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 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 have seen a post similar to this where the writer wished the ability to access the visibility of a solid body via iLogic. I am asking for the ability to suppress via the solid body. As things are now, if I want to suppress a solid body, I have to suppress every feature within the body separately! When doing this via iLogic, it creates a mess! Currently I may be forced to suppress dozens of features –and I I add new ones, I need to remember to add those to the code as well.
The multi-solid body layout part workflow is easily the most powerful design paradigm in Inventor, but the ball was definitely dropped on this one. It was thrown out there and immediately orphaned. We should also have the ability to:
I’m sure I’ll come up with more. Have a great day!
Applied Design Intelligence
Give me the option to use Design Doctor. If I don't know what created the error I have to click the cross and waste my time clicking thru buttons in this dialog box. I just want to know where the error is - I can fix it. Display some type of indication in the model tree by the part or assembly that has an error - you could us the red cross.
It would be very nice if the pop-up menus, particularly the selection menu that appears on hover, did not obscure the very item we are attempting to select. For instance, when attempting to select a vertex, I place the cursor over the geometry and wait for the selection menu to block it from my sight. Then I have to move it and select. The fact that there is no way to distiguish which "vertex" is the vertex I want when several are listed is a subject of a different thread I think.
Currently the drawing symbols are stored in each individual drawings.
If you company uses thousands of symbols this is not ideal.
We would like it to be stored in a central library, which we can organize. You should be able to see a preview of the symbol when browsing the library directly from Inventor.
When I create a frame assembly using Frame Generator, I would like to be able to reuse frame members that are identical to other previously placed frame members and likewise update my BOM to reflect the correct QTY.
most of the time the little "Select Other" visual feedback is being blocked by the nice (but often very annoying) little selection box.
lots of people complain and yet we still have it doing the same thing, getting in the way.
can you fix this please? ie move it away a bit, or if user moves it away from geometry attempting to be chosen, then make it stick to where the user manually positions it...
We often make custom laser cut guard panels. To do so we have to create the hole pattern we use laid out on the panel as we want to see it so we can get a cut path for the laser. Very rarely do we create a panel that is just square with no other cutouts. Many time these have cuts holes and odd shapes to the panels. So when we create a hole pattern for the mesh guard we want we need to suppress many many holes to set it up while keeping a border around the pattern. It woul be nice if there was some way that we could say create this patten on this face keeping at least 1" of space between the edges of the part and the hole pattern. See the attached pic for a simple guard I am currently drawing. Anyone else think this might be useful?
When creating notes and instructions on a drawing you often want to refer to the item numbers on the parts list but you can not access the item number properties so you have to just type in a number the problem with this is if the numbers change for some reason on the parts list the notes are now incorrect. So I propose that you can access this within format text so they are linked.
Can we save/"save a copy as" to a previous version of inventor. This is a great tool in autocad and it would be great to see it in Inventor. We have sister companys that are currently using a newer version of Inventor and as a result, we can't open their files.
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.