limits to the possibility of moving

[sinirrop]

I tried to ask for self-desk assistance because a combination with degrees of freedom (with also some flexible subaxis) suddenly stops working, simply adding a component that has nothing to do with moving parts.
I was told that inventor set a limit of degrees of freedom (or constraints, I did not understand well) beyond which does not solve cinematics.
Is that true?

 

[Cast16]

What an employee tells you about any autodesk take it with pliers...
try to make a "rebuild all" and see if a red crust appears

 

[stefanobruno]

I don't know if it's true, but it's a fact.
Here too, you have to get smart and steal the software.
I have already written here many times, do not leave any free bond.
no one, and I emphasize no one, never stops the screws, dice and washers in the models that are developing.
this is the greatest source of problems for the management of movements or even only of drags in position of parts or assemblies.
autodesk thought of ovviating to the thing with that drunk of snack that he added from rel. 2019 on the constraint perno/foro.
this "newness ", is nothing but a nailing of the bond, so it is no longer possible to move anything, an ideona.
I repeat, my screws, washers and other rotating parts ( bearings, spacers etc... ) they are all, all, bound so that they cannot turn.
the quality of handling changes exponentially, try to believe.
and it is also easy to understand, at every movement, the sw must recalculate each relationship, if it has unresolved or labile, at least it loses time or gets impunta.
There is someone who thinks that this procedure is just a waste of time, classes will never tell you to do so, but I am smarter than the program, and in this way I frego.

 

[sinirrop]

This is a very useful information (although it is unpleasant to know that you have to spend so much time on activities with little added value). I mean, really inventor, with all these limits, it takes much more time than other software to get to the same result? in the design activity I would like (and so I always did) focus my attention on the project, and not on how to "fresh the software", which should be a useful tool, not an enemy to beat.

 

[stefanobruno]

I do these things in a masked way, in the sense that I doubt that one spends 100% of the time focused on designing.
I have to make a screw/dade coupling (I do not use automatism ), I put the screw, the washer and the nut and bind them together so that they do not turn relatively one with the other, hole where it serves, copy and paste of the three elements (then with the relative constraints ).
Now I bind the work plan of a vine with that of the other vine and this combustible of 6 friends I spread it where it serves, maybe then become 12, bound together, and ready to a new coupling (this is a hard part ).
I assure you that I'm less able to do it than I used to write it and you read it.
there is some satisfaction in getting to screw someone, if then it is a sw is even more ethical.
I bet that even those who use solidwork or catia (a lot to make random names), have the screws that turn.
I prefer not to turn, so do not turn the cabbasi.

 

[Cadinpiedi]

I bet that even those who use solidwork or catia (a lot to make random names), have the screws that turn.
I prefer not to turn, so do not turn the cabbasi.

and think that there are those who live happy and happy without having to define a bond one.
but one cannot ignore the cry of pain of those who moan oppressed by the chains of bonds, or even brothers, arise and free yourself from the paramount slavery imposed by catia, solid works, proe, inventor and similar.
new programs await you, free your mind, enter the golden age of free modeling!
sometimes you have to throw some gas on the fire, reactivate the ancestral Italian factions:
Guelphs and Ghibellines, interists and milanists, over and over,
and nursery, parametric and not parametric. . .
Good night to all

 

[stefanobruno]

I would like to sit next to one who uses creo and see how the design process takes place, from the beginning to the tables.
I'm really curious.

 

[TECNOMODEL]

and think that there are those who live happy and happy without having to define a bond one.
but one cannot ignore the cry of pain of those who moan oppressed by the chains of bonds, or even brothers, arise and free yourself from the paramount slavery imposed by catia, solid works, proe, inventor and similar.
new programs await you, free your mind, enter the golden age of free modeling!
sometimes you have to throw some gas on the fire, reactivate the ancestral Italian factions:
Guelphs and Ghibellines, interists and milanists, over and over,
and nursery, parametric and not parametric. . .
Good night to all

I didn't understand what software you're referring to, but I got to work with creo direct modeling and found it bad just because I didn't parametric.
continuous errors in ambush, farraginous management, changes that become a watch bomb.
x me parametric all my life, just have a valid working method and things work.
often, unfortunately, you see designers use cads from self-taught and cazzum, then when they are born, they blame the software.

 

[Cadinpiedi]

I would like to sit next to one who uses creo and see how the design process takes place, from the beginning to the tables.
I'm really curious.

It's my own curiosity about the parish of parametrics. reading the comments on the forum I asked myself "How can they work with all these mealies? "
However, it is a fact that the majority of the projects are made with these tools, and so I came to the conclusion that if one is good if he is still doing it, but the doubt remains that he makes more effort.

 

[TECNOMODEL]

It's my own curiosity about the parish of parametrics. reading the comments on the forum I asked myself "How can they work with all these mealies? "
However, it is a fact that the majority of the projects are made with these tools, and so I came to the conclusion that if one is good if he is still doing it, but the doubt remains that he makes more effort.

I do not see it as a struggle, if you use a correct method it is all widely repaid when you make changes, for example, and in all stages of work.
While with a non-parameter you have "risks" deriving from the non-binability of processing and models that require, these are, much effort in terms of attention to what you do.
I repeat, having had the opportunity to use both systems I go on the parametric all my life.
then there is cad and cad, some, despite being parametric, have limits and/or logic of operation that complicate things.

 

[Cadinpiedi]

I didn't understand what software you're referring to, but I got to work with creo direct modeling and found it bad just because I didn't parametric.
continuous errors in ambush, farraginous management, changes that become a watch bomb.
x me parametric all my life, just have a valid working method and things work.
often, unfortunately, you see designers use cads from self-taught and cazzum, then when they are born, they blame the software.

Well, I create direct modeling and then space claim and maybe some other.
first stitch carved in marble for this kind of discussion:
depends on what you have to design,
then using a software or another I think is something similar to linguistic inprinting.
if one is born with German mother tongue, even after years will feel the hardness of the accent. I started drawing with me10, at the time ahead light years compared to autocad,
and therefore the rational structure of the tree of the parts is part of my inprinting.
everything depends on the right form minds and therefore ergo and agree, errors are of the designer not of the software.

 

[Il Mauri]

I don't know if it's true, but it's a fact.
Here too, you have to get smart and steal the software.
I have already written here many times, do not leave any free bond.
no one, and I emphasize no one, never stops the screws, dice and washers in the models that are developing.
this is the greatest source of problems for the management of movements or even only of drags in position of parts or assemblies.
autodesk thought of ovviating to the thing with that drunk of snack that he added from rel. 2019 on the constraint perno/foro.
this "newness ", is nothing but a nailing of the bond, so it is no longer possible to move anything, an ideona.
I repeat, my screws, washers and other rotating parts ( bearings, spacers etc... ) they are all, all, bound so that they cannot turn.
the quality of handling changes exponentially, try to believe.
and it is also easy to understand, at every movement, the sw must recalculate each relationship, if it has unresolved or labile, at least it loses time or gets impunta.
There is someone who thinks that this procedure is just a waste of time, classes will never tell you to do so, but I am smarter than the program, and in this way I frego.

You're right to bind everything. years ago I did a sw course and also there the instructor (very good) recommended to completely bind any element to have a stable set.
He said missing constraints sooner or later make you pay. . .
the same suggestion was given to me long ago by an autodesk instructor.

 

[stefanobruno]

at the course inventor (5.3), the instructor said: "after you have bound your set, suppress the constraints and nail everything "
Maybe he was a little overreacted, but you don't have a problem anymore.
As far as the question is concerned, because of the incompatible constraints, it is better that I should check them first on the PC, than to hear a call from the yard that says: "brown, there are holes that are not aligned, look a little on the model what does not work."
I work with a person who uses I create, magnificent program for managing big assemblies, however, ask why, when we go specifically, it is better than we do it with inventor.

 

[Peppe]

at the course inventor (5.3), the instructor said: "after you have bound your set, suppress the constraints and nail everything "

I only tell you that our pdm has a command that serves precisely to suppress all constraints and fix components. command recommended by a user because he struggled to manage large assemblies and with this function managed easily to manage them