Autodesk Inventor

[#1]

First of all, thanks for the Design Acc package, it looks like a nice addition to AIS.

I have been working in the Worm Gear section lately and am a bit disappointed that all the nomeclature is non-AGMA. Why not AGMA? Maybe in the future?

Also the Worm Gear models (ipt) produced are "weak" to the point that they are not really suitable for presentation. I realize that it is a mighty task to generate a realistic Worm Gear, because of the complexity of the tooth form. However, the DAcc Worm Gears have straight sided teeth. The first thought that occurs to an engineer viewing the meshed Worm and Worm Gear is that "something looks really wrong". Any improvement here would be appreciated.

-Russ

[#2]

Hi There is a wish list Internet address that maybe you should put this at. http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=1073397 But maybe you get better response from AutoDesk here. "Russ Walker" wrote in message news:2626706.1100114563010.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum1.autodesk.com... > First of all, thanks for the Design Acc package, it looks like a nice > addition to AIS. > > I have been working in the Worm Gear section lately and am a bit > disappointed that all the nomeclature is non-AGMA. Why not AGMA? Maybe > in the future? > > Also the Worm Gear models (ipt) produced are "weak" to the point that > they are not really suitable for presentation. I realize that it is a > mighty task to generate a realistic Worm Gear, because of the complexity > of the tooth form. However, the DAcc Worm Gears have straight sided > teeth. The first thought that occurs to an engineer viewing the meshed > Worm and Worm Gear is that "something looks really wrong". Any > improvement here would be appreciated. > > -Russ

[#3]

Done.

-Russ

[#4]

The Design Accelerator was developed in Europe, so the terminology they use reflects that. We will be improving the UI so the terminology is correct. Currently, DA is producing simplified models. At one time, this was seen as a good thing, because accurate geometry was too compute intensive. As hardware has improved, this is less of an issue. Personally, I think we should offer a choice of simple or accurate geometry. Loren Jahraus Inventor Functional Design QA Tech Lead

[#5]

> I have been working in the Worm Gear section lately and am > a bit disappointed that all the nomeclature is non-AGMA. > Why not AGMA? Maybe in the future? Hi Russ, The team that developed the DAcc is European hence one reason why an American manufacturing association may not have been one of their driving considerations. What specifically would you suggest be changed? > Also the Worm Gear models (ipt) produced are "weak" Agreed that the part files that are generated in several cases serve more as a calculation "placeholder" than as a high fidelity model that you would use to send to a CNC machine. The intent was to strike a balance between performance and functionality. Our intent was to get the MechSoft capabilities into the hands of the world-wide customer base and listen to feedback on where we need to focus our longer-term efforts at refining what is there. Your continued feedback is important to us! -- Autodesk, Inc 7995 SW Mohawk Tualatin, OR 97062 503-692-8339 gary.r.smith@autodesk.com

[#6]

Don`t forget we who lives and work in Europe, I don´t like when Autodesk ask what we want to be changed, it must be what we want to be added....... "Gary R. Smith (Autodesk)" wrote in message news:41929ecf$1_3@newsprd01... > > I have been working in the Worm Gear section lately and am > > a bit disappointed that all the nomeclature is non-AGMA. > > Why not AGMA? Maybe in the future? > > Hi Russ, > > The team that developed the DAcc is European hence one reason why an > American manufacturing association may not have been one of their driving > considerations. What specifically would you suggest be changed? > > > > Also the Worm Gear models (ipt) produced are "weak" > > Agreed that the part files that are generated in several cases serve more as > a calculation "placeholder" than as a high fidelity model that you would use > to send to a CNC machine. The intent was to strike a balance between > performance and functionality. > > Our intent was to get the MechSoft capabilities into the hands of the > world-wide customer base and listen to feedback on where we need to focus > our longer-term efforts at refining what is there. > > Your continued feedback is important to us! > > -- > Autodesk, Inc > 7995 SW Mohawk > Tualatin, OR 97062 > > 503-692-8339 > > gary.r.smith@autodesk.com > >

[#7]

Agreed! "Lars Grundberg" wrote in message news:41931760_3@newsprd01... > Don`t forget we who lives and work in Europe, I don´t like when Autodesk ask > what we want to be changed, it must be what we want to be added....... > > "Gary R. Smith (Autodesk)" wrote in message > news:41929ecf$1_3@newsprd01... > > > I have been working in the Worm Gear section lately and am > > > a bit disappointed that all the nomeclature is non-AGMA. > > > Why not AGMA? Maybe in the future? > > > > Hi Russ, > > > > The team that developed the DAcc is European hence one reason why an > > American manufacturing association may not have been one of their driving > > considerations. What specifically would you suggest be changed? > > > > > > > Also the Worm Gear models (ipt) produced are "weak" > > > > Agreed that the part files that are generated in several cases serve more > as > > a calculation "placeholder" than as a high fidelity model that you would > use > > to send to a CNC machine. The intent was to strike a balance between > > performance and functionality. > > > > Our intent was to get the MechSoft capabilities into the hands of the > > world-wide customer base and listen to feedback on where we need to focus > > our longer-term efforts at refining what is there. > > > > Your continued feedback is important to us! > > > > -- > > Autodesk, Inc > > 7995 SW Mohawk > > Tualatin, OR 97062 > > > > 503-692-8339 > > > > gary.r.smith@autodesk.com > > > > > >

[#8]

Perhaps memory is failing me but I thought at one time, there was a choice for simplified or realisitc models from DAP (when it was Mechsoft). Loren Jahraus (Autodesk) wrote: >The Design Accelerator was developed in Europe, so the terminology they use >reflects that. We will be improving the UI so the terminology is correct. > >Currently, DA is producing simplified models. At one time, this was seen as >a good thing, because accurate geometry was too compute intensive. As >hardware has improved, this is less of an issue. Personally, I think we >should offer a choice of simple or accurate geometry. > >Loren Jahraus >Inventor Functional Design QA Tech Lead > > > >

[#9]

Not sure if a change is required, but examples of differences follow:

Center Distance C vs. a
Worm Threads Nw vs Worm Teeth z
Lead angle (lambda) vs Helix angle (gamma)
Worm pitch dia d vs d1
and so on...

It is not a show stopper, but it certainly requires additional translating in the mind of the engineer not accustomed to the European standards.

[#10]

One area that we know can be improved is providing better descriptions of the variables and the supplied formulas. My rhetorical question about "change" was not meant to imply that we would eliminate the European aspects of this new functionality - an "addition" is a change too! Here is a case where widely accepted international standards would simplify things and as we get more feedback on what has been used the most, the least, what is liked, what could be better, etc... in the Design Accelerator, we will have a better idea how to set our agenda for the coming release cycles.