I'm not sure how common the need for this is, but I have the need to call out pocket depths on plan views of drawings for simple router cut parts.
Currently I can use a leader and pull in a Parameter value of an extrusion feature, so that the depth is intelligent and will update if the extrusion depth changes. But if a move face or thicken feature is added, the extrusion dimension does not reflect the pocket depth accurately. I'd like to be able to specifiy a face or plane as the top of material and then select pocket faces to place the pocket depth callouts.
A simple example of a part with routed pockets and the call outs I'd like to have:
The current material situation is a bit cumbersome.
as we have multiple material librarys, and multiple appearance librarys. and too many combinations theirin.
You are close to the perfect solution for rendering and materials, nearly anyway.
The materials physical properties alone should set the parameters for appearance.
Lets use aluminum as an example.
Ideal Scenereo - For most industries
1. MATERIAL: User picks the physical material
2. ALLOY: User then may check a box for particular alloy if need be,
(the default alloy is set to a common standard that is then set as default in the template)
(the alloy modifies physical properties for the material, apperance only changes if an alloy has visual affect)
ALUMINUM - 6061
3. FINISH: User can then choose the finish or machining operation used on the material. (as material check box)
ALUMINUM - 6061 - R(x) sets shine/reflect
or ALUMINUM - 6061 - Knurled adds knurl bump map etc...
4. COATING: User can then choose a coating option. Paint, galvanized, anodized, etc.
ALUMINUM - 6061- R(x) - Paint(RGB) Egshell
This presents the opportunity to add the finish and coating field to the BOM, if needed for finish and paint tracking.
This simplifies the library so I only have (1) aluminum.
If i edit that base material and make variants(with check boxes only), it auto names them based on the options that have been checked, and you still have the ability to list it in the BOM as just the Base material name if you wish ie.. Aluminum as opposed to Aluminum - 6061 - R(x)... etc. Otherwise the BOM can get too big.
The material library browser could be modified to easily show the check box options for a material in a table format.
The subname for the "user optioned" material in the library would be a combo of the above 4 catagories.
and the name that shows up in the BOM field under material could be listed in this long format, or just show up as Aluminum if a simpler BOM is required. and of course finish and coating could be turned on if needed there too.
With a system closer to this, you never have to worry about naming, etc. it is what it is.
Aluminum is Aluminum plain and simple. it's real world finishes and surface processes modify the appearance further as an overlay to the original material.
Updating a material, would consist of adding more finish and surface options over time, since Aluminum itself does not change its nature... ever. why would the material need constant updating version to version.
Make it a modular material system, add modules over time. So my Aluminum in 2014 will be the same as my aluminum in 2018, perhaps with a few new modules though.
You guys are close to a system that is this simple, intuitive, and realistic, It's just not there yet.
Eventually this should evolve into a master industry library that covers every program across the planet.
so that my aluminum is the same in my Photoshop, Inventor, Poser, Revit, solidworks, 3dstudio, etc...
The renderers change, the material charectersitics do not.
overrides will still be possible if you just want to play with funky colors and unrealistic materials though.
Anyway just a though on getting this material system standardized and simplified a bit further.
I don’t know is this has been brought up before but it would be nice to have an iProperties manager. Something that you can change Properties at any level (part, assembly, and drawing) and be able to copy info from part to part with ease.
The only way I know of doing this right now is buying a 3rd party software to do it.
I have used several other Cad software’s over the years and every one of them has some type of Properties manager.
"New great feature in this version, Helps are online and constantly updated"
Waouh, Cool, Awesone, Terrific !
...but not reachable :-(
I know that helps can be download and install locally, but by default Autodesk products come now with online helps which is supposed to be the best setting.
So, please Autodesk, buy a bunch a new servers and offers a real online service to your customers.
[Edit: I'm based in France, USA based users may not experience the same behaviors]
I would like to have an option to create an asymmetric contour flange in one feature. Currently this must be done with more than one feature (at least when creating a contour flange as a base feature). It would have similar functionality to the asymmetric extrusion. Something like this:
In 2014 the Bill of Material Command was moved to the Manage Tab. This command is used too heavily to be moved to a non primary Ribbon Tab. Now if you added the ability to start the command from the RMB when no components are active I would have accepted that, but its not there either. Now a user has to add it to their QAT or Customize the Marking Menu to get this very commonly used tool back. This was a regression in 2014 for usability.
I know it is similar to this one (but it is a different idea):
It would be useful if a user could select multiple split tools to split a single (or multiple?) solid body.
Currently I need to perform the split function once for every split tool (curve or surface) despite selecting the same solid body everytime.
I think it would be useful to be able to author certain components so that when they're placed in an assembly, they cut through (or perform some other operation on) other components at a certain place relative to themselves.
Really simple example would be a bolt. Bolts never go though a surface unless there's a hole in it, right? So it would make sense if every time I placed a bolt, such as in a pattern, I could have those bolts create a hole that cuts a certain depth from their cap. The ability to select which components participate would be very useful. I could also have the option to thread these holes according to the bolt's specification. Leaving these modifications as Assembly-level edits would be nice enough, but having the option to have them propogate to the sub-assembly and even part level would be fantastic, especially for detail drawing purposes.
This would also be useful for certain pipe fittings such as olets. Although I can author a part to do this within the Tube and Pipe runs environment, which is fantastic, I usually do my piping as normal parts becasue it's slimpler for my applications. If I could have my olets penetrate a hole in the mating conduit pipe from within the normal assembly environment, that would save me a LOT of time; no adaptive parts, no lost references, no editing at the part level at all--Inventor takes care of all that for me.
Those are just a couple examples of when I know I personally could use this feature. Input from others would be appreciated. Thanks!
ability to change or replace the model reference in derived part/assembly. look at this discussion http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/Autodesk-Inventor/De
we probably all see at times it could be good to hit a key instead of clicking on an okay or accept or cancel button, especially if we wish to continue further (need to click ok or accept many times) and the default focus happens to be on the cancel key!
i have attached a snapshot of such a case.
not to divert away from the idea but this default focus should be on the "Accept" key (having to reattach quite a few dimensions that have broken away from the geometry)...
so, in the case of re-attaching dimensions or leaders or other attached annotations, there is an intensive need to click almost every time something is reattached if there is still a portion of the annotation that still needs to be attached (eg the dim extension line down the other end of ths shaft in this case).
if i could just keep hitting the "A" key (non mouse hand) while reattaching annotations (with mouse clicks) i could be cutting down the clicks and time to get the drawing sorted, and hopefully get another job out the door quick enough so i can catch the pie van at smoko...
Our company produces railway safety products which have a very long life cycle and product availability to our customers. Lots of these products have variants, so we make extensive use of iFactories down from parts all along top level assemblies. This increases productivity and decreases the chance of errors when making changes.
We notice Inventor slows down dramatically when iAssemblies grow larger. Especially when generating iFactory members. Each member is generated one by one, which can be quite time consuming. I have monitored thread usage of my 6 core XEON workstation using the Windows Task Manager and I was amazed about the low CPU activity!
Generation of iFactory members is an ideal candidate for splitting up in multiple threads, since the members are completely independant of each other. Please consider this as a product enhancement.
Currently when creating holes, we have the options for Drilled, Counterbore, Spotface and Countersunk from the top only.
It could be beneficial to have these same options to add features to the bottom of the same hole.
The ability to have a fully editible and supported Color Scheme editor for users with unique color handicaps like red/green color blindness or general user customizability. Similar to the one in the SDK but one that actually works better and in the Applicaiton Options. At the very least one for the red/green color blind issues. 9% (but not me) of the male population is color blind at least a little to these colors.
Have nodes in the Inventor Style Library for Tube and Pipe Styles instead of a seperate template file in the Design Data dir. A lot of users see a disconnect here with Styles in this regard and do not fully understand how to add styles to tube and pipe so they show up every time.
Why cant we export text user parameter ???
we can for numerical type...what is the issue for text type!!
it would help us tremendously ,
by exporting text parameter, we can write whatever and be able to derive it for other parts.
please please....make this happen..