Autodesk Inventor

[#1]

After looking at the small list of improvements for 2013, I don't expect much out of 2014. If anyone wants improvement, I suggest looking at competitors. Autodesk's business model is not about producing quality software, it's about getting customers on subscription & then milking the hell out of them.

[#2]

True to a degree - though I doubt this thread is full of folks working pro-bono.

I does remind me: does Solidworks still require users to be on subscription to access Service Packs?

[#3]

Something for press-tool / sheet metal progression stamping dies would be great.

We folk who design press tools generally get sidelined, so it would be nice to have some functionality like undeveloping 3d pressed sheetmetal parts - or Autodesk encouraging existing 3rd parties (who offer such addons to Solidworks) to develop something for Inventor.

To give a hint, something along the lines of what "3dquickpress" or "Logopress" can do.

I know there are some fairly recent developments (pardon the pun) with addons like Sheetmetal Inventor from Spi, and there was recently an add-on by 'logopress'; which unfolded 3d forms (which now seems to have disappeared from their website) - but in general, Inventor has lagged behind in this field for at least the last 8 years.

This is the (currently missing) add on for the development blank by Logopress http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqlZ7V_Qwig 

.......As you will see, it looks very powerfull indeed - and shows that the Inventor software is capable of such gymnastics if it is instructed.

There are bolt on options for many systems (like the above ones for Solidworks), whilst others have inbuilt capability  - like Topsolid "Top-Progress" and Vero Visi Progress from the Visi package. I think Cimatron also have something in this field.

To give a visual of the power of stage unfolding forms in Visi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed_R8Ic2B60

But Logopress and 3dQuickpress and the others also aid with 'strip' design and layouts and have standard parts available used in tooling, such as punches and dies, chutes, pillars and bushes, flying cam units, and so on.

Inventor has.......well, none of the above. As far as I know. I am still on 2009 at my place of work, so things may have changed a little, but from what I can find out on the internet, it is still in the same boat. (The 'subscription update' plan was too excessive and made no real sense).

However, as more and more other systems are now encorporating add-ons and specific press-tooling capabilities, the time may come where we have to start looking elsewhere than Autodesk.

I think that would be a shame, I like Inventor very much, much better than odd packages with odd methods of working and nasty interfaces.......and I like Inventor much more than Solidworks, which I have always found cumbersome and clumsy.

It is not my choice at the end of the day, I can only offer advice to the management when the time comes, but Autodesks lack of action in this field when compared to some of their rivals means that it will increasingly make more sense to spend more money on something else which has specialist tools, even if it means a major re-training and a sever from legacy data.

The direction with logopress looked promising (as in, if they could do that blank development in Inventor, maybe they could do the whole Logopress suite for Inventor like they have for Solidworks) - but at the moment and for the forseable future I will not have much to lay on the table as options for sticking with Inventor when it comes to press tooling.

For our other jig and fixture work, Inventor has been (and continues to be) great. We 'get by' with tools and such, but when up against people with specific tools they are bound to be doing it more efficiently than we could.

I can appreciate that there perhaps is "no market" for such things with Autodesk and that not many customers are pushing for such tools. Maybe that is why the Logopress add-on has disappeared, due to lack of interest and demand.

However, maybe it is a chicken and egg thing where if there is nothing great for tooling design in Inventor then folk won't be investigating a solitary blanking program addon - as they will ideally want the strip-layout tools and form stages and all the rest of it.

[#4]

I'd like the ability to create manual IK chains, similar to how it works in 3ds Max.  It could be a constraint between a parent and child part, temporarily grounding the parent while the child part is moved.  The current workflow in Inventor involves manually grounding and un-grounding components so they don't get shifted around unexpectedly.

[#5]

Good day,

I've read through the 4 pages of wishes, with very little attention given to the drawing environment. I did an exercise a while ago where I captured my wishes as I was drawing. I have many more, but for the drawing area, I think these would go a long way in making my life easier. Also, IMHO, the drawing enviroment deserves a lot more attention, its through this medium that most people ever see our designs, in 2D! So here goes...

• Dragging leader with Part Priority on does not snap to part edge
• Being able to dimension break view line
• Different detail view shapes, that can be dimensioned to part sketches, or even use part sketches
• Automated centrelines on only certain parts in a view
• Window multiselect CL to resize them together
• Auto CL does not recognize derived parts, i.e. iParts (flanges)
• Tangent edges on selected parts only
• Lock dimensions that are aligned
• Snap radius dims to other radius dims
• Dimension to a sketch symbol
• Use part properties and values in sketch symbols
• Align sketch symbols with better grip control
• When copy/paste symbols, I don’t want to deselect the view first
• Link part parameters in the Hole Notes, i.e. PCD
• Add Vertex to leader to open space (i.e., not model edge)
• When editing leader text / normal text, centre the text in the editing window

And in a Part, reorder User parameters. Not just a sort, actually change their order.

Please and thank you.

Ryan

PS> attached my raw stuff too...

[#6]

Oh, and 1 other that springs to mind; The ability to fill a defined sketch boundary with holes, with a defined pitch and direction

[#7]

---

RyanBotha wrote:

• Use part properties and values in sketch symbols

---

Elaborate on this one a bit more-- we have a sketched symbol that uses part iproperties, works very well.  Are you asking for something different?

[#8]

An option if a mirrored object is to change with the parent object as this is altered.

Would come in quite handy.

[#9]

In that example I wanted to link a parameter to the sketch symbol, like a thickness. If I remember correctly, it was a standard weld that was best displayed using a sketch symbol, rather than an actual section. So we created the weld detail, but the thickness of plate changed. 

This reminds me; If you have ever used weld end fills, they often disappear when the model updates, especially when placed on a arc or circular shape. I actually dont attach my weld symbols to the weld end fills anymore because of this. 

[#10]

Welds are a 71 out of 100 (see me after class).  Waaay too prismatic, leaving a plethora of wacky lines in the drawing views.

If you're putting down welds around two symmetrical lugs that don't have enough space around them for simplistic fillets, odds are the several groove and fillet combos on one lug will end up differently shaped than the other, even when creating them in precisely the same manner.  I also love when a completely separate weld (not even on either of the two participating parts) will fail or prevent you from adding a new weld.  Just changing the order of weld application can sometimes solve the failing issue (WTF?).  Spooky influence at a distance, if you will.  I also have had welds cause modeling errors when creating a derived part from a weldment.

My models almost always have a circular groove weld joining a tube and solid round.  I had to just model my own weld bead part, as the groove weld for this joint type has a flat face, leaving both the shop and the customer with the assumption the weld OD is machined flush, not just the standard, slightly convex 'as-welded' cap.

And having to manually add the cute weld 'decals' to the ends of incomplete welds.  How about just automatically adding a weld texture to every freakin' surface of a weld bead your own modeler just created?  Under what scenario would you *not* want every weld surface created to look like - you know - A WELD??  If anything, decal everything and give the user the option to *deselect* faces they don't want looking 'weldy'.

No doubt, doing 'welding' ain't easy (or too great) in any modeler, as most of the models or drawing of models I see in my work don't have one weld shown; just empty grooves.  Not too many programmers weld, apparently.  Say what you will, but at least in 2D AutoCAD, you can get (fake and idealized) weld representations right.