working method with inventor

[TECNOMODEL]

Good morning to all,
as written in my presentation I am a new inventor user and come from the use of solidworks.

I would like some indications on the method used with this cad, in particular:

how do you manage the workflow? create the 3d model and then complete table? or create the table with autocad?
if you work with the second method how do you then manage any changes? is it possible to maintain the association of the various 3d and 2d files?
if I change the 3d automatically I keep the changes on the table even if made with autocad?

I will shortly participate in a course on the system, if you can give me some anticipation I will arrive at the course with some extra tools to start from.

thanks and good work.

 

[stefanobruno]

tabled with inventor.
if you use autocad you will not have the correspondence, in any way.

 

[eden_87]

bhe is not said. to me it happened to have to make tables with the 2d (mechanical) starting from a 3d file. simply create a table with inventor of the views of interest, saved in dwg format, then open your 2d file with the "adcenter" command and go look for the dwg file just saved by inventor.
now select it, double click and you will see the blocks, that is the various views you generated shortly before; drag them inside your sheet, positions and do what you need.
When you go to change the 3d, you will have to remember to open the inventor's dwg, update it, save it by overwriting it, open the table 2d and once you search the affected block, right-click "refine" or "upon".

I know it's very laborious, but this is the only way. I hope I have been of help, in case I remain available for clarification!

 

[Tarkus]

Excuse me, but what would be the usefulness of all this?...

 

[TECNOMODEL]

Excuse me, but what would be the usefulness of all this?...

I don't know if you were referring to my question or eden's answer, I clarify my need.
I changed my company and found a mixed working method.
you do the preliminary study in 2d with autocad, then you do the parts and the assemblies with inventor but the table rests made in autocad.
I would like to change this method and move to work starting from the 3d with related table harvests.
Of course I have to be able to continue working on the existing one and I cannot think of imposing a new system completely canceling the previous one.
I would therefore like to find a way to start using my method and at the same time to ensure that those who are already inside have the opportunity to continue working as their habit.
then you will see in time whether my method brings or not advantages and then you will decide whether to apply it thoroughly or not.

other suggestions are always well accepted.

Good job

 

['NaVorta]

I don't know if you were referring to my question or eden's answer, I clarify my need.
I changed my company and found a mixed working method.
you do the preliminary study in 2d with autocad, then you do the parts and the assemblies with inventor but the table rests made in autocad.
I would like to change this method and move to work starting from the 3d with related table harvests.
Of course I have to be able to continue working on the existing one and I cannot think of imposing a new system completely canceling the previous one.
I would therefore like to find a way to start using my method and at the same time to ensure that those who are already inside have the opportunity to continue working as their habit.
then you will see in time whether my method brings or not advantages and then you will decide whether to apply it thoroughly or not.

other suggestions are always well accepted.

Good job

company you go, working method you find, as they say:
t'hadadatta:biggrin:

 

[stefanobruno]

company you go, working method you find, as they say:
t'hadadatta:biggrin:

has incredible but there are more than you can think of, even "big names.

 

[TECNOMODEL]

So you confirm that it doesn't make much sense as a method of work.
I come from solidworks and so I managed everything starting from the 3d and then putting on the table with the dedicated tools.
here they tell me that on inventor there are some autocad functions that are almost indispensable in the table, especially some sketch commands, and therefore it has always continued to use a system that comes from the old conception of when drawing by hand and below it has passed to cad 2d.

What is your opinion about it?

 

[Ilario]

lists the "indispensable" functions that the inventor lacks, please.... but must be indispensable :-d

In the sense: I know very well that what you draw in 2d autocad you will not succeed or you would struggle to draw in the inside in the table environment... and I want to specify "in the table environment"... but I would like to understand what are the commands that, starting from modeling 3d and the subsequent table setting in 2d inventor, lack fundamental. . .

could be just the lack of "change" (as usual) desire of obsolete methods. . because that is, if you want to have something that works and that is managed in inventor, you have to forget autocad and change habits and use it only for exports for those who read the dwg or similar necessity.

 

[TECNOMODEL]

lists the "indispensable" functions that the inventor lacks, please.... but must be indispensable :-d

In the sense: I know very well that what you draw in 2d autocad you will not succeed or you would struggle to draw in the inside in the table environment... and I want to specify "in the table environment"... but I would like to understand what are the commands that, starting from modeling 3d and the subsequent table setting in 2d inventor, lack fundamental. . .

could be just the lack of "change" (as usual) desire of obsolete methods. . because that is, if you want to have something that works and that is managed in inventor, you have to forget autocad and change habits and use it only for exports for those who read the dwg or similar necessity.

I always bring back what they told me:
some sketch commands lack, for example some types of arches and circles.
In addition there would be a particular that in the development phase goes "calibrate" empirically, so the changes are numerous.
on these modifications it is then linked a table in which to indicate the coordinates to perform the tool path, it is therefore considered that it is more convenient to do everything on autocad and once found the settaggio to return to inventor by making a simple copy/paste of the sketch and relative extrusion.

to me it seems a method to say a little farraginous, but not knowing inventor at all I can not make a precise idea of his limits.

 

[stefanobruno]

I can't make a precise idea of his limitations.

to me it seems that the limits are to be seen in autocad or, but here I say it and immediately after the negous, in who does not want to use allinventor.
the only things I really regret about autocad, and I have already written several times, are the snap in the positioning of quotas and views (I do not go any further, at the limit I will explain ) and the ease of making a table of a symmetric piece, which with inventor requires a good attention in the modeling or complete remaking of the table.

 

[Ilario]

Maybe I don't know them, but what kind of bows and you're trying to miss? ? ? ?

Tie the size developed with a table, with inventor you would even better (as I understood, but I should know exactly what you have to do) especially when editing.

making copy/paste from autocad is a suicide...

not to do the saputello, but I do not know anyone who, after learning how to use the 3d, wants to return to the 2d because it is more "comfort".
Instead I know people who, not knowing how to use the 3D, say that "no need".
It always depends on what you have to do and if the investment is worth the candle, that is, but that you do not use it because (as you say) they want to make you think it is more "limiting" that is not.

 

[TECNOMODEL]

to me it seems that the limits are to be seen in autocad or, but here I say it and immediately after the negous, in who does not want to use allinventor.
the only things I really regret about autocad, and I have already written several times, are the snap in the positioning of quotas and views (I do not go any further, at the limit I will explain ) and the ease of making a table of a symmetric piece, which with inventor requires a good attention in the modeling or complete remaking of the table.

also the speech of symmetry is used, just on the pieces I said before to calibrate there is then the need to realize them mirrored.
I am told that it is more convenient to autocad them.
I think, however, that by modeling correctly you can get the symmetric piece with its little work.

you in such a case as models?

 

[TECNOMODEL]

Maybe I don't know them, but what kind of bows and you're trying to miss? ? ? ?

Tie the size developed with a table, with inventor you would even better (as I understood, but I should know exactly what you have to do) especially when editing.

making copy/paste from autocad is a suicide...





not to do the saputello, but I do not know anyone who, after learning how to use the 3d, wants to return to the 2d because it is more "comfort".
Instead I know people who, not knowing how to use the 3D, say that "no need".
It always depends on what you have to do and if the investment is worth the candle, that is, but that you do not use it because (as you say) they want to make you think it is more "limiting" that is not.

the question on the table is at this link: http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/showthread.php?42903-tabella-coordinate-lavorazioniso we keep divided the various arguments and do not fall into the anger of moderators:redface:

 

[stefanobruno]

you in such a case as models?

the symmetric piece is a dilemma between the ease of getting it by derivation, so in a moment you have it and is perfectly responsive to the straight twin, and the difficulty of having the table in a short time.
I'm acting a bit like it happens, trying to mediate the two needs.
if the piece is complex of quotation but the symmetry is given by a few processes, it remakes or better the translo where they serve, so save partially the quotation.
If symmetry is complex of modeling and I need absolute correspondence, I do violence and derive the piece, already sweating to the thought of putting the quotas back.
for some works where I don't ask for the use of inventor, I put on the table the right, model as best I think the left and mirror the table dwg of the right to have that of the left (so the left does not have a commissioning )
When, at the rel. of inventor 2019, it will be automatic, I will no longer have this amletic dilemma.

 

[stefanobruno]

in the wrath of moderators:redface:

I can't get irritated, I hope someone answers you.

 

[TECNOMODEL]

the symmetric piece is a dilemma between the ease of getting it by derivation, so in a moment you have it and is perfectly responsive to the straight twin, and the difficulty of having the table in a short time.
I'm acting a bit like it happens, trying to mediate the two needs.
if the piece is complex of quotation but the symmetry is given by a few processes, it remakes or better the translo where they serve, so save partially the quotation.
If symmetry is complex of modeling and I need absolute correspondence, I do violence and derive the piece, already sweating to the thought of putting the quotas back.
for some works where I don't ask for the use of inventor, I put on the table the right, model as best I think the left and mirror the table dwg of the right to have that of the left (so the left does not have a commissioning )
When, at the rel. of inventor 2019, it will be automatic, I will no longer have this amletic dilemma.

Since I need both pieces that will have different code I would say that the best thing is to model already thinking about the mirroring, then after a nice save as, and remake the relative putting into the table.

Right?

 

[PaoloR1]

If you make the 3d with inventor, make the table with inventor. autocad at most you need before 3d x analyze certain things, and if you want you take them on the 3d sketch.

 

[marcof]

here they tell me that on inventor there are some autocad functions that are almost indispensable in the table, especially some sketch commands, and therefore it has always continued to use a system that comes from the old conception of when drawing by hand and below it has passed to cad 2d.

What is your opinion about it?

My opinion is that they are slightly out of their minds.. .

 

[PaoloR1]

I agree with Marcof.