With the introduction of DIN 2769 in combination with ISO 22081 and ISO 8015, more companies are starting to use the new general tolerancing concept on engineering drawings. In our Inventor workflows we need to display the symbols: AD (circled) add (circled) within drawing notes and title block text fields.   Currently these symbols are not available in the AIGDT font and therefore cannot be inserted through the standard Inventor text editor like other GD&T symbols.   As a result, users must rely on workarounds such as manually creating sketch symbols. Adding these symbols to the font would improve support for companies adopting the newer ISO 8015/ DIN 2769 tolerancing standards and help maintain consistency with existing GD&T workflows.   Requested enhancement: Please add circled "AD" and circled "add" symbols to the AIGDT font and make them available through the Inventor symbol insertion menu. Thank you for considering this improvement. Show More

Llevo tiempo echando en falta una función que considero básica en un software CAD como Inventor.   Actualmente, la herramienta Rosca únicamente aplica una representación visual sobre la superficie, pero no genera la geometría real de la rosca. Esto puede ser suficiente para planos, pero resulta inútil cuando la pieza va destinada a fabricación, por ejemplo mediante impresión 3D.   Hace poco diseñé una pieza de tubería que necesitaba imprimir. Al utilizar la herramienta Rosca descubrí que únicamente se creaba una textura visual, por lo que tuve que modelar la rosca manualmente mediante una bobina (Coil).   Este proceso es muy tedioso porque obliga a calcular y ajustar manualmente parámetros como:   Altura de la cresta. Profundidad de la rosca. Distancia entre filetes. Ángulos del perfil. Dimensiones para que la rosca sea compatible con la norma correspondiente.   Todo este trabajo debería hacerlo automáticamente Inventor, igual que ya conoce el diámetro, el paso y el tipo de rosca cuando seleccionamos una norma (Métrica, BSP, NPT, etc.).   Mi propuesta es muy sencilla:   Que la herramienta Rosca disponga de tres opciones:   Rosca cosmética (comportamiento actual). Rosca modelada, que genere automáticamente (Generar/Vaciar rosca (elegir entre roscar superficie (vaciando) o generando rosca sobre superficie)) la geometría helicoidal real lista para impresión 3D, mecanizado, simulación o comprobación de interferencias.   No tendría sentido eliminar la rosca cosmética, ya que es más ligera para ensamblajes grandes, pero sí sería muy útil poder elegir cuándo necesitamos la geometría real.   Creo que esta mejora ahorraría muchísimo tiempo a los usuarios y evitaría tener que modelar manualmente una operación tan habitual como una rosca.           For a long time, I have been missing what I consider to be a basic feature in CAD software such as Inventor.   Currently, the Thread tool only applies a visual representation to the surface, but it does not generate the actual thread geometry. This may be sufficient for drawings, but it is useless when the part is intended for manufacturing, for example by 3D printing.   Recently, I designed a pipe fitting that needed to be 3D printed. When I used the Thread tool, I discovered that it only created a visual texture, so I had to model the thread manually using a Coil.   This process is very tedious because it requires manually calculating and adjusting parameters such as:   Crest height. Thread depth. Distance between threads. Profile angles. Dimensions required for the thread to be compatible with the corresponding standard.   Inventor should do all of this automatically, just as it already knows the diameter, pitch, and thread type when we select a standard (Metric, BSP, NPT, etc.).   My proposal is very simple:   The Thread tool should have three options:   Cosmetic thread (current behavior). Modeled thread, which automatically generates the actual helical geometry, ready for 3D printing, machining, simulation, or interference checking. Generate/Cut thread (choose between threading a surface by removing material or generating the thread on the surface).   There would be no point in removing the cosmetic thread, since it is lighter and more suitable for large assemblies, but it would be extremely useful to be able to choose when we need the actual geometry.   I believe this improvement would save users a huge amount of time and eliminate the need to manually model such a common feature as a thread. Show More

I can scroll by dragging the scroll bar. However, this is extremely inconvenient. When I share data with people who are not familiar with Inventor, there is a chance they won’t be able to view the entire page. I would like you to enable scrolling with the mouse wheel so that anyone can work intuitively.   エンジニアノートブックを使用している際、マウスホイールでスクロールすることができません。 スクロールバーをドラッグすればスクロールはできます。 しかし、これは非常に不便です。Inventorに不慣れな人とデータを共有する場合、その人がページ全体を表示できない可能性があります。 誰でも直感的に操作できるよう、マウスホイールでのスクロールを有効にしていただきたいです。 Show More

The place and insert works well but it needs these extra features The source select just allows edges and we need faces as well as this helps with countersunk screws. Also allow the target to then select the mating face. See image below.   Also it has lock rotation but allow us to decide if we can lock a face at a certain angle or parallel to another face. Random locking creates more problems than it solves. Like in this case I want to lock the countersunk screw assembly in a certain fashion so that the T nut is always in a certain direction Show More

Currently, the Mark and Split features in Autodesk Inventor Professional 2026 do not support Rectangular Pattern or Circular Pattern (Polar Pattern) directly. At the moment, users must create the pattern at the sketch level first and then apply the feature. While this workaround is functional, it adds unnecessary steps and reduces workflow efficiency, especially when design changes are required later. Suggested Enhancement:Enable the Mark and Split commands to be patterned directly using the standard Rectangular Pattern and Circular Pattern feature tools, similar to other Inventor features. Benefits: Faster and more efficient modeling workflows Reduced dependency on complex sketch patterns Easier design modifications and maintenance Improved feature tree organization and readability Consistent behavior with other Inventor features This enhancement would provide greater flexibility and help users create repetitive mark and split operations more efficiently. Show More

Hi there,   For us who work between multiple projects, with many parts/assemblies in common, it would be great if we could just copy-paste parts/assemblies directly from one Inventor instance's graphics window to another instance. At the moment I have to use "Place" or drag from the explorer's folder. I would be simpler if I can just copy-paste the part/assembly when I'm looking at it, from one window to another.   This update will help a lot of people!!   All the best RB Show More

Using iMates in iParts or with Model states is a pain due to the iMate glyph not moving when the size of the part changes. This can leave the glyph in the middle of nowhere or the middle of a part and makes it hard to find and recognize the proper iMate glyph. These glyphs should be on those corners and not floating in space.   Show More

Currently, our organization uses a proven workaround to reduce model file sizes by converting an IAM to an RVT (all-in-one element with internal parts removed and voids filled) and then exporting it to STEP. This process worked effectively in Inventor from 2022 to 2024 and has been successfully used for the past four years. significantly reduced the file size. After migrating to Inventor 2026, the workflow still works, but the resulting STEP file size has increased by approximately 500%. While we understand Autodesk's explanation regarding the previous behavior, the earlier output was highly beneficial and supported our established processes. We kindly request that Autodesk consider adding an option in the export settings to retain the previous behavior. This would help organizations like ours continue using a long-standing and efficient workaround without the impact of significantly larger file sizes. Show More

I find it frustrating that we have to manually scroll from the top to the bottom of the Parts/Model Browser Side Bar.   It would be help full if we had the use of the Home, End and Page Up/Down Keys to navigate the side bar     Show More

When working in a sketch with multiple lines constrained at the same point it can be difficult or impossible to delete the constraint you want to. In the example below I'd like to delete the constraint for the green line and there is a 25% chance I'll delete the correct one. My idea is to have the ability to show all constraints for a single line by selecting a line, right clicking, and choosing Show All Constraints for Selected. The command Delete Coincident Constraint when you right click on a line sounds good, but it appears to delete the newest constraint and is not affected by which line you click on. If this command could be changed to delete the Coincident constraint affecting the line clicked on that would also be an improvement. Show More

Make it possible to position dimensions, relative to part geometry. (sketch or relation to a point/ line) This could be similar to how a section view line can be controlled trough editing the sketch, allowing it to be linked to part geometry.   Currently, dimensions are messed up often when changing part dimensions, or making a variant of a existing part/ drawing. (clipping trough other dimensions, or clipping trough part).   Use case 1: a set of parts that has a similar shape, with edited dimensions (like a content center part), making drawings for each part trough replacing the referenced component.   Use case 2: editing a existing part, maintinging the same dimension spacing relative to part.     Show More

Cross-reference balloon item numbers against the parts list to detect missing callouts 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

A concern regarding STEP/STP to Inventor IPT conversion and Pack & Go is being raised, along with a request for guidance and possible improvement. 1. STEP to IPT conversion The expectation is that when a STEP/STP file is converted to an Inventor IPT using a non-associative conversion workflow, the resulting IPT should be completely independent of the original STEP file. For example: Supplier_Model.stp → Convert → Supplier_Model.ipt → Save After this conversion, the IPT would be expected to work independently without Inventor later asking for the original STP file when the IPT is moved, copied, or included in Pack & Go. However, there are situations where Inventor subsequently asks for the original STP location. From a user's perspective, this is confusing because the IPT appears to be a native, independent Inventor file. Could the Inventor team please confirm whether this is expected behavior and, if so, explain what reference or dependency is being maintained? 2. Pack & Go and independent copies A related concern is the difference between packaging a design and creating a completely independent copy. The desired workflow is simply: Original Assembly → Create Independent Copy → New Independent Assembly The new assembly should contain independent copies of its editable subassemblies and parts. Any changes made to the new assembly or its copied components should not affect the original assembly or its original editable components. For example, if the original assembly contains: Original Assembly Subassembly A Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 the independent copy should contain: New Assembly Subassembly A (Copy) Part 1 (Copy) Part 2 (Copy) Part 3 (Copy) All internal references should automatically point to the copied files rather than the original files. It is understood that Pack & Go is primarily intended for packaging and sharing, and that iLogic Design Copy, Design Assistant, or Vault may be more appropriate for some copy workflows. However, a simple and reliable "Create Independent Copy" or "Make Independent" option would make this workflow much clearer and safer. 3. Request for guidance Could the Inventor team please advise: What is the recommended workflow today for creating a completely independent IPT from a STEP file? What is the recommended workflow for creating a completely independent copy of an assembly? Is there a way to verify that no hidden external references remain? Could a future version of Inventor consider a dedicated "Make Independent" or "Create Independent Copy" workflow? The main requirement is simple: Once an independent copy is created, there should be confidence that editing or moving the copy cannot modify or unexpectedly depend on the original design or its original STEP source.   Thank you for your time and for any guidance you can provide.   Show More

Hello.   Drawing Dimension information improvement is needed when model is changed.   In below example, we have 3 same dimensions, only difference is how they are added. First is on 1 line, second is on 2 lines and third is on 2 points. When "radius" (or similar) is added on the model, dimension change and only "2 lines" it stays and it is correct ones, otherones can cause manufacturing problems. And they are also not marked as problematic or unattached (pink dimensions). Maybe in some cases, automatic attachment on changed line is welcome, but I would say that problably not on most of them.   It should at least inform the user that some dimensions were changed or marked them (pink color? + error doctor?).   Example (before and after adding a radius):     Best regards, Rene Repina   Show More

Our engineering team uses Inventor Drawings (IDW) to create spare parts catalogs and service manuals.   Instead of creating hundreds of individual drawings, we maintain a single IDW containing multiple sheets, where each sheet represents a different section of the same assembly (for example: Wheels, Axles, Scale System, Hydraulic System, etc.). Each sheet contains: 1- An exploded view of a specific section. 2- Balloons for the components shown in that section. 3- A filtered Parts List showing only the relevant items for that sheet.   This workflow works well, except for one major limitation. Current behavior All Parts Lists referencing the same assembly share the same Item Numbers. As a result, modifying or renumbering one Parts List affects every other sheet referencing the same assembly.   For example: Sheet 1 – Wheels 1 Wheel Assembly 2 Wheel Hardware 3 Stud 4 Nut   Sheet 2 – Scale System 15 Load Cell 16 Mounting Plate 17 Hardware Kit   If we reorganize or update the Parts List on Sheet 2, the balloons and numbering on Sheet 1 may also change because both sheets are linked to the same BOM. Why this is a problem? 1- Spare parts catalogs are living documents. 2- Over time we frequently: - Add new pages. - Insert new sections. - Add or remove hardware. - Move sections to improve the manual. - Reuse the same hardware across multiple exploded views.   There is currently no practical way to maintain independent numbering for each sheet while still preserving associative balloons and Parts Lists.   - Using separate assemblies is often not possible because the same hardware legitimately appears on multiple pages.   - Using static tables removes associativity and automatic updates. Keeping a single global Parts List becomes increasingly difficult to maintain as the catalog grows.   Requested enhancement   - Please consider adding an option allowing a Parts List to maintain its own local Item Numbers independently from other Parts Lists referencing the same assembly.   For example: ☑ Local Item Numbering ☐ Use Assembly BOM Item Numbers   The Parts List and balloons on that sheet would remain synchronized with each other, but would no longer renumber other sheets. Benefits This would greatly improve Inventor for users creating: Spare Parts Catalogs Service Manuals Technical Documentation Illustrated Parts Books Assembly Manuals with multiple exploded views without affecting the existing BOM workflow used for manufacturing drawings.   Additional comments   We have investigated several alternatives, including: 1- Multiple subassemblies 2- Separate drawings 3- Static Parts Lists 4- Shared global BOMs   However, none of these approaches provide independent sheet numbering while preserving associativity between the assembly, balloons, and Parts Lists.   An optional per-Parts List numbering mode would solve this limitation while remaining fully backward compatible with existing workflows. Example...   Sheet 1 1- assembly A 2- assembly B 3- hardware A 4- hardware B ↓ Sheet 2 1- assembly C 3- Hardware A 4- assembly D 1- assembly A ↓ Update Sheet 2 so it can be in the correct order 1,2,3, and 4 ↓ Sheet 1 4- assembly A 2- assembly B 2- hardware A 4 - hardware B     Show More

A normal part of threading a hole is to include a 90 degree countersink. This provides a lead-in for the screw as well as preventing the first thread from pulling out. The normal Hole tool only has the choice for adding a countersink for flat head screws. It would be nice to have a choice between a flat head screw and the specification for the countersink diameter to be automatically be filled in from the standard xlxs file for lead-in diameter that is used for thread data or include a check box when a tapped hole is chosen to include the chamfer on the hole. The specification would still be included on the thread.xls file. Show More

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

MAKE THE INVENTOR FILE EXPLORER USE THE WINDOWS DARK MODE SETTING OR AT LEAST LET US CHANGE IT.  KILLS MY EYES EVERY TIME I OPEN IT. Show More