IDEA: When an FDU asset in Vault is set to a “Rework” status, a user type “FDU-Administartor” has read/write permissions, while regular users are restricted to only view / but have NO download rights. With this change it would be implemented to prevent layout designers from frequently downloading new versions and unintentionally accessing work-in-progress versions from the "FDU-Admin". Actual SITUATION: Currently, when a regular user sees an available update of an asset in their library in Inventor, they can still use the locally stored (last approved) version and modify existing instances in layouts. However, when they attempt to download the asset, FDU first deletes the local copy before checking download permissions. Since the user does not have the necessary rights to download the asset from Vault, this results in a complete loss of access to the local copy of the asset and all its instances in layouts. Neither placing new instances nor changing parameters is possible. Suggested IMPROVEMENT: FDU should first verify download permissions before deleting the local copy. This would prevent unnecessary data loss and ensure a smooth workflow, because regular users would still be able use their local copy to continue working with the latest released state. Show More

Let's say I have a conveyor that consists of 5 assets.  1. Start Section 2. Straight Section 3. 90 degree Bend Section 4. Straight Section 5. End Section I have started at the correct position, but obviously the End Section is not at the correct location and needs to be moved:   I know that I can change the length of Straight Section 4, but that is not a very user friendly method (I need to measure the required additional length and add it to the length that this straight section already has.   What I want to be able to do is to use the reposition tool to move the End Section (5) to the correct location, which then automatically updates the length of the Straight Section (4). Just like with an adaptive part.   This would save a lot of work and would improve the user friendliness massively!   Of course this is a simple example, but our lay-outs are very big and complex. During the design phase these conveyors need to be changed a lot because of repositioning other machines. The fact that we can't use adaptive assets right now is blocking us from making the transition from 2D to 3D.   We really need a more flexible solution when it comes to designing conveyors. Adaptive assets could be our solution.      Show More

In a 3D factory layout, a layer can be assigned to the asset, for example, to define the scope of delivery (red = customer, blue = manufacturer). It should be possible to transfer these properties to the 2D drawing. Otherwise, they must be defined again in the 2D drawing.  See attached image Show More

If you use Equations in Key-Parameters, they will be treated different from Equations in Non-Key-Parameters. While Equations in non Key-Parameters will be evaluated when placing an instance of an Asset into a Layout, Equations of Key-Parameters will be overwritten with their last numeric value, that doesn't necessarily need to be the correct one.   This different behaviour does lead to confusion, as you would expect the same behaviour in both Key- and Non-Key-Parameter's Equations.   A workaround to modify the Key-Parameters through an iLogic rule works, but is slower than a direct modification through an equation. Show More

Using iLogic to control Asset modifications through a form is a very interesting strategy because Assets can be modified much faster than altering them through model parameters. However, this approach is not very smart as it prevents AutoCAD users from making edits to 2D Assets. Enabling iLogic to control Asset modifications limits modification activity to the Inventor side only. This means that if a user wants to change the 2D Asset, they need to synchronize the AutoCAD 2D file with the Inventor 3D file. This can be problematic in companies where one engineering team uses AutoCAD exclusively to create layouts while another engineering team uses Inventor for 3D projects. It would be beneficial to allow the form created in Inventor with iLogic to also control parameters in AutoCAD Architecture or Mechanical, or to not block the model parameter options, allowing the user to modify the Asset in 3D using the iLogic form and in 2D using model parameters instead of displaying the message: "This asset is controlled by an iLogic form. Parameter editing can only be done in Inventor.". https://help.autodesk.com/view/FDU/2023/ENU/?guid=FDU_Inventor_Factory_Help_About_Creating_Factory_Assets_To_Create_Assets_To_Create_an_iLogic_Form_html Show More

We have a situation where it's necessary that an asset "knows" it's neighbours. When you place a chain of assets into a layout, parameter-information is only passed from a preceding asset to the next asset, that you connect to it according to its connector class. But if you modify one asset in a row through a key-parameter, no matter if it’s the last one or some other asset in a chain, then a promotion of parameters along the connectors will be initiated. What I need is to trigger such a parameter change either automatically, or rather through the press of a button or some iLogic-Rule.   For a workaround I introduced a boolean parameter, that I pass on through the connector class to initiate a passing-on of the parameters, only that will create new instances which is actually not intended. Show More

Dear all, we wish the option to make the landing surface not visible. If the landing surface is in the middle of an asset, main parts are hidden.   Best regars, Stefan Wiglinghoff, M. Eng. Product Manager Product Design HAVER Technical Sales HAVER & BOECKER OHG Show More

More and more of our customers create their building in Revit. When we receive this Revit file it is almost always impossible to use in Inventor. The Revit file is almost always way too large and detailed for Inventor and the performance of Inventor decreases dramatically. The import function is a good try from Autodesk but really is insufficient. It's really hard to understand what layers should be imported and what not. But when we are finally happy with the imported result (which could take a day to get there!) we often can't upload the Revit file to the Vault, because references in the Revit file are missing. Communication with customers (worldwide) can be very hard and time consuming. So to keep our production going we need Revit. That way we can easily modify the Revit file to the level of detail that we need and remove everything else, so Inventor is still usable when importing the Revit file.   So we really need Revit to become part of the PD&M collection. @strijkp Show More

Hi everyone,    When an asset is inserted into a Factory layout, it is saved within the "Factory Assets" folder mapped in the project settings:     If any parameter is modified, such as the length for example, this asset is recreated in the root folder of "Factory Assets" with a different random name:     We would like to suggest that Factory Design Utilities identify assets belonging to the same family and include them within a subfolder. This request is to address performance issues related to editing assets in Factory Design Utilities.   Suggestion to create a subfolder with the name of the asset:     Show More

Currently when an asset is used in a layout, the asset must remain in the library forever otherwise I can never change the asset in the layout again. It would make a lot more sense if this would not be required. Why is the link to the asset in the library required? Our asset library contains around 1000 assets. An asset represents (most of the time) a machine. In the future we might decide to no longer sell that machine. When that happens I want that machine out of the library, so that our engineers can no longer select them. But if I remove them I can no longer manage that machine in other existing layouts. Moving it to a separate folder also won't solve it, because when using the search function the asset can still be found. Another issue is when a new development took place and changes the machine. I then have to revise the asset. This can also lead to problems. To solve this each revision needs a unique name and needs to stay available in the asset library. Within a couple of years I might have 2 or 3x the number of assets in my library. Within 5 years from now we have a serious issue with the library. Engineers can accidentally place an asset that is no longer free for sales in the layout or place the incorrect revision of that asset. I see 2 solutions: 1. reprogram the asset library so that it is no longer required to keep all assets in the library and that you can still change an asset in the layout. 2. make some sort of hidden folder in the asset library where we can store our out-of-date assets and users can't browse or search that folder, but FDU can so that you can still update assets in a layout I prefer solution 1, but can live with 2. Show More

Hi,    Local translation files (LocaleMap.de-DE.xml) are not published for assets which are managed with Vault.  The *.faf container doesn't  manage local translation files at the moment.  My colluege asked a few years ago, too:  https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/factory-design-utilities-forum/localmap-xml-file-current-status/td-p/9279427    This topic relates to copied system and cloud objects as well as user defined assets with translations.    At present there is the only possibility to copy assets and rename all properties as. Furthermore connectorclasses as well as all definitions for asset chains have to be redone. This circumstance is unfortunate.    We tested the following workflow which doesn't fit well:  - Copy a system object to Vault - Start editing the asset - Copy the original LocaleMap.xx-XX.xml to "appdata\local\temp\factorypublish\<asset>" - Link the XML in Inventor to third-party providers in the model browser - Republish the asset in Vault The FAF now includes the localemap file. However this workaround is bad because after using the asset we'll get an instance IPT file and a Instance XML file for the local xml file as well. The folder \FactoryAssets get a new subfolder including these two files, but just the IPT is necessary. In conclusion we produce a lot of redundant XML data in vault.    It would be a great improvement, if you could include LocaleXml files in faf like family.xml.    Best regards Christoph   @AnJanson @Anonymous @klaus.katterbauer   Show More

For our more eleborate assets we utilize iLogic forms for our assets. With non-assets we can call forms from our main forms, sadly as soon as we  publish our assembly as an asset, the secondary forms do not work anymore. This feels like a big missed chance. Show More

I would like the option on assets creation to also assign a folder for that asset  to populate into on the layout. This saves me the effort of moving instances into folders in the model browser. Show More

Our company consists of a couple of industries. We have created a product structure that fits all industries. Our asset browser currently looks like this: A list of folders that describe a certain department in a factory In each of these folders you will find another list of folders describing the subcategories of each department And in each of these subcategory folders you will find Assets of all industries of our company.   Let's say we have industry A, B, C & D with their own specific equipment AND we have industry X with equipment that can be used by all other industries.   Now when I am creating a factory layout for industry A, I only want to see the assets for Industry A and X in the asset browser. Seeing all other assets makes the browser too large and makes it very user unfriendly.   Our idea was to give each asset a custom property (e.g. industry) and have a filter in the asset browser where I can select which industries I want to see.   Is such a thing possible to create or do you maybe have another solution for this issue?   Thank you very much! Show More

Hi FDU Team, In a current customer project, we found out that the tolerance for the automatic closure of connectors is 99mm. This causes problems because we are using assets whose connection points are closer together (e.g. 50mm). It results in connections being automatically closed that do not belong together. We get inconsistent connections. Would you please offer an option to set the tolerance? Regards Andreas Show More

We got a request from a customer that it would be a great improvement if a connector could be defined with only two constraints. This could be used to rotate an asset around one axis, while the two other axis are fixed. In this specific case, rotatable fittings should be used. Show More

When publishing an asset in FDU there's the need to have write access to the used connector class file. Please remove this, as there is no need to - there won't be changes to this file at this point. Because of this circumstance it's not possible to write protect the connector classes for (asset) content creators and have the connector classes be managed by administrators only. Show More

Windows has a character limit in the explorer address bar of 128 characters. When you create a custom asset and insert it into a factory assembly, it generates the original name of the asset plus a random number to differentiate the files and avoid conflicts. However, the generated numbering is very large and ends up exceeding the windows character limit, meaning that insertion does not occur. I will show some examples:   how the original file is: STAIR.iam   how it should be: STAIR_A1234.iam (short random number)   how the factory generates: STAIR_DF##F_73A4FC6520E06B58DCBF8CE6B01E7C6D.iam    Therefore, the total number of factory generation variations is 69^34, which is an extremely large number. so instead of helping to avoid conflicts, it ends up generating more.   what does it look like in my file folder:       Show More

In the Factory Utilities, the cloud content is regularly no longer available with new updates. This is understandable, as a cloud always means security updates. In many companies, updates are only distributed via IT and an app like Autodesk Access is not allowed. Because the cause can also be something else, it would be nice if the information for the cloud connection contained a reference to the new update. So that users or IT are informed directly. As an example: "A cloud connection with versions lower than "2024.1.2" is not possible. Your installed version is "2024.1.1". Please update. Show More