Support Direct Assembly‑Driven Part Parameters Using Link Parameters

[GustavoGonzattoSchmitt]

Enable a native and stable way to link:

Assembly Parameters → Part Parameters

… using the existing Link Parameters workflow, without triggering cyclic dependency errors.

Why this matters

This is the simplest and most logical method for top‑down design, but right now, the cyclic dependency check blocks valid workflows that should work.

Summary

Please improve or update the dependency logic so that assemblies can safely drive part parameters directly through the standard Link Parameters interface.

[RajSchmidt]

Simple question: What happens if you use that part in another assembly? Which assembly is in control?

[GustavoGonzattoSchmitt]

@RajSchmidt 

Short answer: the linked document is always in control — not the assembly where the part is currently used.

Inventor allows a single part (.ipt) to be linked to multiple external documents (parts, assemblies, spreadsheets, etc.). Each link remains active independently, and you decide which parameters from each link drive your model.

So, if you link a part to Assembly A and use parameters from that link:

• That link remains active even if the part is later placed in Assembly B.
• Assembly B does not automatically take control unless you explicitly create a new link and switch the driving parameters.
• Both links can coexist; what matters is which linked parameters are actually referenced in the part.

In other words, control is not “contextual” to the current assembly — it’s explicit and persistent based on the links defined inside the part.

I strongly recommend testing this directly in Inventor. Once you experiment with multiple links driving the same part, the behavior becomes very intuitive.

See the example below. I linked a part to another 3 documents, an each one drives different parameters.

[GustavoGonzattoSchmitt]

Today, links are path‑based, which means:

• Moving files, restructuring folders, or migrating data (especially into Vault) can break or complicate links.
• The relationship is technical rather than semantic — it says where the file is, not what the part is.

If links could be resolved by Part Number / Item Number:

• Reuse across projects would be safer and more intentional.
• Vault or any PDM system could resolve the correct revision automatically.
• Parametric relationships would survive folder changes, copies, and lifecycle transitions.
• It would align much better with how engineers think: products are identified by numbers, not paths.

This wouldn’t replace explicit links, but it would be an excellent optional resolution layer, especially in data‑managed environments.

[RajSchmidt]

That’s exactly the same way I see it. And I see a small danger there: The Part is controlled by assembly A (both files are created by user John.) The part is also used in assembly B (by Jane).

John is changing assembly A which gets the part changed as well. Later Jane opens assembly B and wonders why it need to be updated.

Nothing you could not handle with a PDM system but probably a nightmare without.

[RajSchmidt]

And speaking about the links: I think using part numbers is not very practical. That’s just some metadata which can be changed any time. I know that Inventor files have internal IDs, they could be used.

However, that would probably mean that the whole concept of how Inventor resolves links needs to be changed. And I doubt anybody will do that.