Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
Submitted byfbkon09-20-201302:11 AM
Status:
Archived
Inventor - Sketch - Improve Point Snaps
In my Sketch environment I want to
Define my default Point Snaps (AutoCAD : Object Snap). Select only the ones I need at that time. (Nearest is often not the one I want to select. Mutch more the Endpoint, Midpoint or Crossing)
Choose more and more easy ONE Point Snap.
Choose to expand the search area of the Point Snap. (Often it's mutch too small)
jletcher is correct that this can already (sort of) be done in Inventor, but what he posted probably isn't actually the closest equivalent to what you want - there is another existing feature which may be closer.
Are you familiar with the "Point Snaps" option while in a line command?
Right-click while in the line command, then go to the flyout menu for "Point Snaps." You can tell it to snap to Midpoints, Center (circle/arc), or Intersections. Unfortunately End Points aren't an option, but it gets you part of what you're looking for.
Probably still not as powerful as what you're requesting, but it might help some.
Sorry to say, but no, it cannot be done in Inventor.
At least not with the ease and efficiency provided by ... ( gasp ) ... AutoCAD.
In IV you have the similar tools as in ACAD's AutoSNAP, but it isn't nearly as friendly, nor is it as easy
to explicitly override with the desired one on the fly.
And since we're talking Object Snaps in general, it would be equally nice to have the Object Snaps available
for dimension creations, just as explicitly as it is in .... ( another gasp ) ... AutoCAD.
For a simple example, try to draw a line or create a dimension from a point to either a quadrant of a circle or perpendicular to it. Try to create a dimension from a point to the tangent of a circle or arc.
Do it in AutoCAD and do it in Inventor and see the difference!
Been using Inventor From day one had years of Autocad before hand.
When I went to Inventor I did not go into it like Autocad did it this way that way any way I went into it knowing it was not Autocad so I left Autocad at the door.
Never had an issue with snaps. Or anything Inventor does different.
I have found that people that hold onto Autocad like it was their baby have the worse models more crashes in Inventor.
This is not autocad and when you move on and use Inventor and learn it you will find the things in Autocad are not needed in Inventor..
@Acad-Caveman
Why would I ever dimension from a point to a quadrant? In 25 years of cad I never had to do that even in Autocad.
Inventor is parametric and you need to think that way if you think like Autocad you might as well stay in Autocad because you will have the hardest time using Inventor like it was meant. When you go to update this or that went wacky on you and you will spend more time trying to figure out way. And then you will be like Autocad was faster. I have heard it over and over...
Jletcher, I'm not really understanding your argument, or for that matter I don't understand any similar arguments regarding Inventor vs AutoCad.
First off, I don't believe anyone suggested taking away the native capability provided by Inventor.
I certainly did no such thing.
Similarly, noone assumes ( well, maybe some but ... ) that Inventor and AutoCAD is the same tool.
Having said that, it is mindboggling that the most used response to any requests that would bring some well established and experienced tools and capabilities from AutoCAD into Inventor is that you should just leave AutoCAD at the door and forget everything you're used to and comfortable with.
I'd understand it if it came from a lazy programmer who couldn't care less what people like, just as long as he/she don't need to do anything.
I'd also understand it if it came from a beancounter who really has no interest in allocating programming resources just to implement some user's wishes.
I am however completely baffled by the resistance from some users.
Why is it that the standard explanation from the "resistance" is always that you cannot create good and reliable models if IV ( or any other parametric modeler ) used some of the tools and capability that AutoCAD provides?
I will submit to you that lousy designers, engineers, draftsman, or everyday hacks can create garbage models and garbage drawings no matter the tool used.
Perhaps AutoCAD gives you more tools to create garbage and to create it very efficiently, but that doesn't mean AutoCAD is at fault.
The fault lies with the schmuck behind the keyboard who should know how to use the tools provided properly.
And when it comes to the knowledgeable schmuck, AutoCAD's SNAP capability is far more capable and efficient to use properly.
As to dimensioning to quadrants, that was only an example to highlight the differences, but to answer your question when it could be used, perhaps just to indicate a reference dimension on a blueprint to show min wall thickness or distance to some other feature.
In ACAD, you just pick "Quadrant" SNAP point without having to hover over the circle hoping to get close enough for the software ( IV) to understand which of the 5 other possibilities you may want.
Quadrant is Quadrant and that's it, no questions asked. Once you've picked the quadrant point, AutoSNAP is back on and you're free to do whatever you want.
It has nothing to do with training, or for that matter experience.
Not going into all your concerns you listed just Inventor is Inventor and if they (AutoDesk) wanted it to be autocad do you not think they would have done that from the start? Would it not have been easy for them just to put parametric in autocad rather design a whole new software?
But now everyone that did not go to Inventor from day one (understandable) has issues and want everything that autocad has put in Inventor. But the users that left autocad in the closet when they switched over have no issues with the way Inventor works.
And yes it does have everything to do with training and experience without that your efficiency is crap the three go together how can you separate the three?
If I have training I will be more efficient would I not? The more experience I get the more efficient I would be correct? I don't see your logic in the 3 things don't go together..
Like you saying you would use the Quadrant to edge for clearance on a blueprint AKA drawing. Well if you had training or the experience you would know the dimensions in the model vs. the drawing are completely work different. And if you have issues doing it in a drawing then sorry but snaps is not the issue.
And with training and having the experience in Inventor you would also know that dimensioning from a point on a line is not good practice and if the teacher in the training class has experience he would teach that.
So tell me this Inventor has been out for years now how come all the user that have more then 6 years in it have never asked for this?
Ok, just so we can stop this back and forth, let's sum it up:
1: If Mr. Jletcher does not ask for a feature, then it is neither needed, nor desired.
2: If 10 clicks takes longer than 3 clicks, then additional training is required.
Got it!
Sidenote: I wonder if additional training shouldn't be required for those individuals who believe the Classic UI being more efficient than the Ribbon interface?
So acad-caveman you had to go to the personal attacks why?
We all have the opinions and all I am saying is what most ask for is because of lack of training. There are some good ones but most of the ones crying is because it is not like autocad. I say it is because they lack training and experience in which it effects efficiency..
Classic is much better then the new clicker interface... Why should I have to click tab after tab to get to something that was right there with the classic?
Most get upset when I am correct but you don't have to get personal..
Classic is much better then the new clicker interface... Why should I have to click tab after tab to get to something that was right there with the classic?
Most get upset when I am correct but you don't have to get personal..
"""
Exactly the point!!!
I don't care wether Classic or Ribbon, hence I'm not protesting for one way or the other.
You do, and you want it back.
OTOH I - and apparently few others - like AutoCAD's superior SNAP capability and would like to see it in Inventor as well.
Obviously you don't care for it, and yet, you're very actively protesing against it and claim we need better training instead.
Personal attack happen when you used my name (1: If Mr. Jletcher does not ask for a feature, then it is neither needed, nor desired) I did not use your name I said those that want it need training hence THOSE or the WE takes personal attack out.
Inventor works differently then autocad this is the reason the snaps don't work the same people have been in Inventor for years not one post about how the snap don't work right.
Why is that?
They can see it is not needed there is no reason. Can you give me a reason for them the example you used was not a good one and I pointed that out. Model snaps are different from drawing snaps and what you wanted the autocad snaps for is not needed. So do you have any other reason?
I am doing what the developers will do sitting in a meeting to see if this is needed so far there is no reason.
There are 4 kudos like you say a few .....
Auto cad snap options are needed for autocad that is how is works.
Protesting yes because it is not needed the developers need to stabilize Inventor not add things that Inventor never needed from the start. If autocad's snap are so superior why did they not put it in from the start?
Instead of the personal attacks try to fight for the reason it is needed and when you do make that point then I will give kudos for it.
No, those are not snap points, those are grips, and they too could be useful in Inventor if implemented properly, but that is in fact another topic and has already been requested.
What I was ( and likely the OP as well ) elluding to is to have only the most common constraint (snap) options be turned on in IV by default, and have the ability to explicitly select one or another only if and when that's needed.
For example, in ACAD I only have endpoint, intersection and center selected in AutoSNAP. If I need something else, let it be tan, quad, near, perp, mid etc, I select it from the toolbar, at which point
all other inferences get disabled and only the one I want is active until the point is picked.
After that the defaults get restored and life goes on as normal.
The problem I have with Inventor is that quite often I have to nudge the miserable cursor one way or another just a little bit, just so the intended constraint is activated.
Again, it isnt that I don't kow how to use it, it's just much easier to pick "quad" for example and know with absolute certainty that the point that is to be picked will in fact be the quadrant, all without having to hover around the quadrant - or even having to zoom-in just so it can be picked from a list of many other automatic possibilities.
Ditto for example choosing between mid point and perpendicular if they are close to one another.
Also, selecting "center" snap, you don't have to go near the center, you just pick the arc or circle anywhere.
Much easier to pick "apparent intersection" in ACAD. It's never in AutoSNAP, yet always only one click away.
None of these require anyone doing anything different than what they're used to in Inventor.
You don't want it, don't use it.
Those of us however who likes and thinks that way, would have the ability to keep doing what they know works.
In fact, I'd even go as far as saying that in some cases garbage sketches are created by novices and experienced people alike, just because the wrong inference was selected and not picked up on until later.
This is where training would help you. In Inventor they are not called grips. Grips are used for adjusting, moving the model in Inventor.
And what you are asking is there you just need to learn to use them. The options I showed you was a way to turn them on and off.
To do them on the fly is when drawing a line or circle right click point snap you have the midpoint, center and intersection. If you want more then you use the drop down under the sketch tab that gives you the constraints you unchecked in the options.
And no as an experience user I have never put in a constraint I did not want. I know to look for the symbol and if it is not what I want I scratch the line I want it to work with. If I don't want it to be vertical I scratch a line for perpendicular. If it is close to the mid point and I do not want a midpoint I hold "CTRL" this will stop the constraints from working on the fly and then I can put in the constraint I want. Also if I happen to put one in I did not want or decide I want it to work different I remove them and add the ones I want I don't have to delete and start over..
Again experience and training would help people a great deal and I don't mean training from Autodesk or a reseller.They teach out of the book. I set my training to the type work that company is doing this way they know how it works in their environment not a book.
Well, sorry for getting bogged down by arguing instead of explaining what is the intention of the request.
So perhaps this will help:
1:
Yes, point snaps are there, and yes, they do explicitly override the settings temporarily.
Problem: there is only Center, Mid and Intersection. Unfortunately, those are typically also the easiest to select by default ( short of the Intersection to use for apparent Int ..)
The feature request would put ALL available snaps into the Point Snap menu, including TAN, Quadrant, Perpendicular, and Node ( yes, I did say Node ).
Reason: For the missing ones it is obvious, but also would completely eliminate "scratching" to find the intended snap point
2:
Point snaps are not available for dimensioning at all.
Thanks for sharing your Idea. We use this forum to guide product development and help users in the best way we can based on voting. We occasionally merge Ideas or archive old ones to keep the forum working properly - it ensures there is room for people to review new Ideas and that the most relevant and meaningful ones can gain votes.
We’re archiving this Idea because it's been on the board for well over a year and hasn't received many votes from the community. If you want to raise it again and try to gain more support, you're welcome to do so. We’ve found
that pictures and mock-ups can help get concepts across and win more votes from other users. If you have questions or see a connection between this Idea and others, let us know.
- Inventor product team (Inv.idea review)
![Autodesk Design & Make Report](https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/1350519iCB55845EBFC43016/image-size/large?v=v2&px=999" "Autodesk Design & Make Report")