Inventor Publisher
Welcome to Autodesk’s Inventor Publisher Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Inventor Publisher topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Help us make Publisher better!

5 REPLIES 5
Reply
Message 1 of 6
TimeraAutodesk
704 Views, 5 Replies

Help us make Publisher better!

Want to help us make Inventor Publisher better? We are in the planning phase for what comes next and we need your help!

 

By taking a few moments to complete this short survey, we will be able to develop based on what matters most to you and your workflows.  

 

We know your time is valuable, and we appreciate all the feedback our customers give. To show our appreciation, every participant who completes the survey will be entered into a raffle to be held on February 7th. One lucky customer will win the opportunity to be featured in a Customer Success Story highlighted and promoted on our Facebook page. This is a great opportunity to connect directly with Product Management at Autodesk, and get your company's name and unique work featured for the world to see.

 

Happy Publishing!

Timera @ Autodesk

5 REPLIES 5
Message 2 of 6
cts2013
in reply to: TimeraAutodesk

I don't know if I've gotten out of the wrong side of bed this morning but this has got my goat!

 

I should think that given the amount of negative feedback on this forum, a survey shouldn't be the way you go about 'improving' you product. Given that I have already completed a survey and heard nothing back , despite the negative yet constructive comments in it, another one seems a waste of time. If you really want to make Publisher better; read your own forum, interact with your paying customers and deal with our problems. We are the people who have paid for it and who (try to) use it.

 

Top of the list for me is to make it work with large assemblies. The fix does not mean uploading to the cloud so that you can process it with a render farm as I'm sure there are plenty of users whose upload speed make this just shy of impossible (myself included).

 

Regards

cts2013

- - - > Publisher 2016 running on: - - -

Intel Core i7 3770k @ 3.5Ghz
Quadro K4000
16GB RAM
Intel SSD
Win10 64bit
Message 3 of 6
TimeraAutodesk
in reply to: cts2013

Hi,

 

Thanks for your response. I appreciate your request for enhanced large assembly performance - and we are continuing to pursue solutions for that. Also, please take note that we never made a statement that the answer to this would be the cloud. While it is a technology option, no decisions have been made in this regard. 

 

I'm sorry you don't see value in completing our survey, we would wish for all of our customers to, but understand not everyone has the time or interest. This information is insightful to us in regards to the bigger market picture of who is using our products, how they are using it, and can inform us in making wise technical decisions down the road. 

 

Thank you for your contributions.

 

Timera @ Autodesk

Message 4 of 6
coreyparks
in reply to: TimeraAutodesk

      I did take a few minutes to fill out the survey but it seems lacking on just where we can give you feedback on issues we have.  I use autodesk software exclusively and have for many years.  We use this software in conjunction with Inventor for the most part.  I have used Inventor since version 3 and have always found it to be a very easily learned software.  Why can't publisher be so easy?  It is like moving from a lexus to a pinto in how the two packages operate.  While I understand you want to keep the complexity down so that it can be easitl used by most anyone, you still need to have alot of the basic tool Inventor currently has.  The ability to save styles for easy reuse, the ability to create templates, the ability to lock views in snap shots, keep annotations unique to one specific snapshot not be global, the ability to work with assemblies over 20 parts smoothly and quickly, these are just a few of the things that need to be fixed ASAP.  My manager wants very badly for this software to be a success and at first glance of the software this looked like a great option.  After getting into it at a production level I would have to say we are, at best a half a step above complete failure.

     I would love to help get this software on track as purchasing something different at this point would be tough.  In the past we have worked directly with Autodesk on the Factory design suite and gave our input or our needs and how we would use the program even as far as having them here for multiple visits on site.  My manager has always been very open to this type of thing and I know I would be willing to put in the extra time if it got us a more usable and stable piece of software.  There are many, many gaps and I am hoping the next release is more of a do over than just an upgrade, though we could do without the cloud aspect.  Inventor handles my files with easy and it seems to me publisher should be able to simplify the data somewhat, since you don't need to modify parts there, and handle even more than Inventor.

     Sorry for the rant but both I and the other designer here look at this piece of software and wonder how it ever made it to market with the major gaps it has.

Please mark this response "Accept as solution" if it answers your question.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Parks
Message 5 of 6
bowen192
in reply to: coreyparks

I'd like to echo coreyparks views, especially the large assembly comments.

 

Enthusiastically asking people on here to fill in a survey, after completely ignoring everyone's problems for the best part of a year, makes me feel Autodesk are either incompetent or have staff that are just ticking the right corporate boxes to move up the career ladder.

 

If Autodesk would spend more time talking to it's customers rather than producing paint-by-numbers surveys and ridiculously, self-congratulatory social media sites, you'd have better feedback, a better product and a happier user base.

Message 6 of 6

Well I have been using Inv Pub for about 2 months, I'm developing 3D Interactive Touch Training for our tools using the web based viewer and our large touchscreen white board on the wall.

 

I have been using MAX for 15 years, and come from 10 years designing and building 3D interactive games and training environments for corporate clients.

 

Maybe its years doing animation and using game engines, but this seems pretty good overall once you get the hang of how tightly it needs to be worked from Inventor, and more importantly, how much depth they built into Pub is to get what you want it to do. 

 

Unfortunatly they have achived this by creating an experimental user interface that is completely non standard in every way.

They have stupidly made most options right click [i know inventor uses this convention] but this takes it to an extreme level, to the extent that its now way past usable by a non "3D" person. Not helped by there assumption that users will have limited knowledge of 3D.

 

An good example of the time they have put into the interface / non standard methods and lack of documentaion [very thin, tooltips] of most of the features. is:

To rotate a small cluster of parts around the first parts pivot, you click the part with the pivot you want> click move, then hold down CTRL to select the other parts to rotate round that first part. I dont know how people are supposed to work this out its not in the "documentation~lol". 

 

Its crashy, it does not render the callouts, text boxes well or in the correct place, iOS app is needs a complete overhaul [its clearly at a concept level anyway]. There is no indication of why files are failing to be viewable after upload. Set affected snapshots, a joke, really!? 

Random crashes, file corruption, freezez on uploads, cant handle large assemblies, dims dont work on real time viewers. Files dont save settings.

 

WebGL does not work in Internet Explorer, even tho IE 11 now supports it!? This has been totally negleted.

 

This is so badly implimented by Autodesk, that my only conclusion is that this is concept software and now that 360 has been released they will spend some time/money on it, instead of the silly number of iOS apps that they have confusingly developed. 

 

There new ecosystem is a good few years from maturity, but its getting there.

 

Since I started to look at this as a solution to what i needed, ive assumed [due to the thin documentation, 2013 R1 release, and its been all but pulled of the website] that this software was created by a small team given limited resources, to test the concept. I think that the concept is good, and i assumed that there was then going to be a proper effort to take this from buggy, limited, untested software to create a more proffesional fit for purpose product that would work with 360 better. Im really hoping they do this. There years behind Solidworks on this. 

 

Its so unreliable that we had to build a new PC to install it from # to get it to work, and im to afraid to do the 2013 R1 update on it in case it breaks it.

 

This is a great software tool that for us puts us 10 years ahead of others for training, I think most people on this forum dispare that it has so much potential, and at the same time is possibly the most badly implimented and supported at the same time. Their idea that this was going to be used by non 3D/CAD professionals was wrong, it needs to be built for people that are able to use complex software thats stable and fit for purpose. 

 

I have to assume this is what there in the process of doing. Otherwise were all wasting our time on it and its potential.

 

Steve

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

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report