all children are derived versions of the master.

Example: You have valves in many sizes ranging from DN100 to DN1000

You decide to make all flanges, counterflanges and such as an iPart,to easily change size.

But then you cant make a pattern of bolts and nuts using the pattern of the master, missing vital functionality

It would be handy if there was some information sent to the derived that you can use functions that require patterns

[DRoam]

The OP's suggestion is a duplicate of one portion of this idea: Improvements to iParts, Multi-body, and Derived Parts

The idea I've linked to proposes the same enhancement that the OP is suggesting, as well as the following:

1) For iParts to be a single file

2) To keep the material and iProperties in sync between the iPart factory and its members unless the material or iProperty is specifically in the iPart table. Currently the iProperties and material are not propogated from the iPart factory file to the iPart member files.

So, if you think these enhancements would make iParts and Derived parts better, please give both of these ideas a kudo.

[chrisw01a]

This would be a good one.  Goes right along with my post here: https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-ideas/create-a-component-pattern-from-a-part-feature/idi-p/7...

Thanks!

[MarcoBösch]

Make Feature Patterns in iParts and Derived Parts accessible to Assemblies.

This way Feature Patterns in iParts and Derived Parts can be used to drive associative Component Patterns in Assemblies.

[MarcoBösch]

The associative pattern is a wonderful function that helps to save time.

This does not work with derived and mirrored parts - why????

It is finally time for this to be revised and this associative pattern to work on every part!

[Ben_D33]

This is definitely an important feature to have, especially since there doesn't seem to be a work around for it!

[robmatthews]

Has this been implemented in 2022? We've just upgraded to 2021, and I'm disappointed to find that it's still a problem.

[SBix26]

Has not been implemented in 2022.  There is a workaround, though.  Better than nothing, but way more work than it should be.

For regular patterns (rectangular & circular):

• Rename and mark for export the parameters controlling the feature pattern in the master part
• In the derived part(s), include those parameters in the derive
• Place a workpoint at the feature pattern origin in the derived part
• Pattern the workpoint using the parameters from the master part
• Use that workpoint pattern in the assembly to control feature-driven component pattern
  Note that for a rectangular pattern following a sketched curve, the sketch may also need to be added to the derive

For sketch-driven patterns:

• Mark the driving sketch for export in the master part
• In the derived part(s), include that sketch in the derive
• Place a workpoint at the feature pattern origin in the derived part
• Pattern the workpoint using the sketch from the master part
• Use that workpoint pattern in the assembly to control feature-driven component pattern

---

Sam B
Inventor Pro 2022.1 | Windows 10 Home 20H2
LinkedIn

[DRoam]

While feature pattern recognition in derived parts hasn’t been added in 2022, what HAS been added is the ability to have multiple configurations of a part in a single file thanks to Model States. This is hopefully a viable replacement (even a superior one) for many Derive Part workflows, particularly for purposes of “machining stages” or “alternate variations.” You can now store those different states or variations in a single part file, and use the MS table to configure their differences.

However, a big weakness of Mode States right now is dealing with multi body parts. If you’re using Derive to push out a body from a multi body part into its own IPT, then Model States won’t be a great replacement for that. Because you can’t easily isolate a particular body in a Model Stare. It’s a very unfortunate limitation for what would otherwise be a fantastic complement with multi body workflows.

So if you’re using Derive to represent different machining stages/variations, hopefully Model States will be a great alternative for you, and one where feature patterns ARE recognized in assemblies. However, if you’re using Derive to push out individuals bodies in a multi body part, Model States unfortunately won’t be able to help you. Fingers crossed Autodesk adds better support for multi-Model State + multi-body parts in the future. 

[Yijiang.Cai]

@robmatthews , @DRoam , @SBix26 , @Ben_D33 , @chrisw01a ,

Could you consider to use model state for this request? We could use the different model states for the result that we use the derive feature to achieve. When placing the model state in the assembly, we could use the pattern feature from part for the component pattern.

Does it make sense for you?

Thanks,
River

[robmatthews]

No, model state is not an acceptable alternative to this.  We have a one part-one drawing process, and parts are to be unique.  And this request has been open for 9 years now.

But while we're here, why can we not change between associative (feature-based), rectangular and circular patterns after the initial choice, rather than having to delete and then re-create them?

[Yijiang.Cai]

Many thanks for posting the idea, and tracked as [INVGEN-76810]

[jeroenvandodewaard]

The title says enough.

Posted this in 2018 at my former job, but now in 2024 at my new job with new version of Inventor its still not implemented.

Recognizing patters after deriving would be nice toooooo.

Screaming for this for years already!!!!

[robmatthews]

Well, I've just had a look thru the Inv2026 What's New, and it seems this has been left off.  Again.

Inventor 2026 Help | What's New in Inventor 2026 | Autodesk

Coming up on the 10 year anniversary of this request.