I find a lot of "New Ideas" - (1,638), but not many "Under Review" (58) or "Accepted" (129).
Even less "Implemented" (31).
I would like to see more of these ideas "Implemented" to make Inventor even better.
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.
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?
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.
It would be nice to have a dimpling procedure in sheet metal (similar to sheet metal punch tools that create "feet" or other punched forms that do not actually cut a hole in the sheet metal face. Given a starting face, a dimple point and a dimple depth, crease the face along the four crease lines to create a drainige pan or strengthening ribs.
The result is a piece of sheet metal with a depressed point at the "dimple" depth, slightly bent along the creasing lines.
Creasing sheet metal along 4 lines from a dimple point is a very common procedure for creating drain pans and strengthening sheet metal assemblies such as heating & air conditioning system conduits.
When adding members to a frame, instead of having to select the family and size and such have a selector to pick an existing member in the frame and make consume that selection to the Standard, Family, Size and Material Style. Could save a lot of time having to get frame member info BEFORE adding members to the frame.
Ok, I know this has nothing to do with Inventor, but hey, had to start some where!!!
There should be an Idea Station for Civil 3D and Revit. I can't believe that these two softwares are perfect and don't need any ideas for improvement.
So hey, can we see these two pieces of software have a location in which to post some ideas in?
We are finding when we create structural frames that the need to have a mid plane in the exact middle of the beam or pipe to be very useful. What we are having to do is bring this piece in as custom and then add this mid plane.
This is even more of an issue when it comes to frame generator.
Why is the default configuration of these CC parts with the plane on the end when there is already a flat surface there
and not smack dab in the middle of the structural member? My suggestion is to move this plane to the middle.
I would like iLogic to act in the same way as Visual studio in repect to debugging (F8 to step through for example) and coding (autocomplete etc)
While I would hardly call VB.NET programming a 'pleasure', its a **** site easier and more visual than iLogic
Add the ability to intersect either two separate pipe routes, or include an intersection within a single pipe route,... and have Tube & Pipe automatically interpret this as a branch, placing a tee inlne at the intersection. In conjunction with a prior Idea on this site, this could potentially be a reducing tee, which would update the line downstream of the reduced branch.
This behavior would make it much easier to align branches with a piece of equipment while routing pipe. See picture for example. In the picture, the branch off of the second pump would have to be a tee placed inline and would rely on user input to ensure that the fitting is lined up with the centerline of the pump. With this requested functionality, a route line could simply be run from the pump to the main trunk line, and intersect it... placing the tee automatically.
Log into access your profile, ask and answer questions, share ideas and more. Haven't signed up yet? Register
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.