Multiple Solid Bodies in a Sheet Metal Part

Summary: Allow for multiple solid bodies in sheet metal parts

Description: I know there are tutorials for creating sheet metal solids in a standard part file, but this is way too complicated. The ability to do it inside a sheet metal part with the functionality of sheet metal features would be outstanding. When making the components have the exported parts be sheet metal parts.
Better yet would be to have a generic part that allows both sheet metal and standard modeling with solid bodies.

Product and Feature: Inventor - API

Submitted By: Michael Eck on Fri, 22 Jun 2012

I've thought about this too, but it seems to me that a SM part would need to be a single body in order for the unfolding to work. It is possible to derive a SM part from any body (or sketches and work features), then assign it a base face and SM parameters and unfold it from there. I do this fairly often in my work--we usually use sheet metal to make joining clips, and they often need to be skeleton-driven.

The drawback to this is that if the body thickness doesn't match the part's SM thickness, we end up generating an inaccurate flat pattern.

Further thoughts in later post.

I've thought this as well and I think it's a good wish. Limitations of present software functions should not limit wishes.
I've gone even further with my wish by wishing the solidbody modeling should be inside of assembly instead of part - by that way constraints are simpler and most important thing is that whole designs can be copied with much less messing around. Needed technics is up to developers.

I agree--this would make multi-body modeling more powerful. The obvious limitation is that Inventor can only unfold one body, using one set of SM parameters. My current workaround is to outline the SM part(s) in a multi-body reference part, using key parameters for thickness(es). If a thickness change is required, that still means there are two edit points. iLogic could be used at the assembly level to update the reference part, but all this is still somewhat cumbersome.

If even one SM body were allowed in a multi-body part it would help. Or as suggested, a part that might allow several sets of SM parameters to generate different bodies, but wouldn't generate flat patterns (that would be done in the separate part files).