Materials Materials Materials

[tsreagan]

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

         ALUMINUM

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.

T.S.

[lackas5C4Z4]

Also can you go to an XML based database. The current system is not at all accessable for macros and scripts. At my previous company, our material library contained custom fields for stock material PN, stock material cost, finish, shorter description for title block, etc. We used a VBA macro to access these and apply them to the part. I have found no info on accessing your current database file.

[AndrewJBecker]

I love this idea, it should also make it easier to add a new type of material because it might be an alloy already in your library that you just want a different surface finish for.

Definite thumbs up from me.

[DRoam]

The entire material/appearance scheme is in desperate need of a complete overhaul. It's very clumsy and convoluted. We have two built-in libraries which share a lot of the same materials and also have several which are unique to themselves. They're both cluttered with seemingly randomly-chosen alloys or other variations. We also have multiple appearance libraries with many duplicates and with differing appearances for the same object/texture.

In addition to that, we have a very clumsy system where we have to shuffle materials and appearances between the Document's materials/appearances and the standard libraries. We can't directly edit (or even view the properties of) one of the standard libraries' materials/appearances, but instead have to copy the material/appearance to the document, make changes, and add that material/appearance back to the library, then click the button to check the library back in.

On top of all that, if the current document already contains a material/appearance with the same name as a material/appearance you want to use from a library, you can't just use the library's material/appearance as expected. You have to delete or rename both the material and appearance before using the library's. If you just rename the material, and then try to use the library's material, the appearance associated with the library's material won't be brought in (and there's no warning or indication that this has happened).

Also, for whatever reason, in the Materials dropdown as well as the Appearance dropdown, the "Favorites" and "Document Materials/Appearances" are lumped into the same list, which is confusing, cluttered, and counterproductive.

To cap it all off, there's simply no good way to work with the various alloys, treatments, and coatings which metals and other materials can have.

Material is one of the most absolutely fundamental characteristics of... well, of existence, and certainly of engineering. And yet the Materials system in Inventor is so incredibly clumsy, unintuitive, unfunctional, and just a pain to work with.

So that's my exhaustive critique of the materials system in Inventor. And I'm sure there's more I'm not thinking of. Autodesk, the materials system in Inventor desperately needs to be on your high-priority focus list.

[timdown73]

Please Autodesk, please, please overhaul the materials library system.  Droam's comments above are spot on.  A much more intuitive UI is very much needed and long overlooked.  And by the way, add 316 S.S. to the standard list of materials PLEASE!!!

[lackas5C4Z4]

"The current material situation is a bit cumbersome."

No... the current system is complete garbage...

• Half the fields are completely useless
• Several are pre-populated with junk text
• Appearances seem such an afterthought with the multiple databases, similar names, disorganization
  • Coming from Solidworks, this is difficult to even look at. SW you can just pick a texture and a color and almost always get the appearance you need. Further customization is also very straight forward... I don't even try any more unless I have to... 
• The database is worthless once you assign a material. If a material property was incorrect when you assigned it, you have to go to every single part to correct it. Or if you want to change how Aluminum renders, guess what, you get to either do appearances on every surface or re-do the materials on every part.

I just spent the last few hours trying to get my BOM properties to match and appearances to look right. This should have taken minutes not hours. Fix this please!

[DRoam]

Hi @jeremy.bond, good suggestion. Please also vote for this request for a complete overhaul of the materials system, to something more streamlined and intuitive (in other words, less of a total and complete headache): Materials Materials Materials (currently has 186 votes). I would bet that an overhaul of this sort would go a long way in enabling better support for multiple international standards.

[DRoam]

A few related suggestions:

• Importing material libraries from matweb (87 votes)
• Mechanical Design Material Library (47 votes)
• MATERIALS SPECS - better database (36 votes)
• Appearances (and other Properties) Should be Shown in Material Browser (17 votes)
• Material and Appearance Categories in Drop Downs (16 votes)
• Easier Way to Switch / Toggle Material / Appearance Libraries Inside Inventor (12 votes)
• [International] Materials (7 votes)
• Material and appearance library (2 votes)

[dan_szymanski]

We will no longer leverage the "Under Review" status, so I am setting this Idea back to Gathering Support.  -Dan

[dan_szymanski]

We will no longer leverage the "Under Review" status, so I am setting this Idea back to Gathering Support.  -Dan

[Telson.Hadden]

This is the largest number of votes I've ever seen for an idea.  why is this not at least partially implemented already?

Please stop making us get a degree in relational database management before we can assign a material and a colour to a part.  Please give us a table we can export to Excel, edit and import back instead of the convoluted and cumbersome method we need to use - described above very ably.

[DRoam]

I love this idea and think about it frequently when I need to use a specific alloy or call out specific surface finishes or paints. It would be fantastic to be able to choose from a simple material list (steel, aluminum, bronze, etc.) and then from a more complete alloy library, and then apply various surface treatments and coatings on top of that.

The following is an an idea related to the surface finishes/coatings side of things: A real surface treatment/finish/coating (paint) tool. It's basically a proposal on how the surface-treatment side of things could work.

Autodesk tends to like more granularity when it comes to scoping and implementing Ideas, so my hope is that this helps separate out the "materials" and "surfaces treatments" sides, so that they can feel free to tackle one first and then the other, rather than waiting for the development resources to do both at the same time (although I definitely wouldn't complain if we got both at the same time).

I hope Autodesk recognizes the crucial, downright fundamental importance of materials and surface treatments in manufacturing, and gives those systems the overhaul they desperately need, sooner rather than later.

[CGComer8YEQB]

Oh, yes, please.  If this could be combined with my suggestion to leverage the new Model States with regards to Material Appearance on a per-state basis, I wouldn't have much to complain about on the material side of things (other than the cumbersome manner of creating new materials).

[JohnOFarrar]

THIS is an ideal system, please make it real.

[jimmymitchell5369]

While this is a great idea, while Autodesk is implementing this can they fix up how the the colouring works. I can place a part in an assembly and it will randomly nominate a colour scheme. Sometimes its the colouring set up in the part, sometimes its the default, sometimes one of each. And with no way to fix it. Its like a lottery, only where you loose time and gain frustration.