Minimum dimensions in BOM for cutting lists

[Anonymous]

I was trying to find a solution for the following problem:

I have a Multi Body design (Mastersketch) in a part file. From this file I create an assembly using the make components command. I am using an ilogic rule suggested by Curtis Waguespack (https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-forum/part-minimum-dimensions-iproperties/td-p/7505524) in the assembly file to retrieve the dimensions (length, width, thickness) of every part to use them in the BOM for cutting lists. This works fine as long as the parts are aligned with their longest extensions to the xyz axis. Otherwise this does not yield meaningful results.

In the example attached the "right" (useful) results would be:

Lenght: 1500

Width: 303,8

Thickness: 4

but as the part is not aligned right  I get:

Length: 1500

Width: 281,5

Thickness: 121,6

I would need Inventor to draw a mimimum box (not limited to xyz direction) arround the part to find these dimensions or align the part in the correct way to the xyz axis.

I wonder that these minimum dimensions do not exist as predefined variables/iproperties in Inventor as everybody who uses cutting lists (wood industry, sheet metal industry, ...) needs these values.

[MechMachineMan]

About the only practical way to handle this is with proper modelling, or manual input in the case where that is not possible.

Inventor has nothing built in to 'properly align the part to their minimum bounding box' which is why you need to rely on proper modelling and you could search for days on the internet for algorithms that are difficult to understand, resource intensive, and not necessarily accurate.

[Anonymous]

Hi Justin,

so proper modelling would mean that I cannot use Top-Down (MasterSketch) design which is by far the most practical way for my needs. The part was taken out of a simple shelf design (I attached the full design). As the parts are controled by the MasterSketch, using "Make components/part" automatically aligns them in space as defined by MasterSketch. If I would model each part individually and constrain them in an assembly I would obviously align them to xyz-planes in their part files.

[MechMachineMan]

Makes sense.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned in the previous post, the complexity of the algorithm to find the minimum bounding box of an object is likely why Autodesk hasn't implemented such a tool.

That leaves a couple options left for you:

1. Manually input the dimensions as required.

2. Reorient the part manually so that it produces the right dimensions

3. Write a macro to properly align the part using face selections

4. Implement a "works in most cases" bounding box algorithm to do the work for you in most cases.

5. Revisit your need for having full dimensions on the part (or at least the need for more than a thickness)

6. Change your modelling techniques to involve named parameters.

7. other options?

[dgreatice]

Hi,

Do you want create cutting list of parts? are each component are plate? why not use sheet metal extend?

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the answers. Seems that there is no real good solution to the problem.

I was looking arround a bit and it seems that SolidWorks (http://cadcamstuff.com/3684/solidworks-bounding-box-best-underrated-2013-feature/) and SolidEdge (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjrRRHpn4rY) have solutions for this problem so its not imposible.

I still think that this is a very basic feature for all kind of aplications where you need cutting lists of raw meterial for further processing like machining. I really love Inventor but this is a big drawback for me.

Is there any statement from Autodesk if they will implement this in the future?

[dgreatice]

Hi,

First you have solution from solidedge or solidwork, but it single part which mean each part have own absolute UCS. (Example base feature create from "Origin Point").

Now you want to search minimum range each part in Assembly base on multi solid component. UCS every part are relative from main component, you must you generate new Point (0,0,0) for every part). it maybe had complex code.