serious problem with position representations

[braunfish]

I almost finished the design of an arm composed of 4 subaxis.
each subaxiom rotates over the other around pins.
( Imagine something like an excavator's arm).
I have inserted 3 hydraulic cylinders as flexible assemblies (the stele race is not bound).
I can, animated the constraints, verify all the movements and I have no type of collision between parts.
to each movement the hydraulic cylinders (remember that are flexible assemblies) "adapt" elongating or shortening the stem.

the problem arrives as I try to create position representations so that I can record the 5 / 6 positions that interest me also in function of creating tables with overlapping views.
Although I manage to create them, when I go to reactivate them I move parts (especially the flexible assemblies, but also other parts that are part of the main general assemblies) and the position representation remains not "computated" and with the exclamation point.

At this point I did 99% of the design work, I just miss the table setting, and I get a lot of boxes. . .

added: I realized that when I do the animation of the constraints, everything is ok, as I said, but only if I do "play" and watch it move between the set ends, if instead I use the button that makes it pass directly to the extreme positions it gets kicked all.

 

[stefanobruno]

added: I realized that when I do the animation of the constraints, everything is ok, as I said, but only if I do "play" and watch it move between the set ends, if instead I use the button that makes it pass directly to the extreme positions it gets kicked all.

This is something that happens very often.
You probably have constraints that generate uncertainty.
angle and tangency constraints can give those problems, elements not completely bound as well, I also come to prevent screws and washers or bearings to rotate on their axis.
also the series and insertion of elements of the center contained using imates bother.
management of position representations requires the patience of giobbe and a maniacal order, at the cost of removing constraints of convenient and putting them more consistent, as I really had to mount the set in workshop.

Bye.

 

[frenk]

binds the position of the stem indicating the limits of the race

 

[braunfish]

Thank you, I will try to bind the binding

 

[braunfish]

Nothing to do.
I have bound everything, I no longer have any degree of visible freedom, yet I cannot come to the end of it.
the cylinders (flexibly assemblings) are moved by the above, giving limit values to the degree of free freedom which by eliminating them completely free.
I also move a few lives and kaybars of the pin relative to the cylinders, I don't know why.
I cannot believe that with inventor I can come to design all this and then fall miserably into the final stage.

 

[stefanobruno]

Nothing to do.

You should see everything.
If you think so, send me a m.p.

Bye.

 

[myface]

It is probably a superfluous suggestion, but I suggest you proceed with order in the constraints, starting from the coaxial ones.

prefer the constraints regarding the primitive plans of your parts, possibly reducing these plans to a minimum.
We do not forget that the ideal axieme is the one where all parts refer to a single point.

In your case, but always I would say, the handling should be done following the logic of real operation of the machine designed, if you use hydraulic cylinders for example, bind the stem to the cylinder with the expected stroke.

 

[braunfish]

the problem is precisely the cylinders, they're the ones who mess up and traverse.

 

[AngeloB]

It happens to me too often.
the only solution I found is to move the mechanism by changing the cylinder stroke instead, as it is more convenient, using an angled wine.

 

[braunfish]

It happens to me too often.
the only solution I found is to move the mechanism by changing the cylinder stroke instead, as it is more convenient, using an angled wine.

that is how the machine would move in reality, only that seems uncomfortable to me.
perhaps I mistake to bind the components of the cylinder axieme, boh

 

[frenk]

main position-try a clearly defined position of the cylinder (closed .. open)
in subsequent position representations replace with flexibility
prepares the cylinder with the three open open representations free using only one constraint and setting the racing limides... works

 

[braunfish]

main position-try a clearly defined position of the cylinder (closed .. open)
in subsequent position representations replace with flexibility
prepares the cylinder with the three open open representations free using only one constraint and setting the racing limides... works

frenk, thank you, but I'm afraid I didn't understand.

 

[braunfish]

I reassembled everything with new constraints, without inserting the tire cylinders.
5 position configurations work perfectly.

If I insert the 3 cylinders instead it all goes to that country. . .
at this point I begin to think that I have mistaken to bind between them the elements that make up the cylinders, while being very schematized:

these are (in order):
- basic ring
- box
- cylinder
- What?
- Steady.
- Stem ring.

How do you think I should bind them?
on the planes, or on the planes, or on the planes and all the others to that component?