Sometimes it's more important to control the size of the view than the scale. There should be a parameter that controls the size of the view (in sheet space), and then the scale should be automatically determined.
It would be very useful if we had a couple of dropdowns that included Children, Methods, and Rules as it is with .net. In .net, it lists all of the methods in the active class. This would be useful in the Design Editor as well as in Visual Studio when you are working with design files.
This would be especially useful on large designs where you may have lots of rules and/or children. You should be able to click on an item (ex. "Length") and the window will jump to that rule.
It would be very useful to have a #Region directive in the Intent language as there is in .net.
For those unfamiliar: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/sd032a17%2
Basically regions allow you to expand/collapse sections of code. This makes organization much easier.
#Region "Child Rules" Child testCenters As :IvSphere, Quantity = Length(testParts)
origin = GetTestPartPoint(child.index)
ignorePosition? = False
Radius = 5
color = "Green"
End Child #End Region
Method GetTestPartPoint(mIndex As Integer) As Point
Dim xyz As List = nth(mIndex, testParts).CenterOfMass
Return Point(first(xyz), second(xyz), third(xyz))
There should be a different (set of) parameter(s) for IvBalloon that "simply" allows the balloon to be connected to the nearest drawing-curve. Currently, the user must name an edge and that edge must resolve to a drawiing curve in the view -- difficult to get this right. For IvBalloon, the easiest solution is just to allow a value of :Nearest for the "entity1" parameter.
I would like to see a "favorites" option in the property grid. This would allow us to check the star next to the rule name and mark it as a favorite. Then we would have a third sorting option to sort by favorites. I suppose the favorite sorting option could apply to both the categorized sorting and A-Z sorting.
Tool or function to clean-up/remove orphaned member part files. For example I have a project with about 3000 part files. I know I'm using only a fraction of these parts in the current design. These orphaned parts slow down other processes such as the up-load and down-load of the project to and from the server. Also, creates a burden to the server backup, while having little or no benefit once the design has been complete. I cannot just delete all of the member files and rebuild the model because any drawings that were already started or completed will be compromised.
Sorting by the values in the properties grid will give us the ability to more easily find rules based on the expected values. This is especially helpful when working on datasets by others who have not properly documented the rules in a way that it is easy to find the rules in question. In the case below, I know that the tank is 72 inches tall from my measurement of the Inventor model. If I could sort by the Values then I would be able to very quickly find that the associated rule is very likely TankHeight. My understanding is that the grid below is a DevExpress grid and column sorting is a property setting. That simple and quick change would be quite helpful for debugging.
It would be extremely useful to have Level of Detail support in assemblies. It's very common for customers to use levels of detail in their drawings and without this built in one either has to code their own mechanism to create the levels of detail or set the hidden parts rule on the drawing views to hide the components that they don't want. The hiddenParts approach is slow and leaves the customer with a drawing different than what they would create manually.
Inventor ETO should have the capability to reverse engineer and configure from an existing iPart / iAssembly factory + incorporate rules from iLogic. There should also be an option to create configurations through a flowchart / flowdiagram rather than through code.
As it stands, the ETO documentation has improved greatly from a year ago. What's lacking is documentation describing when to use specific features. I suggest to make a best practices knowledgebase which answers questions for anyone looking to start a new project.
Some example answers might include:
This may look like a lot of suggestions at once. All I'm asking is for someone who has built a number of ETO projects to put a bunch of advice somewhere ETO developers can read it. The more topics covered the better.
I'd be happy to clarify since each of these are problems I've run into over the last year. I'd be happy to clarify or give a longer list if anyone wants.
The lightweight model could have a few components removed/suppressed or swapped out for less detailed components. Some out of the box controls with the ability to further customize using rules.
Integrate the Smart Connector functionality found in Factory Design Suite into ETO. The ETO projects that I work on have many configured machines inside a main assembly. To have the ability to configure a machine, drag the machine onto the model window and then have it attach to a chosen piece of geometry would be a great addition to the user experience.
Multiple hole operations on one center is very common. As on right now the way to take care of this is to create an I-Feature. This way the drawing can still be correctly driven from the model using the hole annotation feature.
The problem I run into is we have too many similar-nested holes but most are not standard. This makes using I-Features very ineffiecient.
Second problem I run into is inexperienced users just using leader-text in place of the hole annotation feature to call out mutliple holes with one leader.... Currently I have to use multiple hole notes to correctly have it driven from the model.
Not only shoud the hole command be able to create multiple holes on the same center, the hole annotation for the drawings should manage these holes with one leader, and in the correct order. To keep things consistent all of the dimensions should be taken from the surface/face that the hole starts.
Additionally we have designs that call for deep c'bores with an NPT cross drill to intersect other holes. The current problem is only being able to use NPT for SpotFace hole function. The S'face function measures from the bottom of the s'face unlike the c'bore. This creates inconsistencies and manufacturing either drills too deep or not deep enough because of this.
Log into access your profile, ask and answer questions, share ideas and more. Haven't signed up yet? Register
Upgrading to a 2015 product? Make sure to check these out 1st!
Created by the community for the community, Autodesk Exchange Apps for Autodesk Inventor helps you achieve greater speed, accuracy, and automation from concept to manufacturing.