Inventor General Discussion

Inventor General Discussion

Reply
Valued Contributor
soldanr
Posts: 51
Registered: ‎11-08-2004
Message 1 of 13 (153 Views)

boolean

153 Views, 12 Replies
11-08-2004 09:31 PM
I my opinion I think that Autodesk is making a huge mistake about not giving the option of SIMPLE boolean operations in the .ipt file. It is a lot easier to boolean with different body parts in one file. I am coming from many years of modelling in CATIA and SolidWorks and I must say that it does make a huge difference when it comes to productivity. I would strongly suggest that Autodesk take a look into having this feature available in the future. I think it would be a great advantage over the competitors
*Rui Vaz
Message 2 of 13 (153 Views)

Re: boolean

11-08-2004 10:17 PM in reply to: soldanr
I may be missing something but what are you referring to when you say "simple boolean operations"? I don't recall needing more in terms of operations than what is available at the moment.... -- Rui "soldanr" wrote in message news:1625137.1099978294352.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum1.autodesk.com... > I my opinion I think that Autodesk is making a huge mistake about not giving the option of SIMPLE boolean operations in the .ipt file. It is a lot easier to boolean with different body parts in one file. I am coming from many years of modelling in CATIA and SolidWorks and I must say that it does make a huge difference when it comes to productivity. I would strongly suggest that Autodesk take a look into having this feature available in the future. I think it would be a great advantage over the competitors
*Rob Singlehurst
Message 3 of 13 (153 Views)

Re: boolean

11-09-2004 12:25 AM in reply to: soldanr
soldanr Join, Cut and Intersect are available with Extrude, Revolve, Sweep and Loft. I cannot think of anything else that would be needed. -- Cheers, Rob Singlehurst Quadro4 750XGL 44.03 Athlon XP 2600+ 1G RAM Win2K SP4 IV9 SP1 "soldanr" wrote in message news:1625137.1099978294352.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum1.autodesk.com... > I my opinion I think that Autodesk is making a huge mistake about not giving the option of SIMPLE boolean operations in the .ipt file. It is a lot easier to boolean with different body parts in one file. I am coming from many years of modelling in CATIA and SolidWorks and I must say that it does make a huge difference when it comes to productivity. I would strongly suggest that Autodesk take a look into having this feature available in the future. I think it would be a great advantage over the competitors
Distinguished Contributor
jorgen
Posts: 578
Registered: ‎08-03-2003
Message 4 of 13 (153 Views)

Re: boolean

11-09-2004 02:12 AM in reply to: soldanr
I guess he is referring to a possibility to do boolean operations like cutting geometry of one part from another wothout having to use derived parts.

soldanr: You ARE aware that you can use boolean operations in derived parts? Although I'll admit it is rather cumbersome.
*Howard Delano
Message 5 of 13 (153 Views)

Re: boolean

11-09-2004 05:15 AM in reply to: soldanr
Sounds like that is what he is talking about to me also. I agree with him. I miss the "toolbody" approach used in MDT and think derived parts are a PITA. Howard "jorgen" wrote in message news:33092854.1099995179694.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum2.autodesk.com... > I guess he is referring to a possibility to do boolean operations like cutting geometry of one part from another wothout having to use derived parts. > > soldanr: You ARE aware that you can use boolean operations in derived parts? Although I'll admit it is rather cumbersome.
*Shekar Subrahmanyam[Autodesk]
Message 6 of 13 (153 Views)

Re: boolean

11-09-2004 08:11 AM in reply to: soldanr
Hi soldanr, Like Rui, Rob and others mentioned (Thanks all), most volume generating features have the join, cut and intersect. Derived functionality also has these except the intersect. Today as we all know Inventor supports a single body in the IPT file. When we support multiple bodies in IPT, I can envision that we will have to look into booleans more closely. I might have missed your point. Please give some more specifics. Thanks. Shekar "soldanr" wrote in message news:1625137.1099978294352.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum1.autodesk.com... > I my opinion I think that Autodesk is making a huge mistake about not giving the option of SIMPLE boolean operations in the .ipt file. It is a lot easier to boolean with different body parts in one file. I am coming from many years of modelling in CATIA and SolidWorks and I must say that it does make a huge difference when it comes to productivity. I would strongly suggest that Autodesk take a look into having this feature available in the future. I think it would be a great advantage over the competitors
Valued Contributor
soldanr
Posts: 51
Registered: ‎11-08-2004
Message 7 of 13 (153 Views)

Re: boolean

11-09-2004 09:26 AM in reply to: soldanr
Hi Shekar
What you mentioned in the reply is what I am refering to. The fact that inventor only supports a single body in the IPT file makes a little more difficult to deal with. I am aware that we can use derived parts. Put all the boolean parts in an assembly file, then open a new IPT file and derive the parts with plus or minus, selecting what to subtract.
So in conlusion I have to create an assembly file that makes no sense to have it (cause I don't need it), and then I create another new file with the derived parts . I had to create 2 new files, and waste time, space, effort , patience....


I am aware that the extrude, loft, revolve... all of them offer the cut feature.... but how about if I want to make a modification in the part before I cut? Like a fillet???
Now you must used derived parts.

Don't get me wrong... Autodesk inventor is an excellent and impressive package. I am impressed with the contents, but if you guys have used CAD programs that support different body parts I will assure you that it makes a huge difference in productivity. and that is what CAD is all about...

Thank you
Rafael
*Bob S.
Message 8 of 13 (153 Views)

Re: boolean

11-09-2004 09:33 AM in reply to: soldanr
The attached image of a part shows 2 distinct "bodies" in one part file. But you probably would rather call them "Lumps". My question: What's the difference? (logically, not boolean) "Shekar Subrahmanyam[Autodesk]" wrote in message news:4190ec2c$3_2@newsprd01... > Hi soldanr, > >Today as we all know Inventor supports > a single body in the IPT file. When we support multiple bodies in IPT, I can > envision that we will have to look into booleans more closely. > > I might have missed your point. Please give some more specifics. > Thanks.
*Shekar Subrahmanyam[Autodesk]
Message 9 of 13 (153 Views)

Re: boolean

11-09-2004 10:34 AM in reply to: soldanr
Hi Rafael, We are fully aware of this need to have multiple bodies and booleans in the IPT file. Having had AMCOMBINE in MDT we understand its advantages. We are also aware of the fact that users need booleans in assemblies. JOIN and INTERSECT (where relevant) in assembly features and booleans between components. Thanks for your input. Shekar "soldanr" wrote in message news:25162362.1100021201220.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum2.autodesk.com... > Hi Shekar > What you mentioned in the reply is what I am refering to. The fact that inventor only supports a single body in the IPT file makes a little more difficult to deal with. I am aware that we can use derived parts. Put all the boolean parts in an assembly file, then open a new IPT file and derive the parts with plus or minus, selecting what to subtract. > So in conlusion I have to create an assembly file that makes no sense to have it (cause I don't need it), and then I create another new file with the derived parts . I had to create 2 new files, and waste time, space, effort , patience.... > > > I am aware that the extrude, loft, revolve... all of them offer the cut feature.... but how about if I want to make a modification in the part before I cut? Like a fillet??? > Now you must used derived parts. > > Don't get me wrong... Autodesk inventor is an excellent and impressive package. I am impressed with the contents, but if you guys have used CAD programs that support different body parts I will assure you that it makes a huge difference in productivity. and that is what CAD is all about... > > Thank you > Rafael
*Shekar Subrahmanyam[Autodesk]
Message 10 of 13 (153 Views)

Re: boolean

11-09-2004 10:45 AM in reply to: soldanr
From the users viewpoint there is not much difference I guess, though from a data structure and body management (and probably other) viewpoint there is . In your example its a SINGLE body with TWO LUMPS. Each lump (solid or surface) represents a disjoint set of points. In the multiple bodies case, its TWO BODIES with ONE LUMP each. Hope this kind of detail is not boring !!!!!!!!!. Thanks. Shekar "Bob S." wrote in message news:4190ff7b_1@newsprd01... > The attached image of a part shows 2 distinct "bodies" in one part file. > But you probably would rather call them "Lumps". My question: > What's the difference? (logically, not boolean) > > "Shekar Subrahmanyam[Autodesk]" wrote in message news:4190ec2c$3_2@newsprd01... > > Hi soldanr, > > > > >Today as we all know Inventor supports > > a single body in the IPT file. When we support multiple bodies in IPT, I can > > envision that we will have to look into booleans more closely. > > > > I might have missed your point. Please give some more specifics. > > Thanks. > > >
Post to the Community

Have questions about Autodesk products? Ask the community.

New Post
Announcements
Do you have 60 seconds to spare? The Autodesk Community Team is revamping our site ranking system and we want your feedback! Please click here to launch the 5 question survey. As always your input is greatly appreciated.