Factory Design Utilities Ideas
Share ideas for future product features directly with the Factory Design Utilities team and collaborate on existing suggestions with your peers.

Asset Parameter in genereral

Status: Gathering Support
by Advocate mk92 on ‎11-03-2016 12:11 PM

Together with petestrycharske and olegd.prod we discussed about the usability of Asset Parameter. Also i will try to combine ideas i found in the Idea Station.

 

1. Parameter Visibility - we would like to be able to determine which Parameter is shown depending on other Parameter.

Example: Motor = Yes, Motortype is Shown Else Motor = No ,Motortype isnt shown.

[Link to discussion]

[Idea from petestrycharske]

 

2. Parameter category and organization - we need to be able to create categories in the Parameter window.

Example: Base, Motor, Support...

Also we need the possibility to organize the Parameter logically and not alphabetical.

My example from the thread:

"Imagin buying a car or even better a electronic device where your knowledge isn't really the best. And the configurator on the website shows you a huge list of things you can add and parameters to change, and the half of them is without any use on your special case and additionally the parameters are in an order which doesn't make any sense because its alphabetical. I think enrage is the word we need there."

[Idea: Real Names and Groups]

[Idea: Edit like iLogic formular]

 

3. Copy Parameter from one Asset to the other - this Feature would save a lot of time.

I explained it here:

[Idea: Match parameter]

 

4. Using comments for Explanation - often technical Parameters arent the real names so it would be helful to deposit the Information anywere so when you hover over the Parameter in the asset an Pop up window appears with the Explanation in it.

 

5. Passing NonKey Parameter throught connector Points would also be very helpful. Because not every Information, maybe some Information for calculating something, is important to Show to the user.

petestrycharske mentioned this in his Idea.

 

If i have missed anything do not hesitate to add ideas with a comment!

 

Comments
By: Collaborator petestrycharske
| Posted ‎11-03-2016 12:32 PM

I did post an idea for #5 and you can find that link here.  Try to get as many ideas approved individually and together!

 

Thanks, mk92!  Just like for the presidential election, I'd vote more than once if I could :>)

By: Employee
| Posted ‎11-04-2016 07:10 AM

1. do you see visibility being controlled by a simple boolean parameter? "Motortype.Visibility = (Motor == Yes)" or do you forsee a need for more complicated expressions?

 

3. this is done - added a comment to the linked idea

 

Oleg

By: Advocate mk92
| Posted ‎11-04-2016 07:24 AM

Thanks for the reply!

 

1. Is see a problem with the amount of parameters in larger assets. Because the amount could increase round about one third. The use of isKey was very elegant (I know the problem but its the best way). Maybe something like a status would be great. TRUE, FALSE, FALSE BUT PASSED THROUGH CONNECTOR.

 

I don't know exactly what you mean with "parameters are hard coded" and which way is the best for you and your team.

 

3. Done also in the comment of the Idea.

By: Collaborator petestrycharske
| Posted ‎11-04-2016 08:06 AM

This might be a crazy thing, but I'm wondering if you could almost have a separate calculation occur when the user is configuring the asset and then update the asset when done. 

 

What I mean is it would be nice if the Factory Properties Dialog box could be updated dynamically, so that logic could be run to determine which parameters are available or which values are listed in those parameters given certain situations.  I'm envisioning a cascading decision making process, where I make a top level decisions which reveals specific options.  When I choose a value in one of those options, further sub-options become available and the values for those sub-options adjust based on the earlier decisions.

 

After all the decisions are made, then you could update the asset.  It could operate similarly to just editing values in the Parameter tables.  Kind of pie in the sky thinking, but since this is a wishlist :>)

By: Advocate mk92
| Posted ‎11-04-2016 01:53 PM
So you mean dynamic parameter? Like: Ich choose Motor = Yes then all the Motor associated parameter become visible. After choosing the ones you need you update the asset?
By: Employee
| Posted ‎11-04-2016 02:21 PM
I was thinking more like mk92 than like Pete, but there is nothing wrong with "pie in the sky thinking", especially in a wishlist :-)
By: Advocate mk92
| Posted ‎11-04-2016 02:36 PM
Then a combination of the dynamic parameter list in the FDS without the need to update the asset and the Status where we can say Passes through connector also when not a key parameter is the "sky"!
By: Employee
| Posted ‎11-07-2016 06:07 AM
"sky" has been noted
By: Advocate mk92
| Posted ‎11-07-2016 06:14 AM

<3

By: Collaborator petestrycharske
| Posted ‎11-30-2016 09:50 PM

We really need this to get resolved somehow.  I just discovered tonight that even the iProperties have become hard coded.  Now I have to come up with another way to try and tabulate the costs as my iLogic rules are not altering the costs.  The mass flexibility of the assets was what made them so appealing in the first place.  The fixing of the "bug" seems like a big step backwards to me.  Also, I feel like it is okay if there are different capability levels between AutoCAD and Inventor.  AutoCAD already can't model the assets in 3D, so I think it is a mistake to limit capabilities of the Inventor assets to try and match with AutoCAD.  Let the Inventor assets have greater flexibility and use AutoCAD for floorplanning only. 

By: Employee
| Posted ‎12-01-2016 12:59 PM
Hi Pete,
What do you mean by "iProperties have become hard coded" ?
At the end of the day, this is just an Inventor file, and if your code modifies the iProperties in the file, they will be modified (we are not preventing you from editing the file).

Oleg
By: Collaborator petestrycharske
| Posted ‎12-02-2016 06:19 AM

Oleg, can I directly e-mail you a file?  It is a client file, so I don't want to post it for everyone, but I would like you to see what I'm seeing.  I can also send you a Screencast which further explains the situation.  Hopefully I'm just doing something dumb (has been known to happen) and you can straighten me out.

By: Employee
| Posted ‎12-02-2016 06:23 AM
Sure.
oleg.dimerman@
By: Employee
| Posted ‎12-04-2016 06:03 PM

Hi Pete and Oleg,

 

Could you please share the details with me for the better understanding?

 

Xuesong.bai@

 

-Xuesong

By: Collaborator petestrycharske
| Posted ‎12-05-2016 06:35 PM

Xuesong, did you get my e-mail?  I'm having trouble getting iLogic rules to update iProperties.

By: Contributor avhsalesengineer
| Posted ‎12-06-2016 05:56 AM

1, 2 and 4 are great ideas and could be solved (partly) by this idea. 5 would also be great but I might have read about it before.

 

 

Submit Your Ideas

Share and shape product ideas.

Submit an idea
Idea Guidelines

Please review our Idea guidelines and best practices before posting a new idea, or voting on an existing one!