This would let you select a pair of faces on one component and a matching pair on another, and have Inventor constrain centre/align both components. It's especially useful when working with components that have a clearance or interference fit, but really it applies to any components that need to be centred to each other.   This functionality already exists, to some extent, within Inventor's joint relationships. However, as proven by the number of questions on the Inventor forums asking how to constrain components this way, it clearly isn't easily available or intuitive for quick, simple constraining. Joints are powerful and offer plenty of options, but using something like an "in-between faces" planar joint to centre two components quickly becomes a complex process. It has its own quirks - it moves components, strips grounding from grounded components, and requires a specific order of face selection and origin definition. It's also prone to user error along the way, taking upwards of 12 mouse clicks just to set up.   A similar result can be achieved by constraining origin centre planes, but only if the component is symmetrical and the planes are in the right place - which very often isn't the case, especially with imported STEP files.   I believe we need a dedicated constraint purely for this scenario - one that simply asks the user to select two faces on one component and two faces on another, then constrains them at the mid-distance between both selections.   Ideally this wouldn't be limited to a single pair of mating components either. At assembly and sub-assembly level, it would be just as useful to centre one component between faces belonging to multiple other components, rather than being restricted to one matching part.   A demo of this constraint type in action can be seen in the videos below.       The demo above shows an iLogic "Mid-Align" constraint I built using the existing "in-between two faces" planar joint definition via the iLogic API, simplifying the user's input down to just four face selections and adding some extra logic to handle the definitions automatically. Full code can be found in this topic: Solved: Re: How to get a non-circular part (square or other) into center of a non-circular hole. - Page 2 - Autodesk Community   I believe having this built natively into Inventor's Place Constraint / Assembly Constrain command would be a huge workflow improvement for a lot of scenarios, and would quickly become one of the most commonly used constraints - improving Inventor's overall ease of use and constraining intuitiveness. Thanks! Show More

Add a built-in tool that steps through every sick (broken) constraint and joint in an assembly, one at a time: it zooms to each one, opens its edit dialog automatically so you just re-pick the lost reference, and then jumps straight to the next until they're all fixed. It can also auto-accept the intermediate "assembly cannot be solved" prompt. Today this is a slow manual hunt through the browser; on big assemblies with dozens of broken relationships it's painful. This turns it into a continuous, guided workflow — for both constraints and joints. I built a working iLogic prototype to prove the concept (see video). I'd love this as a native Inventor feature. Show More

Greater ease of editing in Sketch. For example, now if we have multiple lines connecting at a single point, editing one line is difficult. And if we have a second point projected at the same point, it's almost impossible. Sometimes you can't see all the constraints even if the visibility of all constraints is turned on. thanks Show More

The 2026 part environment offers palettes for Rectangular, Circular, and other patterned features. When will the assembly environment also get the palette style interface?      Descriptive user parameters names are difficult to read in such small text boxes.   I welcome your vote.   Regards, Jerry     Show More

Choose whether to display only the view name or only the scale using two separate light bulbs Show More

Hello. ILogic rule should have a possibility to be editted only by an administrator. We have quite some iLogic rules in combination with Event Triggers. In Vault they are locked and they are automatically downloaded on every session. BUT, when session is active, users can easily access those iLogic rules and bypass them. This should not be allowed for normal users. Current solution is to limit them on Windows/domain level, but since iLogic is really strong, it should have permission level abilities. Similar idea for iLogic security: https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-ideas/ilogic-security-needed-asap/idi-p/12807615     Best regards, Rene Repina Show More

Dear Autodesk Inventor Team, I have a simple question regarding Model States and Frame Design. Is there a technical reason why these two features cannot work together, or is it simply not a development priority? From a user's perspective, combining Model States with Frame Design would provide significant benefits. It would save a huge amount of modeling time, reduce duplicate assemblies, simplify project management, and eliminate the need for many custom iLogic solutions. SolidWorks has supported the combination of Configurations and Weldments for many years, making it much easier to manage different versions of the same welded assembly. Inventor introduced Model States in 2022, but after several releases there has been little progress in this area. I believe that integrating Model States and Frame Design would greatly improve Inventor's workflow for fabrication and structural steel users, while also making Inventor more competitive with SolidWorks in this important aspect. I would really appreciate understanding whether this is a technical limitation or simply a feature that has not yet been prioritized. Thank you. Show More

Maybe others find it OK, but to me, Design Assistant is really clumsy. For a large assembly it can be a real pain to find the particular part you need and rename it. You can "sort" parts (kind of) but they are still grouped under their respective assemblies / subassemblies. Then they are shown multiple times if they are part of multiple subassemblies - of course - which further add to the clutter of the layout.   Just why couldn't file renaming be part of Inventor?? Do it through the BOM, or through the model tree or both. Whichever way, but the Design Assistant is, in my opinion, very clumsy. To the point that I more often do "Save As" through Inventor and re-link files...   Thanks! Show More

When "Place Component" etc., improve the File Explorer. I would like to be able to type file address, to quickly locate folders locally on computer. To quickly find folders aslo outside vault.  Show More

I am working with Inventor's API. I have some Browser Node renaming logic to handle most objects in the browser. However, when coming across solid bodies that are composed of only suppressed features, the solid body's browser node is not exposed to the API. This makes it impossible to capture the Native Object (SurfaceBody in this case) so I can rename it. I also tried accessing the SurfaceBody objects through the PartDocument.ComponentDefinition, but I get the same results - they're just not part of the collection of SurfaceBodies. If I can see the node and rename it in Inventor's browser as a user, I feel I should be able to do the same from the API.   Please make changes to expose these. Thank you! Show More

Currently, when hovering over the endpoint of a line, the center of a circle, or any point in geometry with a coincident constraint applied, the glyph is the target when dragging. If you don't have the "display coincident constraints" setting on, the glyph snaps back into place afterward, accomplishing nothing. This is extremely annoying, as to actually drag the point, you have to either: Hide the constraints using the ribbon at the bottom of the screen, then unhide them afterward. Press Fn and then F7, then press Fn and F8 afterward, which either requires two hands or is an uncomfortable stretch. (Assuming you have function lock set to make the volume and media controls easy to press, which I think most people do) Very carefully align your cursor in the small area away from the point where it chooses to select the point and not the glyph.   Solution 1: The only two interactions with coincident glyphs require you to left-click or right-click on them first and do not involve dragging, so clicking and dragging should prioritize the point (unless your cursor is explicitly over the glyph if the "display coincident constraints" setting is on)   Solution 2: The glyphs are massive and would be easy to click on without this interaction working as it currently does. Interacting with the glyph should require you to hover over the glyph, rather than the point it's associated with.   I think the first solution is the most seamless, but to not upset any users, make this a global preference you can turn on (I argue it should be on by default, as it's only possibly an annoyance if you manually set the "display coincident constraints" setting on) As it stands, dragging points with the coincident constraint makes me want to pull my hair out.   Show More

I would like to have a change in the behaviour of mass calculation in assemblies with Model States. I have a primary Model State with several parts. The assembly has a certain mass. I create an independent MS_1 in which I suppress a few parts. This MS has its own BOM and, obviously, a lower mass than the primary one. That is correct. Now I create another state MS_2 as a child of the primary state. In it I suppress also a few parts. Now, the BOM of MS_2 is identical to the primary’s BOM. The mass, however, is lower. Should not be the mass of MS_2 be the same as the primary mass? Both states share the same BOM after all. Show More

There might be a need for some components in assembly (tape, wires etc) which don't need to be 3D modelled, but can be added as virtual components. These components can be added as simple sketch elements to drawing views, but it is not possible to link a balloon to such a virtual component and attach its leader to a sketch element. Please add functionality of linking balloons to virtual components and more flexible leader attachment, so they can be renumbered automatically later. Show More

Their isn't a single good reason for leaving constraints suppressed in a part I unsuppressed. It just leads to mistakes and frustration. PLEASE make that simple fix. Show More

When I want to extend multiple centerlines, I have to go through each of them to make sure they are level with each other. I would like to request a feature where when we select multiple centerlines inventor can give option of extend only 1 or extend all together. It will save a lot of time when making drawings aesthetically good. Show More

When creating a slot, there is currently no option to make one of the slot's circular ends concentric with an existing circle or circular edge. Adding a Concentric option during the Slot command would greatly improve usability and reduce the need for additional sketch constraints after the slot is created. This enhancement would make the sketching workflow faster, more intuitive, and more efficient, especially when designing features that require precise alignment with existing circular geometry. Show More

In Inventor I use component/replace (replace all) to replace part/s in an assembly. So far so good. BUT why the position number changes?   Because the file name changes. OK - BUT Inventor knows the position number fpr Part 1 and Part 1 shall be replaced by Part 2, so it should be easy to do link the Position to the new part to not destroy the BoM. It is not needed to change the position# because the information of the BoM get updated by iProperties. Position number should stay as is. If a design engineer want to renumber, he can do that as usual, but by default Pos. 36 should stay 36 instead of adding new numbers at the end of the BoM and the must to renumber manually. Show More

We keep running into the issue where a sheet metal flange falls short of the target point, I suspect it is because the flange is being created parallel to the reference plane. Either way, it's quite a common problem for us!   Show More

This feature is very handy, letting you sweep a plane perpendicularly across a path to a desired distance or target point.   The absence of a similar feature in Inventor is a bit annoying Show More