unreliable transaction bound?

[Sleepers]

I don't understand if it's him or if it's me.

in the attached zip (inventor 2019), which I reduced to the minimum, I would like to rotate the octagonal knob (linked to a tree with a cam) to raise and lower the frame, at 45 degrees clicks.

I used a transient bond between cam and frame, and moving (in representation of position: main) the handheld knob (i.e. with the mouse ^__^) seems to work; it seems, because sometimes (my always, it would be too beautiful), after a few seconds of rotation with the mouse, the reference face of the transient bond changes from the outside of the cam to the inner hole.

vabbè; I have created angular constraints on the knob to simulate shots (btw, do you know another system to do it?) and its position representations (camma 7,5 mm, cam 9 mm etc.): even here, if I activate them one after another several times, sometimes they work, sometimes it still happens that the reference face of the transitory bond is lost.

now, stefanobruno wrote here (January 2021)

Problema Vincolo Transitorio

Buonasera, sono "nuovo" su inventor e mi sto cimentando nella realizzazione di un carrello a 2 assi. Il problema è principalmente uno, far percorrere al mio carrello una curva, simulando quindi il moto che dovrebbe avere. Sono riuscito a farlo con 1 asse, ma se ne accoppio 2, allora il giochino...

www.cad3d.it

that "the transient bond, together with the symmetric is a little uncertain, have been years that it is"; In addition, it was recommended in previous discussions to verify the other constraints and to fix the parties if necessary.

I tried to simplify this together to a minimum, eliminating the superfluous, thinking of interference of other pieces or constraints; I lost an afternoon, but he keeps not acting like I wish.

Does it work to you? Am I wrong?

Thank you.

 

[Peppe]

for simple position representations instead of using the transient you cannot use simple face/face matching constraints? different speech if you want to make a "simulation" of the various positions with animation bond

 

[Sleepers]

for simple position representations instead of using the transient you cannot use simple face/face matching constraints?

yes, i had initially thought about it; however, for the first time in my life, i needed to use a cam with inventor, then i chose to use the transitory to learn something new.
i studied how to do, read the old discussions and tried; after a few seconds of happiness, inventor began to do his own:-(

i would like to understand whether, as a newbie, i am wrong (where?) or if the transient bond is another of the features of inventor that gives problems (uff).

 

[Peppe]

i give you an example for very simple operation

 

[Peppe]

i did some evidence with your example. test now

 

[Sleepers]

i give you an example for very simple operation

thank you! (beautiful the idea of having "commercials" and "vites" in the tree, perhaps i copy it to you ^__^)

before starting with the application of the transient on the main axieme i had created something similar (two pieces); i immediately understood your example, because it looks a lot like my

 

[Sleepers]

i did some evidence with your example. test now

i saw that you used contacts; but i don't even like that, nor if i activate the positions, nor if i move it by hand.

you do not understand in the video, but when i try to activate position 10,5 an error window comes out (you see in the screenshot).

 

[Peppe]

i didn't fix the representations of positions. in the main if you move by hand the cam moves everything by following the profile. for representations you better, as i told you in the first answer, use face/face matching constraints

 

[Sleepers]

I didn't fix the representations of positions.

ah, ok

in the main if you move the cam by hand you move everything by following the profile.

Yes, I was able to do this before
but also in your solution, at some point the transient " breaks" (in the first video you see).

for representations you better, as I told you in the first answer, use face/face matching constraints

Well, I was already going to follow this road that gives more guarantees of stability.
In theory, however, my initial reasoning on the representations of positions would be correct?

Thank you.

 

[Peppe]

the transient bond I used it only and exclusively to make some "scene" and as you noticed it is a little dancer so not absolutely reliable.
if you want to be sure that the components are placed in the pre-established conditions the effective way is only the bond. Also because from the example you have attached it would not be necessary precisely to verify all the movement of the cam but only and exclusively the positions that must assume your frame according to the same cam, in fact you have created representations of position to vermic the various conditions.

 

[Sleepers]

the transient bond I used it only and exclusively to make some "scene" and as you noticed it is a little dancer so not absolutely reliable.

Here, this unpredictability of inventor (and it's not even the only case) leaves me puzzled.

I started using it in 2010, and I always had to come to terms with the concept "the xyz command exists, but sometimes it may not work, so better to forget it".
it is not a question of accepting the limitations of some procedures or functionality compared to competing software, but of colliding (too often) with commands malfunctions that in theory should be in place, but in reality have strange random behaviors; One goes crazy losing time to figure out where he's wrong, and then find out that it depends on inventor.

I have assemblies of a few hundred parts with two/three movements; opening them, from time to time comes the red cross of "incompatible wines".
I close, reopen, and the errors disappear.

controlled and rechecked constraints.

from the example that you have attached would not be necessary precisely to verify all the movement of the cam but only and exclusively the positions that must assume your frame according to the same cam

That's true, too.
I usually do not compose the assemblies, just to avoid possible troubles; here I was trying to experiment

 

[Peppe]

When I started with inventor I also claimed to be able to simulate movements or anything. then with the experience and understanding of the qualities and defects, I realized that the software is not suitable for what I imagined for which I preferred to avoid unstable situations simply simplifying the way to design. I haven't had any unpleasant situations since then. There would be so many things to say about what and where to improve but it doesn't seem constructive, so as I say for so long we have to try to adapt to the software and to what it offers us just to be able to exploit the potential.
then maybe there are software suitable for simulating movements or doing better things, but this we have and we have to keep it in good or bad re