Yeah lets not fix it

[jletcher]

Please go vote or we will be reworking everything and never get parts to the floor.......

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/Inventor-IdeaStation/Don-t-add-anything/idi-p/3685008

 This drawing worked for weeks nothng has been done to model or parts client just recieved PO to make and he went to go print and this is what he gets.

And all sections that was cut from missing view are also gone.

Come on guys go vote.. Let them know we are sick of the bugs and rework...

Thanks

[chad38]

Though I haven't been immersed in Inventor for as long as you guys have, I can understand your frustrations, you feel they've changed a great software, and changed it only for the sake of change and not for better operation or added valuable functions. I remember when Solid Edge switched to ST, and I installed an at home licence to test it out(it was actually well over a year before we even started using it) I was sick when seeing the interface changes, which is much like the interface changes with the Tabbed interface that inventor now uses. And honestly, Solid Edge has been doing much the same stuff regarding marketing the product. Firstly, most of us Edge users sychronous scares the heck out of us. You can screw things up awfully quick without meaning to or realizing it. And the steering wheel. They will not quit plugging it. The people who actually use solid edge don't like it, we are the one's who are in hot water if the parts are incorrect, and the steering wheel is being plugged to the people who decide to buy solid edge for their business. Looks really cool and flashy. But it doesn't fill you with much confidence that they don't care that the users don't like it, we want to do things in a controlled manner, which can be hard to do in Synchronous itself period. We still use ordered parts, which we can use efficiently and powerfully in a controlled manner. But that doesn't stop the marketing from plugging away, because they care about sells, not about whose butts are on the line.

That said, there is nothing worse than when a function that has been used effectively for a long time either suddenly operates differently, or worse, unreliably. Perhaps it's because I'm not yet as used to the software as many of you, but I've been finding it difficult to make what I see as small changes to a sheet metal part and not have features further down in the history error or fail. I'm blown away at how often simply changing a bend radius will result in spending time fixing the rest of the model, and also in having to redo so much work in the drawings. I'm annoyed by how easily my flat pattern will either flip over or rotate just because I make a change to a bend relief. I've never wished I had a funtion to track dimension changes on prints more than I do now. And I've been unable to figure out how to have the print not automatically update when changing the model AND THEN, at my prompting update views to see the changes. I can get the print to not update automatically, but I can't get it to update at all after this. I have to disable that option in order to get the print to update.

I do not like how inventor does the "projecting" of part edges. First I don't like that I have to project those edges to dimension from them or constrain to them, and second, I hate how simple changes of radiuses or edge geometry results in getting errors within sketches. In most of the cases these little pink fragments don't actually harm the part, but I don't like having any errors. And I doubt the parts integrity will be kept if I don't fix these, as parts frequently change again. I also have such a hard time locating which constraint to delete to free up geometry to move. I usually just delete entire sides of rectangles now just so I can get the thing to not be stuck to an edge or a point.

Inventor does do some things very well, and one of these is iLogic. It's pretty darn sweet. And though I'm appalled that there is no "normal cutout" function in Inventor, I can see how it is actually pretty fun doing the work around for this. The Surface thicken offset and split etc. It's fun to do. But I don't believe the way you construct the part should have to be so different just because you need a cutout in the face of a sheet. Many times parts are very similar in design, it's just that this one or that one have a cutout in it. And I should be able to just add the cutout, not reconstruct how the part is made.

The BOM control is pretty awesome, but at the same time, the Sheet Metal Styles thing is way more difficult than it needs be, especially since I can't find a way to use the information on the sheet metal properties to be used in the print in any sort of way that is linked to it. In edge, you have a dialog with two tabs. First tab is the physical properties, material tab. Second is the sheet metal properties. You define your material thickness here, as well as bend radius and bend factors. Sure you can't really directly use the "12 Gage" you assign in this first tab in your title block, but Thats why we just key in the gage in the material box on the previous tab. Simple enough, and I can have 14 Ga HR P&O in my title block dynamically.

The only options there may be to call out the metal gage in inventor requires an iLogic rule, which is a bit much since I don't feel you should have to program all these if/then/but/nuttin honey rules just to call out your material gage.

I enjoy learning softwares, it keeps me intellecually stimulated. But the software needs to be able to perform as intended reliably for when there is a much larger project with a due date and the project changes constantly as you go. I do not feel confident that Inventor would not be the death of me when crunch time came.

[LT.Rusty]

---

I do not like how inventor does the "projecting" of part edges. First I don't like that I have to project those edges to dimension from them or constrain to them,

---

You know you don't have to project the edges first ... you can dimension or constrain to them, and Inventor will automagically project them.

(I've actually had no end of annoyance because of that - it appears that Inventor will actually prioritize underlying edges when you want to lay down constraints, rather than geometry that you've already projected.  You can wind up with some really annoying open loops that way, when your stuff is constrained to items other than what you perhaps expected.

[chad38]

I'm confused because I wouldn't even know about the Project geometry button at all if I could dimension to them and it auto project. Is there something in my workflow I am missing? I also have an annoying little thing I do called maintaining part symmetry where I prefer to keep my part centered about the reference planes. Well I quit hoping to use the planes themselves, and use the center point. I have to project this point pretty regularly in order to constrain or dimension to it. Now, sometimes it seems to autoproject as you say, but sometimes it's hit and miss. And I also cant figure out why sometimes I must place a point on a circle and contrain it to it's circumference and give a horizontal or vertical relationship to the center of the circle in order to dimension or contrain to the circles quadrant. This sort of thing also happens to me with midpoints of lines. What is it that I'm not understanding here that requires me to do these things part of the time?

Also, why is it I have to go through all these clicks when dimensioning in a print in order to dim to intersection points, but then, it sort of seems to dim to them more automatically when I am reattaching dimensions or attaching them to a different area. And sometimes I go through the click click intersection click click no intersection option? Thanks for any input here.

[jtylerbc]

chad38,

With regards to your dimension autoprojecting issues, I'm not sure why you wouldn't be able to do that.  I went poking through the Application Options, and couldn't even find an option that turns that capability off. 

As for your part origin - in Application Options, Sketch tab, do you have "Autoproject part origin on sketch create" checked?  If not, check that, and it should clear up that problem.

You mention that the autoprojecting of the origin seems inconsistent.  I've never seen it behave that way - in my experience, if the option to autoproject the origin is checked, then you will always get the origin.  What I have found to be VERY common is users, especially new users, accidentally deleting the projected point.  So much so that for a large part of the people I have taught in this program, the first time I showed them how to manually project geometry was to get back a projected origin that they deleted.  This seems particularly common among former AutoCAD users, who seem to have it ingrained into them that the solution to all possible problems is a box selection and the delete key.

Check out this posted idea regarding the origin in sketches.  It might help with some of the issues you are struggling with.

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/Inventor-IdeaStation/Projected-Origin-in-Sketch/idi-p/4529609

[chad38]

No I know when I delete something like that. Let me give a bit more detail. I have a number of sheet metal templates set up for different gages, materials, etc. A friend at one of my former employers who was the only user of Inventor did me a solid and sent a few of his over when I was just beginning here so I could go through and get a better understanding of how things like metal gage, physical props & the like are done in Inventor. Now, in some of his templates he has so that when you start a part, it starts already in sketch mode. For some reason, in these templates, it does not autoproject for the origins in this sketch. I have to exit the sketch, then when I open a new sketch, I can grab the origin. I have been saving these templates so they no longer begin within a sketch, but there are so many dang sheet metal variations.

Yes, in my sketch settings Autoproject part origin is checked, as is Autoproject edges during curve creation, autoproject edges for sketch creation and edit, and point alignment. No idea what that one does.

Really, I'm perplexed as to why there is a need to project anything at all. Also, even if projecting was necessary, why would it just not autoproject all the tiem. Why is the Project geometry button so predominated required in the modeling interface? I have felt it was there, well, because I've needed it so much. If it autoprojects when I run a dim or constraint to the edge, why would we need to project function at all? Funny thing, i recently realized that the project flat pattern edges function, really doesn't do anything that can't be done with the unfold. Really, it kind of IS unfold. Anywhoo, I hope some of you guys can help me understand why I've been having these issues, because if you say that I shouldn't have to project geometry like I keep having to, well then something has been wrong since I started this job and maybe the software isn't as annoying as I've thought, at least in these issues. 

[jtylerbc]

I think that makes a little more sense.  The "Autoproject Origin" option is program-wide, and doesn't really care what template you start from.  However, it only affects new sketches, at the moment of their creation.  If these templates are working by activating an existing sketch, the problem may actually be that your friend didn't have the "autoproject origin" option turned on when he made them.

[Curtis_Waguespack]

Hi chad38,

It sounds like you'll need to edit the custom template files, and manually project the origin center into the sketch, then resave the files using Save As Template, to update these files.

As an advanced user this is what I would recommend that you use (beginners might want to leave Autoproject edges for sketch creation and edit on initially:

* Autoproject part origin - checked

* Autoproject edges during curve creation - checked

     (note this allows you to "scrub" over an edge to have it projected as you're sketching)

* Autoproject edges for sketch creation and edit- Not Checked

     see link: http://inventortrenches.blogspot.com/2011/04/winning-battle-with-projected-geometery.html

* Point alignment - checked

What is Point alignment?

When selected, infers alignment between endpoints of newly created geometry and points of existing geometry. Temporary dotted lines are shown to indicate the inferred alignment.

If not selected, inferred alignment relative to specific points can be temporarily invoked by passing the cursor over the points while in the sketch command.

I hope this helps.
Best of luck to you in all of your Inventor pursuits,
Curtis
http://inventortrenches.blogspot.com

[jletcher]

Really come on......

This newVer is getting really old...........

[jtylerbc]

Is that being saved locally, or to a server location?

I don't think I've ever seen a newver file when saving locally - I've always thought it seemed like they were more of a networking problem than an Inventor problem.  I know I always seem to see more of them when we've been having server trouble.

[chris_in_stockholm]

---

@chad38 wrote:

Really, I'm perplexed as to why there is a need to project anything at all.

---

Agree!

Very annoying. Poor design/coding/UI

And if you sketch on a plane inside of a part and use slice graphics to see what you are doing

some geometry you may need to refer to is sliced away. Stupid!

Also if a sketch is on the back side of the model the body obscures the sketch. Stupid!

[chad38]

---

@chris_in_stockholm wrote:

 Also if a sketch is on the back side of the model the body obscures the sketch. Stupid!

---

Totally agree there.

---

@chris_in_stockholm wrote:

And if you sketch on a plane inside of a part and use slice graphics to see what you are doing

some geometry you may need to refer to is sliced away. Stupid!

---

Not sure really what your gripe with this is.....when I found the slice graphics I liked it. It's been especially helpful when I create a sketch on the center plane when the rest of the part is straddling that plane, I've found it very helpful in those situations. Beats having to turn on visible with hidden edges and then trying to discern what line may be that inside edge I'm looking for. Slicing the graphics makes me confident that I'm working off the object line and not some tangent or other hidden face I'm not wanting.

[LT.Rusty]

---

@chris_in_stockholm wrote:

---

---

And if you sketch on a plane inside of a part and use slice graphics to see what you are doing

some geometry you may need to refer to is sliced away. Stupid!

Also if a sketch is on the back side of the model the body obscures the sketch. Stupid!

---

You know, you might have a point there.  This carries over into so many other things too.  If I put a newspaper on top of my car keys, it obscures the keys and makes it hard for me to find them when I need to go somewhere.  And if I slice an apple in half, why do I see the center of it instead of the skin?  Why is that all gone?  Very poor UI design and coding there!  And the resolution sucks, too.

[chad38]

---

@LT.Rusty wrote:

You know, you might have a point there.  This carries over into so many other things too.  If I put a newspaper on top of my car keys, it obscures the keys and makes it hard for me to find them when I need to go somewhere.  And if I slice an apple in half, why do I see the center of it instead of the skin?  Why is that all gone?  Very poor UI design and coding there!  And the resolution sucks, too.

---

No kidding. I've been saying for year that nature needs to adopt a standard of 1080i with an aspect ratio of 16:10, but does anybody listen? Heck no. So here we still are, with no way to see all of everything on my new tv, which, coincidentally, is 1080i and a 16:10 aspect ratio. When will mother nature move into the 21st century? Just Lazy. Plain lazy.

[blair]

Why would I drop down from 2560 x 1600 native resolution to 1080 is beyond me. If I wanted a crappy 1080 screen display I could buy any cheap monitor and have gagged edges on my display. The attached link to the Chronicle Website will give an idea as to how Inventor displays the model in the IDW environment; https://chronicle.autodesk.com/main/details/afeae328-eb5a-4e1b-ac22-b8049d8e4976

[chad38]

It was, uh, a, uhhhhh, what is commonly referred to as, a, uh, joke? Joke, yeah I think that's it.

[blair]

OK, couldn't tell. Also 1080 TV and such are 16 x 9, a 16 x 10 would be referred to as 8 x 5 (lowest common denominator stuff). The old TV's were/are 4 x 3. Hard to tell now, you try and buy a CAD monitor and all everyone stocks is the crappy 1080 monitors. They will have to pry my HP ZR30w from my cold dead hands.