Inter part relations

[TheBlanKuC]

Greetings,

We have made a recent switch over to Inventor from SW. I am finding it hard to be consistent and keep track of inter part relations. Any work flow and tool suggestions?
I was also wondering what was the difference between creating a part and selecting certain parts with the “Make Part/Component” feature and creating a layout and doing the same thing.
I also don t mean to complain but I am familiar with both pro e and SW and inventor just doesn t seem as cooperative, or is it just me?
Thank you


-C

 

[mflayler]

It is a slightly different mindset for Inventor, but really most Inventor users will agree that it is more cooperative than those other two platforms. Have you taken a one day transition course or talked with a Professional Services VAR about this? If the one you are currently using doesn't have the right offering for you, our company has over 100 techs in North America alone, but we'll table that for now.

For more information on the Make Part/Components usage check out this blog post I did which contains a nice whitepaper on Top Down Design methods in Inventor.

http://blogs.rand.com/manufacturing...lian-autodesk-university-summit-brisbane.html

Make Part/Components is essentially an automated way to do Layout based either using Multi-Body Design or Layout Design (mostly for kinematics using Sketch Blocks). It replaces the slow method of starting a new part, deriving specific geometry manually and saving the file; essentially making those top down methods very fast in the creation time department all the while managing the references correctly. A large top down design using skeletal or master modeling may still have to be done in this manual way.

As far as keeping track of your interpart relations, are you using Project files? Are you a Multi-user environment? Are you using Vault (this would be similar to Pro's Intralink).

 

[splats]

You write: "I also don t mean to complain but I am familiar with both pro e and SW and inventor just doesn t seem as cooperative, or is it just me?"

====

It's not just you, that's my impression as well - I started with Pro/E, then worked at a place with SW, now I find myself working with Inventor. I have lots of gripes with the program and find it to be endlessly frustrating on many different levels. But I digress...

I'm not sure what you mean by inter part relations. If you want to drive geometry with externally declared parameters, it's possible to use an external spreadsheet that can be accessed by multiple parts and/or assemblies. You can access this through the 'Parameters' section of 'Manage' in the ribbon thing. There is a dialogue box where you can link to an external file.

 

[mflayler]

Its all about the training. To think that the software will be exactly the same just because they can accomplish the same goals will have you producing bad habits all over again in a new software but even more compounding.

I have a client that switched from Pro to Inventor with a seat count of about 1100 seats and I have trained over 300 of them only to find about only one holdout per location that couldn't wrap their head around it the right way. All the other users have been happy to get away from Pro and SW after professional training.

Back on topic, I hate spreadsheets when a perfectly good Master model will accomplish the same goal, but if you want to drive more than just geometry it is a good path to take. With iLogic (which neither SW or Pro have anything really close to out of the box), you can do a ton of programming from the Excel and write back to it as well. I have a client that is actively doing this now with their Top Down Design.

 

[splats]

Clearly...(clearly!)...your comments are dictated by what looks best in terms of sales/PR. Telling the world that all of my various gripes with Inventor are due to lack of training is inane - especially when you don't even know what my gripes are.

(...you hate spreadsheets but love programming from Excel...?)

 

[mflayler]

Its all about using the right tool for the right process. If you have always used an Excel spreadsheet for the selection of material geometry or BOM usage then it is a valid method, but when you can I really do like keeping things internal to Inventor. Different strokes for different folks. Why should I look at in just one way, that would be a little short sighted wouldn't it?

I am just stating what is more than common about shifting software programs. It is anything but inane. Frustrations can be overcome with the right understanding of a modeling process (different programs approach things slightly differently). To the original posting I would definitely recommend a day of update or transition training. You can't argue with the benefits of seeing how a different software approaches a similar process. And who said that was directed at you. Again I was merely pointing out the axiom of design that this situation ultimately leads to which is exactly what any CAD company will tell you when you switch products.

Feel free to start a new thread outside of this discussion as to what gripes you have and maybe I can help you with the topics or if you are one of our clients we can take this offline and do a little more direct discussion on how to overcome some of the quips about your transition.

 

[EngAddict]

I think what mark has said is fair, I work with both Inventor and SolidWorks and Inventor is much more flexible IMO. I have never heard a Pro|E user say anything good about it, everyone I have spoken to has been happy with the transition to Inventor.

I don't think formal training is required (I know Mark would like you to though), because there is so much documentation around online. Read up on tutorials and white papers is my recommendation.

In context relationships are quite different between solidworks and Inventor. I would recommend derived parts with master sketches or multi-body master parts and stay away from creating parts in context, unless it is only to derive in a sketch for feature creation.
The advantage of using this method is you don't rely on adaptivity which has many limitations for flexible updating. Derived parts and multi-body parts are much more powerful tools plus you always have a link to the master/parent part in the browser, making it easy to keep track of all your dependencies.

 

[rollupswx]

You might start here

http://home.pct.edu/~jmather/skillsusa university.pdf

Bottom line is you must keep an open mind and work with the knowledge that there is an easy and logical technique - you just haven't found it yet as you already know an easy (but different) way to do the same thing in a different software. These hurdles will trip you up if YOU let them.