Inventor UCS...a coincidence?

Discuss Autodesk Inventor. Post your comments and questions about Inventor here.
User avatar

iDS!
MCAD Guru

Inventor UCS...a coincidence?

Postby iDS! » Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:37 am

Inventor UCS...a coincidence? I think not!

...so...now my forethought as to how to use this type of feature might finally be realized :D

...you see way back in April of 2007 a Product Development Manager (won't mention any names) from Autodesk stopped in to present at our local Inventor user group meeting, after wards I talked to him about a concept I kept conjuring up about UCS's in IV...since I'm an old school early 3D AutoCAD adopter...I am quite familiar with UCS's...so the next day I emailed him my concept in detail (first time I had actually put it in writing) and never heard anything from him despite several attempts and confirmations he received the email :(

...to no avail I also sent this suggestion to Autodesk Labs shortly after I had discovered they existed. I did get a timely response from Scott Shepard to which he indicated th info was passed on to the Inventor team...

...now call me crazy but I would say either I happen to be ironically tapping into something they already had in the works or they took my suggestion and made it a reality? ...either way I'm glad to see it here in the latest release of Inventor...2010!

Here is the email I sent to the Labs...

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:29 AM
To: TheLabs
Subject: Inventor skeletal modeling UCS functionality

I have pondered about a concept that I feel could add another level of
flexibility to the already powerful Skeletal/Muscular Modeling work flows
that many users of Inventor have come accustomed to and may help deal with some of the issues that hold back some of it's potential.
The concept involves adding a UCS function to the Inventor "Assembly" and "Part" environments. Here are some points and ideas that I have noted so far...

Keep in mind these ideas are with Skeletal/Muscular Modeling in mind and may not make sense to conventional solid modeling methods
- Think of the "Origin" folder under the browser panel which contains the
original work geometry (3 planes, 3 axis, and the center point) of an
assembly as the "World UCS"

- Include the ability to add UCS work geometry as a "set" which would
include 3 planes, 3 axis, and the center point contained in a folder such as
the original, base the orientation on 3 user selections of either faces,
edges, axis, workplanes, or sketch entities

- Now if you create a custom UCS the next level of development would be more like an add-in which could take a top level assembly and copy it's current World UCS and add a UCS in each child part or sub-assembly one tier deep. This would allow an assembly to re-orientate it's positional relationship of the child components by a common set of work geometry and allow the assembly constraints to be removed or suppressed in-order to save on system resources. If an assembly was altered as such then you could essentially reconstruct the entire model much like Kent Keller's "InsertnFix" which relies on matching the original origin work geometry to position the components of an assembly with out constraints and ground them

- If multiple UCS's are named and managed correctly you could create UCS A,B,and C to each component and then apply all of A to assemble the
components one way or B for another orientation, and so on...

- Another benefit of a UCS in Inventor is placement of components by "named" UCS's..such that when a customer's imported "dumb solid" file or vendor's "dumb solid" file is used in your designs you can create relational UCS's to accommodate your positional design intent within an existing skeletal/muscular model :)

Just a thought
Steve
Steve Robbins
Inventor Design Solutions & Innovations
"I believe in being an innovator " - Walt Disney
@_iDSi
no avatar

Josh_Petitt
MCAD Regular

Postby Josh_Petitt » Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:48 pm

Steve, good job!

The UCS and multibody support may change the workflow of IV users significantly (although it may not always be for the best, depending on your mindset). Now (AFAIK) there is no real need for an assembly file for models that don't move. So I foresee many new users (especially ACAD) drawing everything in one file like the modelspace in ACAD. I don't yet know if this is a good thing, at the end of the day it makes things much easier for smaller companies that may not have a dedicated CAD staff (i.e. owner-operator companies)
no avatar

c.henry
MCAD Addict

Postby c.henry » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:07 pm

maybe I have been brainwashed into inventor for too long , but ucs was the one thing i was glad to be rid of. one master set of co-ordinates to rule them all. thats why the master sketch works so well. ?


I still cant see the advantage of multiple bodies in a single ipt.

if you make something in 2 parts and assemble it in real life , it should be
2 parts and an assembly in your engineering data as well ?
User avatar

iDS!
MCAD Guru

Postby iDS! » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:15 pm

c.henry wrote:maybe i have been brainwashed into inventor for too long , but ucs was the one thing i was glad to be rid of. one master set of co-ordinates to rule them all. thats why the master sketch works so well. ?


...however if you model a part the skeletal modeling way that part is now only useful in the context of the assembly it was intended...so by adding named UCS's one could effectively use the the same part in another skeletal assembly OR as another copy within the same skeletal assembly!

Believe me I am not fond of a boat load of UCS's ...but I can foresee a real advantage in reducing design repeatability....this just adds another level of flexibility when designing solid models :)
Steve Robbins
Inventor Design Solutions & Innovations
"I believe in being an innovator " - Walt Disney
@_iDSi
no avatar

Josh_Petitt
MCAD Regular

Postby Josh_Petitt » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:17 pm

>I still cant see the advantage of multiple bodies in a single ipt.

come on now, its called "git 'er done" workflow, surely you've heard of it :-)
User avatar

iDS!
MCAD Guru

Postby iDS! » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:29 pm

c.henry wrote:I still cant see the advantage of multiple bodies in a single ipt.

if you make something in 2 parts and assemble it in real life , it should be
2 parts and an assembly in your engineering data as well ?


I take it you are not an avid user of the Skeletal Modeling methodology? ...if so you would understand that you can now create as you go instead of capture design intent in your Master Skeleton part then start a new part derive in what you want...then discover the need for changes or additions to the Master part then return to that master part, and so on....etc. etc....

Now you can simply PUSH out the part as you build it within a SINGLE file whilst keeping focus and seamlessly making changes to the master part. In fact you don't have to build the solid in detail only the body or features that are directly related to the SKELETON...then open the part file and add detailed features...this also can be effective if you have a workflow as we do by which a "Project Designer" starts the skeleton then pass it along to other designers by which they build parts by deriving the master, all the while the "Project Designer" maintains/manages critical design changes...all of this virtually simultaneously! (...did I just coin the title Project Designer?)

...really the only need for and assembly of components is iProperties ;) ..and that's because of those God for sake'n ERP's! ...errrr!
Steve Robbins
Inventor Design Solutions & Innovations
"I believe in being an innovator " - Walt Disney
@_iDSi
User avatar

Todd Hudgins
MCAD Expert

Postby Todd Hudgins » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:30 pm

Josh_Petitt wrote: "git 'er done" workflow


Man I can not even count the number of times I had to work behind someone that approached a design that way to fix things. Everything named Left Handed Wiggit 1, 2, 3 and then like. No nailed down original sketches, etc.

So much time is wasted on having to revise stuff design willy nilly.

Now if we could all just design the first and final revision of a design from the start all would be good.
Todd Hudgins
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools
no avatar

c.henry
MCAD Addict

Postby c.henry » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:31 pm

its called "git 'er done" workflow


not familiar with this one.

is it sort of like the "its just like autocad" workflow ?

and how come every time i type just i misspell it like this lsut ?
no avatar

Josh_Petitt
MCAD Regular

Postby Josh_Petitt » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:37 pm

If you want to get technical, its "Just In Time" LOL
no avatar

c.henry
MCAD Addict

Postby c.henry » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:41 pm

:bang: :bang:
no avatar

Josh_Petitt
MCAD Regular

Postby Josh_Petitt » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:58 pm

>...really the only need for and assembly of components is iProperties ..and that's because of those God for sake'n ERP's! ...errrr!

No position reps in single part, no design views, no overlay views, no exploded presentations (AFAIK). There is still a need for true assemblies (IMHO) and I will probably not change my approach too much based on what we typically make. However, it is nice to have the tool in the toolbox.
User avatar

iDS!
MCAD Guru

Postby iDS! » Tue Mar 31, 2009 4:45 pm

Josh_Petitt wrote:No position reps in single part, no design views, no overlay views, no exploded presentations (AFAIK). There is still a need for true assemblies (IMHO) and I will probably not change my approach too much based on what we typically make. However, it is nice to have the tool in the toolbox.


...oh come on now I had to exaggerate that statement a bit right? ;)
Steve Robbins
Inventor Design Solutions & Innovations
"I believe in being an innovator " - Walt Disney
@_iDSi
no avatar

Quinn Zander
Content Manager

Postby Quinn Zander » Tue Mar 31, 2009 4:56 pm

iDS! wrote:
...oh come on now I had to exaggerate that statement a bit right? ;)


I'm seeing some parallels.

Al Gore -> Invented Internet -> Wins Nobel Peace Prize :lol:

Anything is possible.
QBZ
User avatar

iDS!
MCAD Guru

Postby iDS! » Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:18 pm

Quinn Zander wrote:I'm seeing some parallels.
Al Gore -> Invented Internet -> Wins Nobel Peace Prize :lol:
Anything is possible.


...hmm not following you...I didn't claim to invent anything...merely insinuated the similarities of something I pondered about from past experiences with AutoCAD and related its functionality as a possible use with a specific Inventor workflow...didn't the "wink" elude you to that exaggeration?
Steve Robbins
Inventor Design Solutions & Innovations
"I believe in being an innovator " - Walt Disney
@_iDSi
User avatar

cmcconnell
Forum Moderator

Postby cmcconnell » Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:42 pm

UCS has been on the wish list for years - I am still not 100% aware of its benefits yet.
Cory
-----------------------------------
Mechanix Design Solutions
-----------------------------------
@mcadguy
Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests