can't use sketch to create point or axis

[Anonymous]

Hi,

I have this assembly shown in the pic. below. I'm trying to create a point or axis in the blue corner points (to attaches something later on) but it just won't let me choose it for some reason. I know that it's possible to to do that (almost sure I already done this trivial thing in inventor.)

Any reason it's not letting me choose the sketch points/line to in order to create points or axis(s)?

thanks!

[jtylerbc]

You probably HAVE done it before, but in a part, not an assembly.  Works in just fine in parts, no-go in an assembly for some odd reason. 

[Anonymous]

This is simply amazing!:-)

why?? I hope someone from inventor/autodesk reply in here!

It's so important to have this feature...one of the most basic things!

[Anonymous]

Can some one from autodesk advise of there's an alternative way for doing such stuff?

This is a very trivial feature to do....to "tie" axes, points, planes, to sketch. Why is it not possible in assembly?

[jtylerbc]

I tend to use a Layout part to hold that sort of thing now.  Seems to take care of most of the places where you'd want to do this.  Not sure why they don't allow it, but the layout part is a pretty good workaround.

[Anonymous]

I havn't used any layout parts till now. Is it a special part, only for layouts?

Can you show some example maybe?

[jtylerbc]

All it really is, is a dummy part that is used to construct the assembly.  There's some fancier stuff you can do with it using sketch blocks and multibodies, but for the purposes of what we're talking about here, it's that simple.  Just use it to build a framework or skeleton (hence the term skeletal modelling) for your assembly.  In this case, you'd use it to build your reference points, axes, planes, and whatever else you need to constrain to.

If you don't have at least Inv 2010, you won't have the command to instantly create a layout part, but you can still make one manually.  Just make a part, build your reference geometry in it, and set its BOM Structure to Phantom.

I'll look to see if I've got an example that would be small enough to upload.  I use them a lot, but most of my assemblies end up fairly large.

[Anonymous]

We're using the 2012 version. So I guess I have to choose the "make layout" option?

[jtylerbc]

Exactly.  It will then create a part that is pre-set to "Phantom", located at the assembly origin, and grounded.

Then you can just go into the part and create the sketches and work geometry you were trying to create in the assembly.

They're also a good way to start out a Frame Generator assembly, if you use that.  Sometimes I even create layout parts that don't actually have any geometry in them, just as a place to store user parameters so I can link other parts to them.  Gives a quick and easy way to make a lot of modifications quickly.  Some people would use Excel for that, but I like not having to go to another program to make the changes.

I suspect from my own experience that after you start using them for this problem, you'll find other uses for them as well.

[Anonymous]

Following up on this discussion. Has this been addressed in other versions? Are you still not able to create Plane/Axis/Point reference geometry from Assembly sketches?

[Anonymous]

I am using 2014 and it is still a problem. I cannot create any Work Features reference to a sketch.

[JimmyDoe]

I'm using Inventor 2015 and this function is STILL not available 😞

[lackas5C4Z4]

Are you kidding me?!?!?! After over 5 years you still haven't taken the time to move a freaking feature from parts into assemblies. It's things like this that make me curse Inventor every single day. Literally, I will never support Inventor. That time has passed. I've used it for six months and it is complete garbage in my opinion.

Funny part is... I already know what comments are coming... Rather than be like "Ya. We should have added that..." someone will say "Why is it garbage? Why would you want to do it in sketches anyway when you could just use a few offset planes and then use the shared axis between them" or "you should just create a dummy part and go through the settings so it doesn't show up in your BOM" Because this is a simple freaking feature that is found in every other CAD package. That's how these forums work. You will only find BS workarounds here... And you already support in parts! Do your freaking programmers even try do make a good product or do they just blindly follow orders? Do they even evaluate other CAD packages to try to complete? Are they too lazy to walk down the hall and ask "Think anyone would want to use a sketch for a work axis or a work plane? We already got the code to do it, just gotta copy and paste and tweak a little" Or did your project lead just say "I don't know. Screw it. They can complain if they need it" and then never check to see if anyone complained...

I just don't understand... I have a whole list of things like this that in and of themselves are minor and trivial. Most of them even have fairly simple workarounds... But for a premium product, the absence of features like this should not be happening. These should have been flushed out in the first few versions. I assume you don't care to improve Inventor for the exact reason my company won't switch. These issues seem trivial. My company paid good money for these seats and it is going to be pretty tough to convince them that the ability to define a work axis with a sketch is worth over $100,000 to switch packages. Everyone in my office is ready to jump ship with the exception of our most senior engineer who has never used anything but Inventor.

The days of Inventor are coming to a close for this company and the replacement will not be an Autodesk product if I have anything to say about it...

[JimmyDoe]

Hey lackas5c4z4,

That was a very nice rant and I love the enthusiasm. I feel the same(ish) way. I came from 8 years of using Creo, which is obviously a much more powerful software and when I switched to IV in Feb of last year I couldn't believe that so many companies use such a horrid, basic, cumbersome program. There are many, many shortcomings of IV and these forums are just full of workarounds...and be careful badmouthing IV, you'll get the 'expert elites' all ganging up on you 😉

I had made a big move for my new job and knew I just had to bite the bullet and try my best to learn it. I have had quite a bit of training through our reseller and even they don't have answers for the shortcomings except to search the community. I can't remember the amount of times I asked them if it could do something and they just said it couldn't do it(the training was very helpful- dont get me wrong). And I wasn't asking for IV to boil the ocean, I just wanted it to do simple things that Creo could do. 

But if this is the software your company uses and you are going to be working there, try to save yourself a bunch of stress, frustration and anger and try to accept the fact that this is what you're using, it won't change, so your attitude may have to.. 

Some people on here are actually very helpful; Curtis Waguespack is the man for any problems. But watch for the troll..

[Anonymous]

There are some things that Inventor does well but it seems to be getting worse with every new version.

I am a long time Creo/Pro E user and it seems that AutoDesk. Just misses the mark in supporting Inventor. They "kind of" just don't get it. Or they are too busy supporting Fusion.

Here are my rants...

Changing visibility of components in an assembly and their whole "Representation" concept is so weak.  Bill of materials and reference components - someone doesn't understand what we do! On the drawing side, Balloons that don't track quantities as you use them? (Creo has done this for two decades). And what is with Styles! what a mess!!!  Flexibility and Positional Reps in assemblies and sub-assembly levels poorly conceived and overly complicated.  Supporting things like Pipe and frame generated members with external files that is managed with folders and filenames is non-sense. All of this should be managed internally.

I can't stop here. In Vault, when you move a file, it takes you to the folder location where you moved it!!? If Windows did that, people would be up in arms! Doesn't anyone at AutoDesk use Windows??? Not to mention when you select to move an assembly, there is no way to select its dependents to move them with the assembly? - they just don't get it. 

If figures, anyone who sells a graphics program and puts out instructions with no pictures does not understand their users needs nor the complexities and subtleties involved in what we do. Why would you expect their CAD program to fair any better.

I would recommend that AutoDesk look at how CorelDraw is supported. Their instructions are illustrated, explained well, give the user an understanding that includes intent and scope of its features. AutoDesk improvements rarely reflect that they understand this in their own program.

[jtylerbc]

You realize you're replying to a thread where even the previous necropost is three years old, right?

Most of what you complain about is described in such a vague way that even on the off chance a developer happened to look at this page, there is nothing specific enough for them to actually do anything about it.

• "Representations are weak" - What precisely do you mean?
• "BOM and reference components" - No one here understands what you do either, because you didn't tell us.
• "Balloons that don't track quantities as you use them" - What do you mean by this?

Perhaps you should post some of these complaints in the form of Ideas.  I see you have posted a couple of Ideas in the past, but only one that relates in any way to the items you are complaining about here.  Posting an Idea might not get you anything, but posting a list of grievances on a random dead thread definitely won't.

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Grant,

Many thanks for your feedback! I think you replied to a thread not directly related to the original issue. I get your points though. PTC Creo is a very good 3D feature-based parametric solid modeling CAD. I was trained on Pro/E back in the days. It helped me understand the parametric relationship and the importance of features. But, if it was the best overall solution, there would not be Inventor and others. I am not interested in comparing these programs, since everyone has strengths and weaknesses. I am interested in how to make Inventor better.

If possible, I would like you to elaborate your pain points and others.

- Changing visibility of components in an assembly and their whole "Representation" concept is so weak.

- Bill of materials and reference components - someone doesn't understand what we do! On the drawing, Balloons that don't track quantities as you use them? (Creo has done this for two decades).

- And what is with Styles! what a mess!!!

- Flexibility and Positional Reps in assemblies and sub-assembly levels poorly conceived and overly complicated.

- Supporting things like Pipe and frame generated members with external files that is managed with folders and filenames is non-sense. All of this should be managed internally.

- In Vault, when you move a file, it takes you to the folder location where you moved it!!?

Do you mind starting a new thread or sending an email to me directly (johnson.shiue@autodesk.com)?

Many thanks!

[conrad.smith]

Wondering why this is still a problem?

I want a plane in an assembly, I create a sketch with a line, why can I not use this to make a plane????

Can people at autodesk not see how this is something which users need?

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Conrad,

I get your point. I also would like to see the ability to create assembly work geometry based on assembly 2D sketch geometry. We are aware of the requirement but we have not found a good solution yet. Please bear with me if I have already reiterated the reasoning. The limitation has something to do with assembly constraint and assembly sketch. At the moment, Inventor does not allow users to create any assembly constraint between assembly sketch geometry and another component geometry. It is unclear to me why the limitation was in place. Assembly sketch was created purely for creating assembly features.

One can argue that work geometry is also a feature in a part. Why it does not work for assembly. Assembly work geometry is not a feature. Actually, it is like a component. The work geometry is "constrained" to another geometry in the assembly. Assembly sketch cannot be used to create assembly constraint. Assembly work geometry cannot be created as a result. I am not saying the behavior is ideal. I personally think it should work but like I said before, we have not found a good solution yet. Also, we have a lot of customer requests. This is one of them.

In the meantime, you could create the sketch in one of the parts. Then you should be able to create assembly work geometry based on the part sketch.

Many thanks!

[romanteslyuk]

Seriously, Autodesk are suggesting that after 8 years they cannot find the solution to being able to put a Point on a sketch in an Assembly, then this software is doomed.