Inventor IdeaStation
Share your ideas about how to improve Inventor with the Development Team.
86 Kudos

Solid Body Palooza!

Status: Accepted
by Distinguished Contributor MRanda on ‎01-17-2013 05:59 AM

I have seen a post similar to this where the writer wished the ability to access the visibility of a solid body via iLogic. I am asking for the ability to suppress via the solid body. As things are now, if I want to suppress a solid body, I have to suppress every feature within the body separately! When doing this via iLogic, it creates a mess! Currently I may be forced to suppress dozens of features –and I I add new ones, I need to remember to add those to the code as well. 


The multi-solid body layout part workflow is easily the most powerful design paradigm in Inventor, but the ball was definitely dropped on this one. It was thrown out there and immediately orphaned. We should also have the ability to:


  • Add iProperties to the solids that will transfer to the part. Color, Material, Cost, and all of the rest.
  • Ability to organize solid bodies to groups –which become assembles when the “Make Component” command is evoked. Ability to suppress an entire group!
  • A visual indicator of which solid body a feature belongs to would be nice as well. It’s hard to organize a feature tree, but any focus on that would be a help. We finally got folders in assemblies after years of requests, it’s about time to look into cleaning up a parts tree as well. For instance, I put ALL sketches before features (projected geometry is all sketch to sketch –far more stable). I would like to be able to group and hide them. There can be thirty or forty of them and the tree gets incredibly long!
  • Attaching iLogic that would survive the “Make Components” process and become a rule on the other side would be killer as well.

I’m sure I’ll come up with more. Have a great day!


Mark Randa
Applied Design Intelligence



Status: Accepted

Accepted ideas [US14617] [US14618]. Thanks!

by Distinguished Contributor MRanda on ‎01-23-2013 08:33 AM

Another feature to add to this list would be the ability to specify iMates at part level that would translate to the "Made" component. This would go a long way towards the creation of full-featured layout parts that could be used as templates. ALL added functionality to the multi-solid body schema make Inventor LT a more feasible product. Not sure why anyone would buy it now (if in fact it is still available).


Mark Randa
Applied Design Intelligence

by Employee on ‎01-28-2013 10:57 AM
Status changed to: Under Review
by Employee on ‎02-25-2013 01:22 PM
Status changed to: Under Review
These projects [US14617] [US14618] are under review by the development team. Thanks for the suggestion. -Dan
by *Expert Elite* on ‎03-03-2013 02:28 PM

Well done smithar and Dan :smileyvery-happy:


Please give us an update of how this feature request is coming along - even if nothing is happening...



by *Expert Elite* on ‎03-03-2013 06:09 PM

MRanda wrote:

Not sure you quite get the physical properties suggestion. I make layout parts that sometimes have over a hundred solid bodies, which are then turned into parts and assemblies which are controlled via the layout part. The ability to assign materials at a solid body level would speed things up dramatically because it would be done as a part of the initial skeletal modeling, and could be controlled much more efficiently at the layout part level which would feed the parts and assembles created from it.




I fully understand it, all we do is multi body model. I'm all in on your iLogic desires and organizing parts into folders which translate to assemblies for the make component tool. However, I'm intrigued how you think that defining materials at the solid body level is any more efficient than in the parts (where physical properties belong)? I think that logic is flawed. If you were to say you want the ability to set materials on the bodies along with the ability to push iLogic event triggers (for external rules, because they are more efficient) through to the parts & assemblies then that's a different thing altogether and would be beneficial. However, dealing with conflict management between solid body & part material assignments could get interesting in the same way it has with colour overrides in the past.


If Autodesk do this, they may as well ditch assembly files and go down the Fusion route of having everything in a single file. Then you are essentially creating an entirely new product and not adding features to Inventor.


While I agree with the need to drive iLogic configurations from Multi body models, I think the materials should still reside only in the parts and have the ability added to allow us to drive/control the material from the source file.


Oh and your need to see which body a feature belongs to in the browser is a great one. Its possible to figure that out using the selection filters. But your suggestion will definitely make that process less painful and more efficient. However, there's an issue which can't be solved using the selection filters, and that being able to tell what a sketch is attached to. Is it attached to a work plane? If so which one? If its attached to a face then it can be more obvious but still a PITA to find out. So this would need to be fixed along with the ability to see which body a feature belongs to, I just think the sketch issue is more important.


So I hope you see now that I fully get it and have a deep understanding of the workflows involved, its just I don't agree with the way you are suggesting to implement the idea. But at a conceptual level I'm fully behind this idea.


Good work for being persistent and driving this forward.





by Distinguished Contributor MRanda on ‎03-04-2013 07:05 AM

Hi Scott,


Thanks for the kind words! The reasoning behind the ability to define Materials, Appearances, and other iProperties at the solid body level would be the streamlining and consolidation of code in configurators for the most part. As is, I need to create a layout part with a good deal of code to get things tested and working properly, then do another large set of mostly redundant code at the assembly level. Of course any changes to the iProperties at the layout part level would need to flow to the component parts just as any changes in features, parameters, etc. do now. I don't see the workflow as a replacement of previous workflows, but I personally would use it pretty much exclusively if implemented.


Some of my layout parts have hundreds of solid bodies. Adding iProperties as I develop the model would speed things up enormously. Another advance would be the ability to capture key parameters from the layout part for use in the assembly. For instance: If I have a 'Width' parameter as a key parameter in the layout part, when I use the Make Component command, I tick a checkbox to 'Match Key Parameters' or something like that, which would duplicate the key parameter at the assembly level and link the two. Even better would be the ability to have forms move from layout part to assembly level if desired as well.


Hopefully Autodesk will seek input if they do move forward so that a forward thinking workflow could be implemented without too much convolution. :smileywink:


Thanks again Scott,


Mark Randa
Applied Design Intelligence

by Employee ‎03-12-2013 01:15 PM - edited ‎03-12-2013 01:23 PM
Status changed to: Accepted

Accepted ideas [US14617] [US14618]. Thanks!

by thijs on ‎05-24-2013 08:59 AM

Hopefully solid body`s can also be used for sheet metal parts so we can use the sheet metal tools in the main part.


Then it would be easier to create corner seams and flanges etc. that are connected or welded with different parts.





by Valued Mentor on ‎03-11-2014 01:15 PM

I know I'm late to this discussion, but I see no down side to letting the user decide if he wants to use assmbly models or just use the solid body part file as the assembly. I would much rather manage 1 part file than 100+ parts files and an assembly file. Fusion may already have that capability, but Autodesk is slowly merging all of their different design softwares together anyways. The materials are now directly exported between Inventor and Revit for instance.

The only downside I see with this you can't use a single solid body in a part file in another assembly. Or can you? For us everything is a one off anyways.


Submit Your Ideas

Share and shape product ideas.

New Idea
You are not logged in.

Log into access your profile, ask and answer questions, share ideas and more. Haven't signed up yet? Register

Inventor Exchange Apps

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.

Connect with Inventor