Hi everyone, I’m new to FlexSim and currently working on an AGV model. The task is: The top AGV should pick up 4 items at once from Conveyor 1. After loading all 4 items, it should deliver them to the destination conveyors using a round robin logic. The same behavior should apply to the other conveyors/AGVs as well. I’m not sure what the best approach is for implementing this. Should I use Process Flow, triggers, or task sequences? If possible, could someone also explain the logic/workflow behind the solution so I can understand it better? Thanks in advance! Show More

hello, currently, FlexSim is only compatible with Python whose version is lower than 3.13, as screenshot. do we intend to upgrade compatibility with higher version of Python?      Show More

When a product/ unit is managed through a serial number, meaning that each produced unit needs to have a record of traceability associated (serial number – we scan the barcodes) if we want to keep record of a checklist for scrap we will have to confirm each quantity for this checklist even if we don´t record any scrap. In this case even if we don´t have scrap we have to confirm the checklist for each single unit produced. It should be possible to fill the checklist when there is scrap associated. Show More

      ■ Goal I implemented an avoidance logic for AGVs. After executing the avoidance behavior, the AGV should continue directly to its original destination using the shortest path.   ■ Current Behavior When the avoidance logic is triggered: 1. The AGV moves to the avoidance area as intended. 2. However, after that, instead of continuing from the current position, it returns to the previous control point (before avoidance was triggered), 3. Then resumes the original logic and moves to the destination. So effectively, the AGV is "going back" before continuing, which is not desired.   ■ Expected Behavior After completing the avoidance movement, the AGV should continue directly from its current location to the original destination (shortest path), without returning to the previous control point.   ■ What I Tried 1. Redirect approach: - Used Redirect to handle avoidance - Initially worked, but sometimes after finishing Redirect, the AGV skips the interrupted task and jumps to the next task in sequence (seems like task sequence inconsistency or loss) 2. Priority-based Task Sequence: - Created a new Task Sequence with higher priority for avoidance - This prevents task skipping issue - But now the AGV returns to the previous CP before continuing   ■ Model Setup - FlexSim Version: 2026 - AGV Type: AGV Navigation (Process Flow-based control) - Avoidance is triggered dynamically during task execution - Using Task Sequences (not purely default AGV process flow)   ■ Additional Info - The issue does not occur consistently with Redirect, but is unstable - With Priority-based TS, behavior is consistent but incorrect (returning to previous CP) - No explicit errors are shown   ■ Question 1. Why does the AGV return to the previous control point after executing a high-priority Task Sequence? 2. Is there a correct way to resume the original task from the current position instead of the previous node? 3. Between Redirect and Priority Task Sequence, what is the recommended approach for implementing avoidance logic without breaking task continuity?   Would storing and restoring the destination manually (e.g., via label) and forcing a new Travel task from current position be a better approach?   Show More

I am practicing on a small model and need some help. I have three labels: Type A, Type B, and Type C. Parts arrive from a line and enter a Combiner. Based on the label, the Combiner should pull a specific number of parts from Queue 5 and create a single assembled part. If the part is Type A, it should take 2 parts from Queue 5; if it is Type B, it should take 3 parts; and if it is Type C, it should take 4 parts. How can I implement this logic? I have Upload a sample model for your reference Show More

I would like to know if there is plan to integrate Flexsim with Navisworks,  rendering Flexsim's simulation in Navisworks, either live  or replay. @parker_standing Show More

Hi FlexSim Community, I’d like to propose a feature to improve the debugging and testing experience in Process Flow, specifically for large and complex logic structures. The Problem: Currently, if we want to test a flow without a specific activity (e.g., temporarily skipping a "Wait for Event" or a specific "Custom Code" block), we have to physically disconnect the activity, wire around it, and then reconnect it later. In large Process Flows, this becomes very cumbersome and prone to connection errors. The Suggestion: It would be incredibly helpful to have an "Enable/Disable" toggle on every Process Flow activity, similar to the one currently available on Source activities. How it would work: Enabled: The activity functions normally. Disabled: The activity acts as a "Pass-through" (or a 0-second Breathe). The token would enter and immediately exit to the next activity without executing the internal logic of that block. This would allow us to A/B test logic or isolate bugs without breaking the visual structure of the flow or messing with connector lines. Has anyone else felt the need for this? If similar feature already exists , pls let me know @jordanjohnson56 ,@parkerstanding Show More

It would be great, in the Dashboard Table to have the possibility to color the text or the cell based on the value of another column. Show More

I need to set weight limits for products before they enter the processing machine. Currently, I label each box with the weight (in kilograms) so the processor "sees" how much the product weighs. What I want is a rule to prevent products from entering the machine if they exceed its capacity. For example, a product weighing 3,000 kilograms should not be allowed to enter a machine with a capacity of 1,000 kilograms, and therefore the process cannot begin. However, if the product weighs less than 1,000 kilograms, it should be allowed to enter and be processed as normal. Does anyone know the best way to do this, or do I need to write a script/code to force a capacity check? Note: I didn't use a process flow chart. Thank you for your interest in my topic.  Show More

I have repeatedly encountered this problem where the dashboards are not displayed. Version 25.2.0. I had the same problem sometimes in previous versions. Show More

Hi I dont know how many of you have gained experience with that tool.  I at least start to use it for every project.  Ideas to improve: - 3D-View selection when opening the model - possibility to select, what Category will be shown in Flexsim - possibility to select a 2D-View to use it like a 2D-DWG import   next level will be, when you make the Revit-Family import possible for Items.  I dont like to use the standard prozessor, I know there is a workflow with AutoCAD and Inventor. but there are many users out there using Revit and Revit has really bad collaboration with Autocad and Inventor.  so please, also work on improvement to import Revit-Families with Type-Selection for the "Shape" to have the specific Items in Flexsim.  Show More

There are times I need to create a copy of a token, but with a handful of labels removed. These "special" labels that I don't want copied to the child token are used to control the parent flow that creates and places the child tokens. For example, the parent token has a label that indicates the quantity of children to create, but I don't want this quantity label to be placed on the child tokens. The parent flow is generic and doesn't know all the label names it needs to copy to the children, it only knows which labels NOT to copy. Furthermore, the subflow can't remove the unwanted labels because it doesn't necessarily know the unwanted label names.   My current workaround is very hackish and unintuitive. It would be much better if I could combine "Copy Labels to Children on Create" with "Remove Label" in the labels section. I understand why you removed that option from these token-creating activities. After all, a newly created token doesn't have any labels to remove. Except it kinda does, if you select "Copy Labels to Children on Create". Show More

Conveyor transfers currently do not allow any easy integration to the model logic. To control flow, the user is forced to add decision points and other objects that do not cover all needs (e.g., avoid an item to take a transfer even if that is the conveyance's shortest path to its destination). Adding triggers that can help to control traffic to conveyor transfers, in a similar way they exist for Entry and Exit transfers, eases modeling logic and model clutter. Thank you. Show More

Table interface in FlexSim is very limited. Most of the cases, the column with does not fit the column header or content, making users loose time resizing columns. This is particularly cumbersome when bundle labels are used. Having the tables able to auto-size their column widths either by a right-click menu option or via double click on column limits (like other simulation software, or even Excel) would save a lot of time for users. Show More

Interface consistency is important to facilitate users' work.  When working with groups, the membership dropdown menu offers the option "Add Model's Selected Objects to Group". It also allows one to select multiple objects from the members list using mousedown-and-drag.   The same handy functionalities are not available in the interface for process-flow membership. Selecting multiple objects, one at a time by clicking is very inefficient. Having a more consistent interface increases software usability and should ease code maintenance. Thank you. P.S. One can always create a script for that, of course, but those are the basic things one should expect on a good interface. Show More

Dear FlexSim Team, I would like to suggest adding a Paint Shop Module to the FlexSim library. In most manufacturing industries, the paint shop is a critical part of the internal supply chain and directly impacts throughput, quality, and cost. When simulating a complete plant, it becomes challenging to model paint shop processes with existing generic modules, as there are limitations when it comes to: Sequencing of parts through pre-treatment, primer, base coat, and top coat stages Handling of buffers, curing ovens, and drying times Integration of paint shop logistics (e.g., carriers, conveyors, hangers) Rework or re-routing of defective parts through paint lines Resource and utility consumption specific to painting operations A dedicated paint shop module would enable users to more accurately simulate end-to-end plant operations, capture bottlenecks, and analyze the impact of paint shop performance on overall production. I believe such a module would greatly enhance FlexSim’s value for automotive, heavy machinery, and many other industries where painting is an integral process. Thank you for considering this enhancement. Show More

Hello,       Show More

   The current VR feature only allows a single VR device to connect at a time. I would like to suggest the development of a multiplayer VR function that would allow multiple users to connect to and experience a single simulation model simultaneously.   I believe the addition of this feature would bring several significant benefits:  Enhanced Collaboration: Multiple users could view and discuss the model together in real-time, accelerating problem-solving and decision-making processes. Improved Training and Education: The ability for a group of trainees to experience a realistic VR environment together would increase immersion and knowledge retention. More Impactful Presentations: Showcasing a simulation model to multiple stakeholders or clients in a single model would enhance understanding and create a more compelling presentation. I assume that it's possible to create a multiplayer VR environment using Flexsim's Omniverse feature. However, as far as I know, this approach additionally requires substantial software and hardware resources, which makes it a difficult and often unfeasible solution for many users.    Thank you. Show More

   I believe that an Augmented Reality (AR) function would significantly enhance Flexsim's value. While the current VR feature provides an immersive virtual world, an AR feature would allow us to overlay simulation models directly onto the real world.   The key benefits of this feature would be: Real-time Optimization and Validation: See real-time data from physical equipment overlaid on the simulation model, allowing for instant validation and on-the-fly optimization. Managers can walk the factory floor and see real-time KPIs and simulated outcomes overlaid on the physical environment, leading to faster, data-rich decisions. Enhanced Training: Employees can interact with virtual equipment in a real-world setting, with the simulation providing visual cues and feedback to accelerate learning. More Impactful Presentations: AR presentations are more compelling than VR screen views. You could project the simulation model directly into client's legacy equipment or physical space, creating a highly interactive and immersive demonstration of your project's value.  I assume that it's possible to create an AR environment using Flexsim's Omniverse feature. However, as far as I know, this approach requires substantial software and hardware resources, which makes it a difficult and often unfeasible solution for many users.   Thank you. Show More