Help needed for ex ProE user

[RayTrowsdale]

I'm tearing my hair out at the moment struggling with Inventor. I guess a lot of the problem is that I'm still trying to do things the way I would in Pro/Engineer.

Two issues bothering me at the moment:

1. If I copy a surface then subsequently change the surface that was copied, how do I get the copy to update to reflect the change?

2. When creating a sketch, i can project edges which is almost the same as Use Edge in ProE. However, if earlier geometry is edited and the edge no longer exists, in ProE you can say replace that old segment with this new one and all references transfer to the new one. Is there an equivalent in Inventor?

Any help gratefully received.

Ray

 

[rollupswx]

You might start here

http://home.pct.edu/~jmather/AU2006/MA13-3 Mather.pdf

and update here

http://home.pct.edu/~jmather/AU2007/MA105-1L Mather.pdf

 

[pgannon18]

1. I think you're looking for derived components here. Though, not knowing what it is specifically that you're doing, I may be off base. A little more info, or your work so far might help.
2. I think the short answer is no. Inventor loses the reference and it can't be fixed. it has to be re-created.

Again, depending on what you are trying to do, you may look into skeletal modeling.

 

[RayTrowsdale]

I'm copying a surface which I am then extending and then using it (with another created surface) in a sculpt to add material.

Since I posted the original message, I've spoken to our local Inventor support and have been told that once a surface like this is used in another feature - eg a sculpt - it becomes dumb geometry which doesn't update to any changes. If this is true - and it appears to be - I'm less than happy!

The guy did tell me that, in his opinion, Inventor is limited when it comes to surfacing.

On another issue, does anyone else find that sketches that you thought were fully constrained (black) can become unconstrained after you've done some changes higher up and you don't always get a warning? I find this very irritating. Maybe its the ProE mindset but I can't understand why you'd ever not want to fully constrain a sketch so it shouldn't allow it. Can anyone convince me otherwise?

Ray

 

[jeff4136]

> I guess a lot of the problem is that I'm still
> trying to do things the way I would in Pro/Engineer.

That is a problem going either way. You have to empty
your head*, learn the capabilities of and constraints
imposed by the new system, learn to work within them.

> I can't understand why you'd ever not want to fully
> constrain a sketch so it shouldn't allow it.

That is the foundation of what IV calls "adaptivity".
The intent is to leave degrees of freedom which will
then be controlled by assembly constraints. Somewhat
similar to Pro/E's Flexible part as opposed to
associative references.

> ...it becomes dumb geometry which doesn't update ...
>
> The guy did tell me that, in his opinion, Inventor
> is limited when it comes to surfacing.

What does 'surfacing' have to do with creation of
associative references, or was the shift in focus
intended?

Where's the value in such a vague statement made by
someone of undetermined skill level?
_ _ _

Did you take a job using IV?
Wish you well with it.

* In that vein; if you have to use IV you'll probably
be better off dropping any references to Pro/E when you
ask for help. Simply state what you're doing and what
you want to achieve. To do otherwise puts people that
might help you off, attracts 'fans' and there are not
that many people that can make the associations anyway.

> Can anyone convince me otherwise?

Are you contrasting the two programs for 'fun'?
This is not an appropriate site for the activity, be it
'student' or 'sales' related. A 'product support' site
dedicated to convincing you would be more appropriate.

-Jeff Howard (wf2)
Sure it's true. I saw it on the internet.

 

[RayTrowsdale]

Jeff,

Copying of surfaces which are then manipulated and used to add/remove material is a fairly fundamental part of surfacing in my opinion.

I've put some of my gripes on here and mentioned that I've come from ProE in the hope that someone has been down the same route and could offer some help/support.

Regarding unconstrained sketches, I can't see the benefit - if someone wants to tell me then I'll listen. If it is simply so that one part can adapt to another in an assembly then I'm afraid that doesn't convince me - at least in our company once a component is designed it is fixed and any changes have to be properly managed. In any event, the fact that Inventor allows unconstrained sketches is not my big issue - its that a sketch that WAS fully constrained is not any more because of changes further up the tree and no warnings given. Is there a way of getting it to tell you which features contain sketches which are not fully constrained? I have found that relying on the colour of the lines is not reliable because for some reason sometimes lines can go black which are not fully constrained.

 

[jeff4136]

> Copying of surfaces which are then manipulated ...

Ah! I see. Then referencing of edges would be 'edging'?

Good luck with it.

-Jeff Howard (wf2)
Sure it's true. I saw it on the internet.

 

[socalpt]

Like Solidworks, a sketch doesn't have to be fully constrained, the method allows for more flexibility and freedom in design, there's also an option to have the sketch "fixed" if you don't want it to change. Depending on the user, I used all three, and to me I think proE is a bit complicated and clumsy the same time, just my observation IMO.

 

[rollupswx]

>I've spoken to our local Inventor support and have been told that once a surface like this is used in another feature - eg a sculpt - it becomes dumb geometry which doesn't update to any changes.

I think I would find another support source. Your current source of information is incorrect.

 

[ModulusCT]

The switch from Pro/E to Inventor will be frustrating for you for many years... It's best to just forget there was ever a Pro/E in your past professional experience.

Take it from someone who made the switch about 5 years ago. I still find myself looking for the record button on the macro tab!