Autodesk Inventor

[#1]

Put back my classic Interface.. New interface is crap and hating it more and more every day.

Keep Autocad out of Inventor already starting to look like it. ( next thing you would want the command line)

Fix the bugs...

I rather wait 2 years for the next release and have my Inventor back to the working Inventor it once was....

[#2]

---

jeff.noel wrote:

So please, fix the software, because it is driving us CAD managers nuts.  

---

I'd like a Purge command for the Vault.

[#3]

bsstewart wrote:

I'd like a Purge command for the Vault.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They do...

it's called un-install Vault

[#4]

Not really the 2014 wishlist but, fix the forum so that when I reply and have to sign in it doesn't reply to the post at the top of the page instead.

Looks like lots of votes for "Fix Stuff Instead!"

I say make marketing work. Hey, they will be getting better functionality in current features-maybe they could just ignore that the oversold them to begin with, new users aren't going to know that we've had it for years but it was just crap. And if they can't sell it without new features, fire the bums and hire some new people who can. I used to work with a salesman who could sell ice to Eskimos - it was up to Engineering to get it to provide light and heat, but he was still getting his commission.

I wouldn't mind if they skipped 2014. For 2015 come out with a new numbering scheme to reflect that they're starting fresh with what could be considered a new, finished product. Or maybe something like, "Inventor II 1.0"-call the old ones 0.1.whatever ... 0.11.whatever and 2008 becomes 0.12.whatever etc. 2013 is 0.17.0.13800.0    you get the picture.

One big thing that I think falls under fixing, but it could be considered new functionality: make everything that looks the same work the same. i.e. an assembly sketch should behave exactly the same as a part sketch (drawing sketches too!). Among other things, no more of this "A cyclical constraint dependency was detected." if you know what I mean.

I could go on and on but I've got to get back to fighting with Inventor.

[#5]

I'd like to see the "Instance Number" field of an iCopy feature accepting parameters. Only the "Offset" field can utilise them at the moment. And the arrow next to both fields doesn't work like it does on any other field that has it. Feels like a bug to me.

Then the next step would be to be able to manipulate iCopy through iLogic.

And extend the features of iLogic in general. I'm not a trained/experienced OO programmer, so the Inventor API is mostely useless to me.

Thanks!

[#6]

Well besides the few Inventor/Vault bugs I provided, and the one example you provided which I have also ran into, another favorite of mine lies in the Cable and Harness module.  I know picking on Cable and Harness is like shooting fish in a barrel, but there are a few bigs ones in there such as:

When placing segment points you are unable to select certain cylindrical objects, such as other Wires/Harnesses or Tubes/Pipes.  It is frustrating as we usually run a bundle of Pneumatic lines and wiring harnesses together, and I am unable to place a harness segment off of any of those, instead I need to place it off of something flat, and then move it where I want it.  Heres the fun part, if I place the segment point somewhere, then select "redefine" to move that point, I can now place it off of objects that I wasn't able to previously. 

Another one, is once you are done placing your Tubes/Pipes/Wires/Harnesses, and it comes time to document them, you are unable to place balloons on most of them.  For some reason Inventor doesn't like to place ballons on long tube/pipe runs, and it prevents us from making a proper drawing of then.

Now to be fair, we only upgraded to 2013 about a month ago, and I can't remember if I've tried doing either of these things in 2013, so it could be these were 2012 bugs that were fixed in 2013, I'd have to fire up Cable & Harness to find out, but I really don't feel like doing that to myself right now.

[#7]

I want real statistical tolerance analysis like CETOL for pro-e and solidworks, and the abillity to apply GD+T at the model level and incorporate that into the tolerance analysis.

For those unfamiliar with CETOL:

http://www.sigmetrix.com/tolerance-analysis-software-cetol.htm

http://www.sigmetrix.com/gdt-software.htm

[#8]

If Autodesk had any courage*, they would adopt the Tick-Tock model from Intel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Tick-Tock

* Being a publicly-traded company, such courage would probably result in them getting sued by institutional shareholders who would also advocate the immediate killing and eating golden egg laying geese.

[#9]

Autodesk Inventor is a history-based design tool meaning that there is a history tree of 2D sketches placed on top of existing model surfaces or existing work planes that 3D features are created from. An Inventor 3D model is like the Eifel tower in that every leg (2D sketch) below the level you’re on could affect something on your level. History-based design relies on a linear recipe of features, built on top of features, on top of even more features. Editing that geometry requires the tracking of that history to learn what change will affect what you want to edit and being aware that the editing of those early features can cause inherent problems with other subsequent features.

Because you will have a lengthy recipe for creation of even the simplest of parts, to make edits, to reconfigure geometry, to make a design change requires some serious knowledge of how it was designed in the first place. It’s bad enough diving into a complex part you have designed yourself, but editing someone else’s work, can be the stuff of very bad nightmares.

We really MUST HAVE more aids to learn/trace how a model has been created/designed. This is a huge weakness in history based modelling and until Inventor Fusion can fully take over all model editing, we desparately need this. People at my work do not look favourably towards implementing Inventor to do all mechanical design work (only do a small amount now) because they say it takes way too long to edit existing 3D models

[#10]

Every release its the same, fix  the bugs, but they cant even do that without breaking something else.  Meanwhile solid edge has seamlessly integrated history free modelling, ProE(creo) has just added some great free form capability and Ironcad has a history based modeller that can handle changes by automatically adjusting the feature tree.  To me it looks like Inventor is slipping further and further behind.  Its about time they started listening to their users.  I have dropped my subscription, the "improvements" have been minor and not worth the migration and bugs hassle.