Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

UCS Modernization in Part & Assembly Mode

UCS Modernization in Part & Assembly Mode

Hello!

 

Am I the only one that believes the UCS command needs to be modernized? I mean, Autodesk has not revisited it, for what, almost 10 years?

 

What it lacks:

 

Part mode:

 

Allow the user to select a plane, planar face, axis, straight edge, or a given axis of another UCS to define the directions of X & Y, on the top of the current point geometry.

 

Assembly mode:

 

Allow all the options of part mode, described above, especially anchoring the UCS in a vertex or point.

 

The absolute reference point and then parametric translations/rotations in IAM mode is a serious half-baked job in the history of modern CAD.

 

In part mode, after anchoring the UCS to a point, Inventor does NOT:

 

  • Allow the user to select a linear edge as the direction of the UCS axis
  • Allow the user to select an axis as the direction of the UCS axis
  • Allow the user to select an axis of an existing UCS as the direction of an axis of the new UCS
  • Allow the user to select a plane as the direction of the UCS axis
  • Allow the user to select a planar face as the direction of the UCS axis

It ONLY allows the user to pick a point as the direction of X and Y.

 

In assembly mode, Inventor does NOT allow even the anchoring to an assembly point as it does in part mode, nor does it allow the user to pick the direction of XY using a point, as it does in part mode as well.

 

In assembly mode, the UCS is positioned using the UCS parameters in FX manager, relative to the assembly absolute origin.

 

Frankly, entering UCS coordinates manually in the parameter manager of a professional-grade 3D CAD tool is soooo backwards... what about things like design intent, and associativity? None of them exist when you type UCS values in the FX manager... 

 

This is the way to go to allow UCSs to be constrained to the model geometry, and thus be associative to them in more ways, and to have UCSs in assemblies that are not defined exclusively as parameters in the FX manager.

 

What a mess it is to non-associatively adjust offsets&rotations of dozens of UCS that have automatically generated parameter names? And who really renames all six parameters for each UCS they create in either part or assembly mode?

 

It's not only a matter of lack of associativity and ties to the design intent: It's a usability issue as well, almost like ergonomics.

 

This modernization would have a big impact in the utilization of integrated CAM systems running within Inventor that have thus to abide by Inventor UCS rules because that's what the API demands...

 

For CAD users, it also enables UCSs that are constrained to the design intent, not to a waterfall of named parameters in the FX manager that are not associative to the solids...

 

I hope the GIF below clarifies just one of the many limitations we have today... 

 

Edit:

 

Previous ideas around UCS modernization  submitted before - @dan_szymanski - Hope you guys can count all the votes from the ideas submitted here for US-106211. 

 

  1. https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-ideas/improvements-to-ucs-command/idi-p/8530964
  2. https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-ideas/assembly-ucs-workfeatures-can-t-be-positioned/idi-p/99...
  3. https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-ideas/update-the-custom-user-defined-ucs-tool/idi-p/5318331
  4. https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-ideas/full-control-over-ucs-placement/idi-p/3690650

UCSInventor.gif

 

Thanks, everyone for your inputs and upvotes!

37 Comments
jhunt107
Enthusiast

UCS placement is not flexible and vastly inferior to ACAD. You are forced to pick Origin > Point/Vertex for X-axis > Point/Vertex of Y-axis. 

 

We need the option to specify axes, planes, center point of the UCS parallel or perpendicular to other planes/faces, axes, or points.

 

Currently, 2013, you can't define direction of the Z-axis at all.

Tags (1)
jletcher
Advisor

Why, I have been using Inventor from version 1 and I have never had issues to change this it much easier than Autocad.

 

 

I can control x,,y,z with the plane I pick to start my base.

 

Keep Autocad out of inventor If you want autocad functions use autocad.

jhunt107
Enthusiast

jletcher,

I use Inventor because it's parametric and AutoCAD is not (aside from a few new features). I want to define what the axis is parallel or perpedicular to so the UCS adjusts as the model does. I want UCSs in Inventor because they are useful as a Constaint Set in the assembly environment.

 

I hope that clarifies my idea.

jletcher
Advisor

All I am saying is X,Y,Z, does not matter as much in inventor as it did autocad. This is what you should be letting them know. I know it is hard to convert autocad users to Inventor. But when they play with it more and more they will see the way of Inventor. Instead of converting Inentor into autocad. And if you can't I have a link that will let you have parametric in autocad.

dan_szymanski
Autodesk
Status changed to: Under Review
 
DWhiteley
Advisor

Also when editing the roation angle of a UCS, it is the wrong way round!

JoeBarnes4076
Advocate

At a very basic level a UCS defines an alternate point location and orientation that is different than the default origin.   This is similar to a Work Point but includes an orientation.  You should be able to define a UCS SEVERAL different ways using existing geometry.  The current UCS can only be defined in two ways, Offset and 3-Point which barely get you by.

 

Creation methods for UCS’s should “at least” include what is used to define a simple Work Point.

 

Possible Uses

Importing Geometry - You should be able to Import neutral geometry to a location other than the default origin.  Simple prompt to select alternate UCS or accept origin

 

CAM setup locations – Some components may need up to 6 CAM setup locations which can be defined by a UCS. 

 

Derived Components - A UCS could be used to specify how derived solid bodies are located into their individual part files.  Should also be able to include a UCS in the derive.

 

Assembly Configurators - Imagine only needing a single constraint to place something in the correct location and orientation. (The constraint set should actually be only a single constraint not 3 flush constraints).  Say you are laying out a plant full of equipment.  At the top level layout you have a simple sketch on the floor defining the centerlines of product flow.  UCS’s are placed with respect to the sketch to define the location of each piece of equipment.  Sounds like Factory Design Suite, but what if you don’t have a floor to base everything from. 

At the equipment level you may have several configurable sub-systems. (Infeed, outfeed, hoist, table, frame, upper beam, lower beam, elevator, etc…)  Each sub system has its own defined placement and orientation separate from all other sub-systems in the context of the assembly.  When replacing a configurable item, would you rather replace 3-constraints or only ONE.

 

Note: The majority of my background is in a different 3D parametric modeler not AutoCAD.  You can go a long way without UCS’s, but they could be very useful.   Unfortunately I see this Idea as a request to complete a partially implemented feature. 

scottmoyse
Mentor

I was stoked this feature was released when it was. BUT, it's a bit of a dog. Only being able to select points / vertexs to define the orientation of the axis on creation sucks. Why can't we use faces and edges? Please add this ability.

 

Currently if you want to flip the direction of the UCS, you can't do that on creation, you have to complete the creation of the UCS, then redefine it from the context menu. At this stage, an old school HUD appears and you get to enter an angle to rotate the UCS... why couldn't that be available during creation?

 

This is a badly needed feature to help define the work coordinate systems for complex shape parts for integrated CAM. 

 

It would be awesome if you could add the ability to translate the UCS along axis during creation as well. i.e: I want it here, but at an offset of 5mm in the X & Y axis.

scottmoyse
Mentor

I've posted a duplicate idea here... I didn't find this one before I did, anyway there are some additional points contained within it http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-ideastation/update-the-custom-user-defined-ucs-tool/idi-p/531...

For the CAM users the way it is currently working in the competitor is quite nice.

Would be a major improvement indeed.

scottmoyse
Mentor

The way it works in Inventor HSM is perfect. Surely this is a simple fix & transfer of code from the add-in to the full application?

cadsetterout
Explorer
Good points Scott. Has anyone worked out why custom UCS's keep making themselves visible?
AkersStan13
Community Visitor
+1 Would be great.
scottmoyse
Mentor

Hey  @AkersStan13

 

Thanks for commenting on this idea with your support, I didn't see you give it kudos and vote for it though. The comments help for sure, but the statistics are based on the amount of kudos an idea gets. If it's not too much trouble, it would be awesome if you could click on the kudos button as well please.

 

Cheers

Scott

rsalasidis
Advocate

We need total control of UCS creation - I believe it is one of the biggest missing features. Ability to create from 3 planes, create offsets UCS etc

rsalasidis
Advocate

Look at Creo - you could copy UCS creation from there - they do do that very well. Yes it needs to be there

scottmoyse
Mentor

@rsalasidis if you agree with the idea, plus add a Kudos vote. Comments are welcome for sure, but its the votes that count.

rsalasidis
Advocate

Done - did not see the Kudos on the top left. Thanks

scottmoyse
Mentor

@rsalasidis its not all that obvious. Thanks for circling back.

dan_szymanski
Autodesk
Status changed to: Accepted

Accepted idea [US-106211]. Thanks!

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Submit Idea  

Autodesk Design & Make Report