Autodesk Inventor Wish List (results)

[Anonymous]

Thank you for your input to begin defining an official Inventor Wish List! With over 500 Inventor users voting, the Top 10 results in order are: 1. Assembly configurations 2. Alternate positions, i.e. door in open and closed positions 3. Create holes from fastener types 4. Object Snap capabilities like AutoCAD 5. Native Inventor Viewer 6. Additional assembly/machining features 7. Preserve assembly constraints during promote/demote 8. Automatically center dimension text 9. Zero clean-up of DWG Export 10. Create folders in browser for logical groupings and sorting You can review the full results of the survey at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/Report.asp?U=34164890290 until February 2, 2004. I'd like to thank you once more for all your great input! Your feedback will be valuable in planning future versions of Autodesk Inventor. -- Jeff Wymer Product Manager, Autodesk Inventor Manufacturing Solutions Division Autodesk, Inc.

[Anonymous]

It would by my co-workers, but I agree, it needs to do both. -- Kent Keller http://www.KWiKMcad.com (Please update your links) Assistant Moderator Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program "Ron Crain" wrote in message news:3fff536b$1_3@statler... > > > IMO, a truley native viewer wouldn't be used by me or my customers. :-( >

[Anonymous]

yea, I know the rates are normally around 5% or so for most surveys. But then what do you have to gain from them or how do you see the real benefits of them? Could part of the problem be IT control freaks (lacking a better description) or other reasons for lack of e-mail and access to the internet. Maybe AutoDesk needs to check this out to help guide them where they are heading, with things like online file sharing and viewers. A thought. msk

[MattH]

I've got to say its hard to believe that "5. Native Inventor Viewer" beat both Improved Revision Block capabilities and Improved Welding capabilities (and a lot more, for that matter), whats the point in viewing the file if the model / drawing ain't accurate!
Regards
MattH
P.S. The Inventor 9 preview that was accidently posted on ProjectPoint(?) site a couple of months ago already contains some of the top ten already (a conspiracy theorist could read quite a lot into that!)

[Anonymous]

Is Item No.1 "Assembly Configurations" the same as "Part Configurations"? An example: Why make an assembly of a cylinder to create different positions of the rod, when it could be a single part (with configurations for rod position). Similar to SW. Thanks..

[Anonymous]

You can do that today in IV using iParts. What we need is something to allow families of assemblies. -- ______________ Rui ruivaz@cadmais.pt www.cadmais.pt "Pat Housel" wrote in message news:3fffe33e$1_1@statler... > Is Item No.1 "Assembly Configurations" the same as "Part Configurations"? > An example: Why make an assembly of a cylinder to create different > positions of the rod, when it could be a single part (with configurations > for rod position). > > > Similar to SW. > > Thanks.. > >

[Anonymous]

I would argue that #'s 1 and 2 basically amount to the same functionality, though #2 is perhaps of a simpler nature, they should still be counted as one item. So add the next highest item to the end so we really can get 10 feature requests added instead of 9. Bob S. 1. Assembly configurations 2. Alternate positions, i.e. door in open and closed positions "Pat Housel" wrote in message news:3fffe33e$1_1@statler... > Is Item No.1 "Assembly Configurations" the same as "Part Configurations"? > An example: Why make an assembly of a cylinder to create different > positions of the rod, when it could be a single part (with configurations > for rod position). > > > Similar to SW. > > Thanks.. > >

[Anonymous]

> P.S. The Inventor 9 preview that was accidently posted on ProjectPoint(?) site a couple of months ago already contains some of the top ten already (a conspiracy theorist could read quite a lot into that!) IV9 preview? Now that I'd like to see. Rory

[Anonymous]

> I may be out of touch here, but, what would the benefit (besides Quadrant) > of have acad osnaps in Inventor. I remember thinking they were needed when > I started with IV, but I can't say that I miss them now. Don't forget the drawings! By example, it is now not possible to place symbol exact on a title block or a other symbol. Jan Terpstra

[Anonymous]

Since I like this idea of publishing a wish list, I'd like to see it continue, however, I don't think we can look at it as any sort of a promise to include anything in particular in any particular release. Being on this side of the group doesn't afford us a very clear view of the problems and limitations that may arise in trying to implement this or that feature. So however it turns out I hope we will see it as their best attempt to please us and cut'em enough slack so that publishing the wish list doesn't go down in our flames. Let's resolve to make the old aphorism "No good deed goes un-punished" un-true, eh? ~Larry "Jeff Wymer (Autodesk)" wrote in message news:3fff108a$1_2@statler... > Thank you for your input to begin defining an official Inventor Wish List! > With over 500 Inventor users voting, the Top 10 results in order are: > > > > 1. Assembly configurations > > 2. Alternate positions, i.e. door in open and closed positions > > 3. Create holes from fastener types > > 4. Object Snap capabilities like AutoCAD > > 5. Native Inventor Viewer > > 6. Additional assembly/machining features > > 7. Preserve assembly constraints during promote/demote > > 8. Automatically center dimension text > > 9. Zero clean-up of DWG Export > > 10. Create folders in browser for logical groupings and sorting > > > > You can review the full results of the survey at: > http://www.surveymonkey.com/Report.asp?U=34164890290 until February 2, 2004. > > > > I'd like to thank you once more for all your great input! Your feedback > will be valuable in planning future versions of Autodesk Inventor. > > > -- > Jeff Wymer > Product Manager, Autodesk Inventor > Manufacturing Solutions Division > Autodesk, Inc. > >

[Anonymous]

Very well said Larry. I see a good possibility of this list changing before everything on it now gets developed. Often times something slightly different than what we were asking for gets developed which makes some of the wishes obsolete. That is something the iTeam seems to be good at. 8^) -- Kent Keller http://www.KWiKMcad.com (Please update your links) Assistant Moderator Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program "Larry Caldwell" wrote in message news:40003ec5_3@statler... > Since I like this idea of publishing a wish list, I'd like to see it > continue, however, I don't think we can look at it as any sort of a promise > to include anything in particular in any particular release. Being on this > side of the group doesn't afford us a very clear view of the problems and > limitations that may arise in trying to implement this or that feature. So > however it turns out I hope we will see it as their best attempt to please > us and cut'em enough slack so that publishing the wish list doesn't go down > in our flames. Let's resolve to make the old aphorism "No good deed goes > un-punished" un-true, eh? > ~Larry

[Anonymous]

I would agree there is no need for osnaps in sketching. But I sure would love snaps in the measurement tool. Measurements takes a while to understand, and it's pretty good after you do understand it. But so often I would like to get a measurement between nearest-nearest just to see how much room is available. And while I'm at it, how disappointed I was when I hit the thumbtack on the measure header bar thinking it would keep the display visible so I could use the numbers while doing another operation. Only to find the thumbtack only rolls up the display. How useless is that? Measurement should have it's own window that could save a hundred measurements that can be scrolled and retrieved. Each measurement could be prefixed with the part name(s) for crystal clarity.--------------- "Cory McConnell" wrote: >I may be out of touch here, but, what would the benefit (besides Quadrant) >of have acad osnaps in Inventor.

[Anonymous]

250,000 seats / 477 responses = 2%. Not 20%. And how many of those 477 votes were dweebs that voted 10 times for their favorites?------------ msklein wrote: >I'm Just a little amazed that they only received 500 inputs considering there are over 280,00 users according to AutoDesk .

[Anonymous]

If you ask me, the survey will have no effect on R9. Maybe adsk wanted some brain storming ideals, or maybe it was just a PR stunt. The only thing the survey proves to me is that "configurations" are not in IV's future. I bet 90% of people voted for configurations, yet it did not get into the top ten. Why? Because Adsk did not want to kindle any hope or rumors for something they have no plans to implement. I would guess, and I love to guess, especially when I'm clueless... That it would be impossible for configurations to coexist with their brainchild... Adaptively. I would love to have a switch to make the part either adaptive or configurable. There is probably only a hand full of people that know if that is feasible, but we can all rest assured that it is not probable.

[Anonymous]

I have not seen anything from Autodesk that says "configurations" or anything like that named differently are not in Inventor's future. I'd say that the odds on betting against that would be poor. Dennis Diemaker wrote: >If you ask me, the survey will have no effect on R9. Maybe adsk wanted >some brain storming ideals, or maybe it was just a PR stunt. The only >thing the survey proves to me is that "configurations" are not in IV's >future. I bet 90% of people voted for configurations, yet it did not >get into the top ten. Why? Because Adsk did not want to kindle any >hope or rumors for something they have no plans to implement. I would >guess, and I love to guess, especially when I'm clueless... That it >would be impossible for configurations to coexist with their >brainchild... Adaptively. I would love to have a switch to make the >part either adaptive or configurable. There is probably only a hand >full of people that know if that is feasible, but we can all rest >assured that it is not probable. > > -- Dennis Jeffrey Autodesk Inventor Certified Expert Autodesk Product Consulting and Training Tekni Omicron - Center for Design Excellence http://www.design-excellence.com 260-459-1311x 221 or 800-550-6070 x 221

[Anonymous]

An easy to use calculator tied in with the measuring tool would be very useful. Duncan @home "Diemaker" wrote in message news:4tk000pvspq14op7kvv8tspek00c4egpof@4ax.com... > I would agree there is no need for osnaps in sketching. But I sure > would love snaps in the measurement tool. Measurements takes a while > to understand, and it's pretty good after you do understand it. But so > often I would like to get a measurement between nearest-nearest just > to see how much room is available. And while I'm at it, how > disappointed I was when I hit the thumbtack on the measure header bar > thinking it would keep the display visible so I could use the numbers > while doing another operation. Only to find the thumbtack only rolls > up the display. How useless is that? Measurement should have it's own > window that could save a hundred measurements that can be scrolled and > retrieved. Each measurement could be prefixed with the part name(s) > for crystal clarity.--------------- > > > "Cory McConnell" wrote: > > >I may be out of touch here, but, what would the benefit (besides Quadrant) > >of have acad osnaps in Inventor.

[Anonymous]

> The bug with the survey will be fixed in the next release ;) or sp1. But everybody else will have to wait a month to get it :-) Duncan @home

[Anonymous]

And I have not seen anything that says adsk is going to add configs. Just the fact that it is not currently available puts the odds in favor that configs will not be in the next release. I would bet against configs... even if I lost, I would win. Since you brought it up... maybe adsk just needs a catchy name to make the effort feasible. What would you suggest calling "configurations"? How about Variations? Alterations? FlexParts? Ifigs? Chameleons? Skins? Spies? Maybe a great anagram could push it over the top . Extra points for a video concept using a 50 cent song.------------ Dennis Jeffrey wrote: >I have not seen anything from Autodesk that says "configurations" or >anything like that named differently are not in Inventor's future. I'd >say that the odds on betting against that would be poor.

[Anonymous]

While vocabulary often gets in the way, Please review items 1 and two on the list. 1. Assembly configurations 2. Alternate positions, i.e. door in open and closed positions How much clearer can we say configurations? Rest assured that configurable design is an important part of Inventor's future, both near term and long term. Should you have specific "configuration" tasks you want to accomplish please feel free to send them to me. I will make sure that they get to the team. -Kevin Schneider Diemaker wrote: > If you ask me, the survey will have no effect on R9. Maybe adsk wanted > some brain storming ideals, or maybe it was just a PR stunt. The only > thing the survey proves to me is that "configurations" are not in IV's > future. I bet 90% of people voted for configurations, yet it did not > get into the top ten. Why? Because Adsk did not want to kindle any > hope or rumors for something they have no plans to implement. I would > guess, and I love to guess, especially when I'm clueless... That it > would be impossible for configurations to coexist with their > brainchild... Adaptively. I would love to have a switch to make the > part either adaptive or configurable. There is probably only a hand > full of people that know if that is feasible, but we can all rest > assured that it is not probable.

[Anonymous]

I beleive you can use ctrl c and ctrl v to copy measurement values. -- Cory McConnell Autodesk Inventor Certified Expert

[Anonymous]

"Kent Keller" wrote in message news:3fff5967$1_3@statler... | It would by my co-workers, but I agree, it needs to do both. I keep forgetting that *some* people have co-workers. .