copy body into a multi-body

[Psikokite]

thank you all for the answers. my main use for inventor, would be in the design of small structures of metal carpentry (mainly gates, fences and railings) and very particular furnishing elements, where I need a careful 3d design. for the moment I will try the two ways, for the moment the piece I made it, starting from a set and I created the various parts, now I will try with the multi-body. I think I'll have to rely on some manuals to better understand the software, it's so vast that I'm lost and I definitely don't have a proper and smart way of working. thanks to all


sent by my notes 3 using tapatalk

 

[Tarkus]

I agree that the multibody is suitable for those assemblies intended not to be in any case divided. skf, for example, creates the models of their bearings.

I prefer to edit those parts too to have the relative movement of the components and assign them different materials that are then kept at any level. this increases the number of files to manage, but if you have a good organization of the libraries, you do not even notice their existence.

the distinct, even if a little bit slender in inventor, allows to manage assemblies and subaxis in all the ways thinkable, while the multibody are in this penalized, definitive reason for their use only in narrow and well defined areas.

I say mine,
I use the multibody all the time I have to create a group of parts, even complex, which are linked together by measurement reports, orientation etc.
then with creates part or better creates component, I extract everything and change if necessary the properties of each part: material,colors, add finishing processes like bevels etc.
I already have the parts all fixed in a set, I just have to remove the fixing and bind them for how they have to be bound.
It seems slender, but I assure you that it is fast, nothing compared to any work together. . .
Moreover the modification of a multibody component automatically updates me the other components connected to it.
Try to do it with parts created separately and then tell me....
Sure, if there was also the implementation of the distinct components would be the top

 

[PIETRO2002]

I am very welcome with you tarkus, unfortunately I do not know how to use it very well but from many advantages!

 

[PIETRO2002]

I am very welcome with you tarkus, unfortunately I do not know how to use it very well but from many advantages!

 

[Zac69]

I say mine,
I use the multibody all the time I have to create a group of parts, even complex, which are linked together by measurement reports, orientation etc.
then with creates part or better creates component, I extract everything and change if necessary the properties of each part: material,colors, add finishing processes like bevels etc.
I already have the parts all fixed in a set, I just have to remove the fixing and bind them for how they have to be bound.
It seems slender, but I assure you that it is fast, nothing compared to any work together. . .
Moreover the modification of a multibody component automatically updates me the other components connected to it.
Try to do it with parts created separately and then tell me....
Sure, if there was also the implementation of the distinct components would be the top

and if you have to make a change how you behave?

 

[Cast16]

and if you have to make a change how you behave?

This is the beauty of multibody: Just change the parameters in the master and you can automatically change multiple parts

 

[Zac69]

This is the beauty of multibody: Just change the parameters in the master and you can automatically change multiple partsView attachment 52673View attachment 52674View attachment 52675View attachment 52676

I asked you because if you change the multibody and update the parts, I don't know if you lose or keep the jobs you have possibly done on the individual ipts.
Thank you.

 

[exxon]

This is the beauty of multibody: Just change the parameters in the master and you can automatically change multiple parts

Yeah, you change parts that you don't know what they are.

Then what do you do? piece-by-piece controls to identify (eye) the modified ones to change the number of revision and make the new masses on the table?

Mah. .

 

[Catafratto]

depends on workflows, encoding needs and self-discipline: I made a headphone the sheet that modifies me a 40 parts, I have to be careful but when the customer asked me to "seat all a little" I took a moment... the price is that those pieces are not reusable, but they are for a single piece therefore patience.

 

[Cast16]

I asked you because if you change the multibody and update the parts, I don't know if you lose or keep the jobs you have possibly done on the individual ipts.
Thank you.

I didn't have a problem. normal that if you added a workmanship on a face that no longer exists, it will make you mistake. .

 

[Tarkus]

I asked you because if you change the multibody and update the parts, I don't know if you lose or keep the jobs you have possibly done on the individual ipts.
Thank you.

processing on the individual ipts created by multiboy, are not lost in case of change, except to make shape changes that upset the piece.
However, the multibody should be understood as a useful tool to develop how your mechanism should be done, then for the more bureaucratic things, boms, revisions etc, it takes the assembling.

 

[Psikokite]

Thanks again to everyone. I'm making the first progress with inventor and I'm starting to understand how parametric design is structured. Since for a good 70% my work will be with the frames, I am beginning to understand the.frame generator and the use of the subaxis to create various skeletons (on this I have some question, but I will open some posts separately). for the moment I'm working with the parti-assiemi method, and as soon as I understand what it's like, I'm going to spend trying the multibody. Unfortunately, I'm a pig, but I'll be there.

sent by my notes 3 using tapatalk

 

[Lettore espatriato]

I say mine,
I use the multibody all the time I have to create a group of parts, even complex, which are linked together by measurement reports, orientation etc.
then with creates part or better creates component, I extract everything and change if necessary the properties of each part: material,colors, add finishing processes like bevels etc.
I already have the parts all fixed in a set, I just have to remove the fixing and bind them for how they have to be bound.
It seems slender, but I assure you that it is fast, nothing compared to any work together. . .
Moreover the modification of a multibody component automatically updates me the other components connected to it.
Try to do it with parts created separately and then tell me....
Sure, if there was also the implementation of the distinct components would be the top

As far as I do not use inventor, I have seen the same method of work in catia, both for components for f1 (unique pieces but produced in hundreds of different versions ) and for automotive components (identical pieces produced in thousands of units and related parts of the mold ), including the application of materials and other characteristics attached to the axieme.
probably the advantages can be appreciated more with some types of geometries than with others.