Currently, when placing a Detail View with a jagged boundary style in Inventor, the boundary stops directly at the edge of the model. There is no option to show extension lines that project past the part boundary. This creates extra manual work when trying to follow common drafting practices, where extension/projection lines clarify the relationship between the jagged detail boundary and the geometry being enlarged. Right now, the only workaround is to manually sketch these lines in after creating the detail view.   Proposed Improvement: Add an option in the Detail View creation dialog (or in Drawing Standards → Styles) to enable “Detail Boundary Extension Lines,” similar to the way section lines or dimension extensions can be toggled. Ideally, the user could set the: Extension length Line type/style Whether extensions appear on all sides of the jagged boundary or only selected edges Benefits: Keeps drawings consistent with industry drafting standards Reduces manual sketching time and repetitive work Improves clarity of detail views when communicating design intent Please see attached screenshots for examples of what I am describing.    I figure @PaulMunford or @TracyLincoln would be the right people to look at this.  Show More

On numerous occasions I've ended up having to make very many splits in order to split a part into several bodies. Let's say you have a part resembling the letter E. Now, you want to split it into four different solids, so that each straight part forms a separate body. To do this you currently need to do three splits, when it's quite obvious that in the real world, one split would suffice. So, I want the split function to recognize whether or not the resulting solid actually is one solid or several, and if it's several, turn those into separate solids.   Similarly, if I want the split to only affect one of the "arms" of the E, I currently need to make an L or a U shaped sketch to isolate the arm first, and then use that for the split tool. If the previously mentioned function would be developed, it would be great if it also asks you if you want to extend the split through the entire part, forming several solids (or one "multibody solid", as now), or if you only want the split to extend through one of the solids to be broken out of the original solid and limit the split to that only.   Show More

Can we please have a new configurable in the Application Options to handle default Open behaviour? If your workspace is such that your models and drawings are saved into separate folders, you're constantly wasting time with excess clicks to travel to the opposite folder locations (from model space to drawings, vice versa).   A configurable setting within Application Options would be amazing; some considerations which I think are beneficial: Always open to Project file default location (top level or somewhere else). Open last opened file location (current behaviour, I believe, which remembers the location of your last opened file via this interface, and defaults there). Open current file location (ie if you switch to a drawing, then Open file, it defaults to the folder that your active drawing is saved, allowing you to open other drawings that sit alongside your current one quickly). Show More

Important for developing early studies! I miss this option! Show More

Description: In manufacturing highly configurable products like windows and doors, many components share identical fabrication features (e.g., handle holes, endcuts, strike plate cutouts). Today, Inventor’s iFeature workflow allows us to standardize these features, but once an iFeature is placed in a part, it becomes static — there’s no persistent link to the source definition. This makes it difficult to propagate design changes across dozens or hundreds of affected parts. We’ve explored derived part workflows to maintain a single source of truth, but these introduce complexity when parts vary in size or geometry, and require extra setup to position features dynamically. What’s missing is a way to manage shared features with: Live linking to a master definition (like a “referenced iFeature”) so updates can cascade to all parts using it Parameter mapping so the same feature can adapt to different part sizes or configurations Integration with BOM and phantom assemblies so shared processes can be represented cleanly in ERP exports without duplicating documentation Why it matters: For companies like ours, this gap forces us into time‑consuming, error‑prone workarounds that break the connection between design intent, manufacturing documentation, and ERP data. A shared‑feature system would save hours of rework, reduce mistakes, and make Inventor a robust solution for BOM‑driven highly configurable manufacturing. Show More

New product development. These commands will greatly help us finalize our projects! Modernize Show More

Dear Autodesk Inventor Development Team, I would like to suggest a new feature enhancement for Autodesk Inventor that would significantly improve modeling flexibility: the ability to redefine the part origin and XYZ axes—not just the visual orientation, but the actual coordinate system used by the part. Currently, users can adjust the ViewCube or set a new Front/Top view, but the internal coordinate system (used by work planes, sketches, constraints, and export references) remains fixed based on the original base features. This can be problematic when: A part needs to be reoriented to match a different assembly or coordinate system standard. A model was created in an unintended orientation and requires correction. The current coordinate system does not align with downstream manufacturing or simulation requirements. Proposed Functionality: A tool to redefine the part origin and reassign the X, Y, and Z axes direction. Optional update of dependent features, sketches, and constraints to follow the new coordinate system. A user-friendly interface with preview and rollback options. Why this matters: Changing only the view does not help when exporting files, using model-based definition (MBD), or integrating with CAM/CAE tools. A true coordinate system redefinition would offer users much more control and save time that is otherwise spent on rebuilding geometry or using cumbersome workarounds (like reimporting parts or using derived components). Thank you for considering this suggestion. I believe this feature would be a valuable addition for engineers working with complex assemblies, imported data, and multi-software environments. Sincerely, Ahreum Park Show More

I wonder if Audodesk has a plan to add capabilities such as branch/merge and comparison similar to OnShape in the future to Vault/Inventor.  Branch & Merge in CAD Design   If this capability is added to Audodesk Vault/Inventor, - It will save lots of time for communicating the design changes other designers/analysts/project engineers and do not miss sharing the details of the design changes. - It will allow tracking and showing design changes visually from a selected date which will give much better understanding of the changes that a user wants to know from. - It will allow to have branches of designs to perform a design exploration study concurrently and merge back for a successful design.     With current capabilities of Vault and Inventor, if a designer modifies design of parts and assemblies and then check-in, the workflow that other people can know what the changes would be: a) Reading the check-in comments for each part and assembly file if it is not blank and well described. b) The designer who modified the design notify and show the changed design to all other people who need to know. c) Loading old and current version of Inventor models in two separate computers and comparing them since Vault can have only one version in a local computer.   Current workflow with the current Vault/Inventor capability, there are high possibility for: 1) Other people may miss the design changes for every little part design changes. Although Vault shows red circulating arrow icon, it does not tell the detailed changes.  2) Although the designer communicates to show the changes, if something is missed in that communication, then it will be lost. 3) It is hard to input and track all Vault comments when a group of parts and assemblies were checked-in. Show More

Hello Inventor developer team, it would be very helpful if the dropdown menu for selecting materials not only listed all the materials one below the other, but also used the structure from the material browser. With a large number of materials, it would then be much easier and quicker to find the right material in the long list. Show More

I would like to request an increase in the maximum model size limits within Autodesk Inventor. Currently, the model space is constrained to a cubic volume with ±100 meters in each axis (X, Y, Z). This limitation can restrict design possibilities, especially for large-scale assemblies or infrastructure projects that require working with very large components or extended spatial arrangements. Increasing the model size limits would significantly improve Inventor’s usability for professionals in industries such as civil engineering, aerospace, energy, and large machinery design, where larger-scale models are common. It would also reduce the need for workarounds such as splitting models into multiple files, which can complicate project management and increase the risk of errors. Benefits: Enable modeling of larger components and assemblies directly within Inventor Improve project accuracy by keeping full models in a single file Enhance workflow efficiency by reducing the need for workarounds Cater to industries requiring large-scale design capabilities, including energy and infrastructure sectors Thank you for considering this important enhancement for future versions of Autodesk Inventor.   https://help.autodesk.com/view/INVNTOR/2025/ENU/?guid=GUID-84623939-38A8-49BF-8D97-BB9DA3697056  Show More

Users want more flexibility in configuring item number content. 1. It should be possible to display multiple properties for all item number styles. Currently, this is only possible in two predefined styles. 2. There should be a configuration option to specify whether the properties should be displayed one below the other (currently the default) or one after the other (a future preference). 3. Configuration options in the item number text should be similar to the options in the annotations.     for additional information see Support Case 24562710 Show More

Hi Inventor developer team, Please add the possibility to select specific lines when inserting a Leader Text by copy and past If you place a new Leader Text a menu for selecting e.g., different lines of nearby parts pop up after a few seconds. But if you copy and past an existing Leader Text there does not pop up this possibility to select a special line of a part. If in the Leader Text are properties included e.g., for “Title” it is now not possible to select this for the different parts. Please implement the possibility to select specific lines of different parts when copy and past an existing Leader Text as it is possible by setting a new Leader Text.   Show More

When a dimension is used as an input for another dimension (e.g. d2 = d1 / 2) there is no warning that an "orphaned dimension" will be created if the original dimension (e.g. d1) is deleted.   It would be really useful if a dialogue popped up to warn that the dimension deleted is being used as an input to another dimension.   Something like: "The dimension being deleted is being used by dimensions:    d1, d2, d3   Are you sure you want to delete the dimension?   An orphaned dimension parameter will be created if you go ahead with this action. "   Show More

Linking parameters between assemblies, parts and sketches can be improved. Currently when linking parameters you need to open the parameter list, select link, add the desired file name, go find the parameter, select ok and only then you can link a dimension to a parameter. I propose that all of this can happen in the background. New workflow, edit dimension and then select dimension in other part. At this point the parameter gets added to the parameter list.    Your click can change the future - Vote now!   Proposed Workflow:   Current workflow:           Show More

Please add this feature in Insert constraint too!     Show More

Hi, i would like to have an option / possibility to choose a view depth for each part in an assembly separatly in a section view. This will be very useful for us. We have very details models, so in a section view with th hole view depth (depth = full) we see too much. But for some parts it is necessary to see them in the whole depth (detph = full) and other parts only in the section plane (depth = 0).      Show More

I think this image says pretty much what I'm after:     In an assembly: A thin line between the two types and a color difference for "system" and user folders.    Show More

Please add the possibility to stretch the ‘component pattern’ editing window to enlarge it. This will improve the workflow. Show More

In assemblies we can copy and past but it pastes more or less where the mouse pointer is. It would be so much better if we could choose insertion point like we do in sketches. See video below Show More