Community
Inventor Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Inventor Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Inventor topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Inventor 2013 Wish List?

112 REPLIES 112
SOLVED
Reply
Message 1 of 113
FProcp
14017 Views, 112 Replies

Inventor 2013 Wish List?

Man Sad

 

I would like to be able to move parts/assemblies around in Inventor very quickly but very accurately.

Like you can move something in AutoCAD.

 

When you go into the move command it would be nice to be able to enter exact x,y or z values for movement.

Maybe it could be added to the "Grip Snap" function where you select an edge on the part or something, or the x,y,z axis and move an inputed distance.

 

I think it would be beneficial to be able to quickly and accurately move parts around before starting to apply assembly constraints?

 

I know you can do quite a bit with "Grip Snap" and from iproperties "Current Offset From..." but I'm not sure if it's simple and quick?

Franco
GMT +08:00
112 REPLIES 112
Message 2 of 113
FProcp
in reply to: FProcp

Between_points.jpg

 

It would be nice to be able to extrude between two points just like you can extrude between two planes.

Franco
GMT +08:00
Message 3 of 113
JDMather
in reply to: FProcp

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=1109794

 

http://forums.augi.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1203

 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Autodesk Inventor 2019 Certified Professional
Autodesk AutoCAD 2013 Certified Professional
Certified SolidWorks Professional


The CADWhisperer YouTube Channel


EESignature

Message 4 of 113
FProcp
in reply to: JDMather

Thank-you for the hyperlinks.

 

I realise "Grip Snap" can move objects along selected edges by an inputed amount so maybe I should with-draw the first request to move objects quickly, accurately and easily. Smiley Surprised

 

But it would be nice to have a triad like the one in 3D sketching for moving objects.

 

Triad.jpg

Franco
GMT +08:00
Message 5 of 113
john.laidler
in reply to: FProcp

Not sure why this would be needed with Inventor.  There are more important needs out there I think.

 

John Laidler
AutoCAD, Inventor and Vault



Please use "Accept as Solution" & give "Kudos" if this response helped you.
Message 6 of 113
FProcp
in reply to: john.laidler

If you're talking about the move command, I'm just looking for an easier/quicker way to place/locate parts in an assembly before having to use assembly constraints. Assembly constraining is my least favourite activity in Inventor. Sometimes I have a whole lot of assembly constraints in a complex assembly and I want to move something and working out which assembly constraint affects which is so annoying Smiley Mad Sometimes I just want to delete them all and start all over again. Being able to easily move parts quickly and accurately would be very nice.

Franco
GMT +08:00
Message 7 of 113
john.laidler
in reply to: FProcp

If you want to just move the part, just click and drag it.

John Laidler
AutoCAD, Inventor and Vault



Please use "Accept as Solution" & give "Kudos" if this response helped you.
Message 8 of 113
FProcp
in reply to: john.laidler

ACCURATELY? I wonder if it would be useful if you could use the precise move/rotate triad and it had a command in it where you could pick "From Reference Point" and then it would give you the difference in x, y, & z from a point on another object which you could then adjust the value of? This may be useful for Grounded Points too where you could move one grounded point relative to another point or object accurately?
Franco
GMT +08:00
Message 9 of 113
Hell-If-I-Know
in reply to: FProcp

I'm kinda lost as to what you might be attempting to do here.

Am I right in thinking you want to be able to insert a part into an assembly and then be able to move it into place (or close to it) without having to use constraints like Mate, Insert, etc?

 

Something more accurate than "eyeballing" it.

I assume you want to do this as a sort of trial and error process to see how well things will fit together?

 

The thing that worries me is the statement above about hating the process of assembly constraints. This throws up a huge red flag for me. Assembly constraints should be a breeze for the most part if the assembly was put together using best practices. The most common mistake I see with assembly constraints are users constraining to part edges or faces, etc. and then have an edit happen to a part and the assembly "blows up".

 

The most common of these I've seen are users constraining bolt hole patterns to the edge of a cylindrical part and then fillet or chamfer that same edge which then blows the bolt hole pattern to outer space. Common sense tells you that edge is no now longer there, it's been replaced by the fillet or chamfer. Why so many people don't grasp that puzzles me.

 

So I have to ask, is the assembly built with "best practices"....constraining parts/subassemblies to the files planes and axis as opposed to those of other parts/subassemblies or edges/surfaces of the parts. etc?

Message 10 of 113
DVDM
in reply to: Hell-If-I-Know

I must say I'm with FProcp on this one.

Constraints are all very well up to a certain point, after that they can get in the way and become time consuming to apply, and ofcourse the problems caused by sick constraints, and the increasing slowness of every operation because all these contraints need to be evaluated.

I would love it if in the assembly environment I had a UCS that I could manipulate just like you can in AutoCAD, to accurately move/copy/rotate parts & subassemblies, and be able to use snaps to put things in place. It'd be nice to have the same capability in the sketch environment by the way, and be able to do without parameters and constraints if I choose to.

 

Solid Edge with their synchronous technology has interesting tools that allow for accurate manipulation of components within an assembly without the need for constraints.

Message 11 of 113
FProcp
in reply to: DVDM


@Anonymous wrote:

I must say I'm with FProcp on this one.

Constraints are all very well up to a certain point, after that they can get in the way and become time consuming



Very well said. This is exactly how I feel.

 

I've worked on large assemblies (created by others) and have been so frustrated with Assembly Constraints.

I think it would be a BIG improvement. Solid Edge have done it so it can't be just me that feels this way.

Franco
GMT +08:00
Message 12 of 113
FProcp
in reply to: DVDM

Imagine trying to place all of the assembly constraints on a model like the one in the attached picture?

I would rather move components to the right location and then ground them.

Franco
GMT +08:00
Message 13 of 113
elcaminojake
in reply to: FProcp

Native parallel processing and cuda support throughtout the whole program. Jeez it's about time I am so tired of having a six core proccessor and having to wait while my single core chews up the math. I mean get parallel processing going and get those cuda cores chewing up numbers so I can get some work done.

Message 14 of 113
richiesuk
in reply to: FProcp

nice dream 😄

Message 15 of 113
richiesuk
in reply to: richiesuk

hi,

is there any official voting list? or any news for new ideas / features?

 

thanks,

ric

Message 16 of 113
RogerMollon
in reply to: richiesuk

ric,

 

Yes it's here:

 

http://www.augi.com/wishlist

 

If you haven't signed up with the user group yet, you'll need to do that, then you can add and vote on what you want.

 

I hope this helps,

 

Roger Mollon
Forge - Strategic Tech Consultant - Novi
Autodesk, Inc. - Retired
Message 17 of 113
cmcconnell
in reply to: FProcp

"Imagine trying to place all of the assembly constraints on a model like the one in the attached picture?

I would rather move components to the right location and then ground them."

 

If one of my people built an assembly like that by locating parts in space and grounding them, I would fire them. That would make that assembly impossible to work with in the future.

Mechanix Design Solutions inc.
Message 18 of 113
john.laidler
in reply to: cmcconnell

I agree.  Grounding = Horrible Practice = Fired!!!

John Laidler
AutoCAD, Inventor and Vault



Please use "Accept as Solution" & give "Kudos" if this response helped you.
Message 19 of 113
cmcconnell
in reply to: john.laidler

Don't get me wrong - We use grounding all the time - but all of our parts are driven with a skeleton, so constraints are unneccessary in some cases. It is the locating parts in space that I have a problem with.

Mechanix Design Solutions inc.
Message 20 of 113
john.laidler
in reply to: cmcconnell

Grounding should never be used.  Period.

 

John Laidler
AutoCAD, Inventor and Vault



Please use "Accept as Solution" & give "Kudos" if this response helped you.

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report