AutoDesk's failure to fix problems.

[ONTRAK]

18 months ago I posted on Tweaks / Presentation files, regarding changing the browser back to showing tweaks under the component(s).  Has this changed in Inventor 2019 ?  I have not loaded 2019 as yet, so I am unaware if this has been set back to USER friendly or not.

But the reason for today's submission stems from Autodesk's failure to "fix" it's Bolting Generator.

Googling "Bolting Generator" speaks volumes.

And due to not fixing the issues I am still wasting time doing things individually / manually, and then arraying.   

So what do we all pay for annually ????

In 2009 (Inventor 2010) I had an bolting generator issue which was acknowledged by Autodesk Asia-Pacific (in Malaysia), I had contact / response via my re-seller, and actually was contacted directly by Auotdesk Malaysia.  (I am Australia based)

I was told the issue should be fixed by at least Inventor 2012 - well imagine my surprise when it was not - and is STILL NON FUNCTIONING IN Inventor 2018. and the original issue has had "upgrades" - as extra issues the generator now Fails to see holes in parts downloaded from supplier's websites, i.e. ex STP or IGES and converted to .ipt / .iam,

it does not see the holes when using "By Hole", but if you use "Concentric" it can find a circular form, but then "fails to create hole" ??????  and also (therefore) cannot "follow pattern" in the supplier part. 

Why does this function always try to create a hole - I am old school - came from a drawing board using ink and a razor blade (to correct errors), so all parts had to be drawn with holes, and when I manufactured those parts I would have to drill holes in each part before being able to bolt parts together.  You could not glue the parts together and then "wish" the bolts and holes into the parts / assembly.

Funnily enough I still use this concept in creating virtual 3D parts - I create a finished part with all holes, grooves, notches, chamfers, etc etc.

Your bolting generator will place holes in blind components - hence the "create hole" issue - this is a great idea, but it is absolutely useless in the real world,  although probably good for users who are not much more capable than trained monkeys.   

Try to use your concept real world - If your car had a flat tyre, does your spare come without the mounting holes and you drill them on the spot????   I do not think so.   

If you set a blind hole in your own part(s) it will use an algorithm that determines your hole is not deep enough for the thread size selected, then turns this hole into a through hole, over-riding MY DESIGN, and as an engineer, fitter and machinist, and 30 plus year 'veteran' of drafting, I think i can design something accurately - but the response from your customer service personnel of Autodesk China was to use the "through hole" option and then edit bolt length dynamically.   

Why not just fix your errors????????????????????     and give users the option of turning off the algorithm.

Autodesk China also pointed out that the 2x bolt diameter algorithm is the absolute minimum thread length for securing a bolt, - which holds no creedance when you examine the fact that even a high tensile hex nut has a minimum length of 0.8x thread diameter - and wheels seem able to stay attached to cars, trains, even aircraft !!

Dealing with Autodesk via the web-page or with re-seller support does not seem to achieve any result, so I have placed this post publicly in order to see what response follows.

And I think users and re-seller support staff are all past the need to find work-around solutions for your faulty program sub-routines.

I have used Inventor since version 2008,  and AutoCAD since version 2.5 - i.e. early 1980's pre any version of Microsoft Windows - and undoubtedly AutoDesk has good product(s),  and I have used other CAD packages and do prefer Autodesk.     

So I ask Autodesk  as 1 of 3 users in a sea of millions of users  - what does my employer pay for every year ??? 

[-niels-]

First off, nice rant... not very useful for most, but maybe someone at Autodesk will feel it worth looking into...

As for me:

---

@ONTRAK wrote:

18 months ago I posted on Tweaks / Presentation files, regarding changing the browser back to showing tweaks under the component(s).  Has this changed in Inventor 2019 ?  I have not loaded 2019 as yet, so I am unaware if this has been set back to USER friendly or not.

---

18 months... was that on IV 2017 or IV 2018?

Regardless, it must have been about the new ipn interface with the storyboard panel..

All i can say about that is: yes, the browser no longer lists tweaks under the components.

These can now be found on the storyboards panel, this will list all components and show their tweak on the timeline.

If you select a part in the viewport it will light up on the storyboard and you can see exactly which tweaks it has on the timeline.

From there you can right-click on the tweak and edit it.

If you have trails visible in the viewport you can also right-click on them directly and edit the associated tweak...

While this may not be perfect for everyone, i (me, myself, personally) don't see any need to return a list of tweaks under the components in the browser as i do almost all editing through the timeline anyway.

(And i've been working with Inventor since v.2, so i was VERY used the the other interface as well.)

As for your issue with the bolted connections... we don't use that where i work, so i can't comment on any flaws it might have, but your rant does seem to highlight some annoying behavior.

I couldn't directly find any ideas related to this on the ideas board, but maybe you could have a look through them yourself and see if there's anything that is.

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/forums/searchpage/tab/message?filter=location&q=bolted%20connection&l...

Maybe add your own improvement ideas and see if users here will vote on them?

---

@ONTRAK wrote:

So I ask Autodesk  as 1 of 3 users in a sea of millions of users  - what does my employer pay for every year ??? 

---

The right to use the software....?

Sorry, couldn't help myself with that one... i know that's not what you meant, but we're all in the same boat.

Regards

[johnsonshiue]

Hi John,

First of all, I am very sorry for any trouble Inventor has caused. Inventor is far from perfect. The team has been working hard on improving it continuously. Your message contains a lot of information. Some are actionable but some are not. I would like to focus on the actionable ones. It looks like you have approached Autodesk with the issues before, but you did not get the satisfying resolution. I would like to understand the past communication. If you have any prior support case ID or emails, please forward them to me directly (johnson.shiue@autodesk.com). 

Many thanks for your comments and criticism! They help us build a better product.

Thanks again! I am looking forward to hearing from you.

[kelly.young]

Hello @ONTRAK thanks for reaching out in the forum and letting us know what you're experiencing. I do not see any older posts that clarify, could you attach an example with Pack & Go as .zip so we can investigate further? 

I can follow your post as to what you are experiencing but rather than try to recreate and guess what you would like, it would be easier to document with files that specifically exhibit the behavior you want changed. 

I don't know what prior interactions suggested or told you would happen, but moving forward it would be best to document the behavior, determine what the cause or limitation is, and make a case with the development team with supplied actionable information.

Please select the Accept as Solution button if a post solves your issue or answers your question.

[ONTRAK]

do not have a lot of time to waste scrolling the forum page, so hence, a response 6 months on.

to say I have not had a suitable resolution is an understatement, personally if I could get rid of Inventor easily and use IronCad I would. 

this issue was noted / case filed in 2009. NOTHING F....NG DONE to resolve it and it keeps bouncing to more and more

"specialists".   and little help from Asia Pacific office with the emails relating to the case from 2011 / 2012 that I forwarded still not responded to or explained why nothing resolved. Last correspondence (from China) was July 24, 2017.

I have one other current question - Iam still using R2017 ultimate, recently installed 4.6 update, now have additional materials available in the material browser, but yet again all the carbon steels have the appearance stuffed up!!!   

I worked at BHP's steelworks as an Engineer and in all the time there I never saw one piece of mild steel product that had an appearance of Semi-polished Stainless Steel ????????????????????????????????????????????     see attached JPG file for browser crap.   this cannot be simply remedied, it takes several minutes to correct, question is why is it wrong to start with?????  $2000 / year / user worldwide and what do users get?  virtually defrauded.

what high IQ no commonsense genius came up with this as the default setting, it occurs on all Carbon steel selections, yet is correctly set for Cast Iron.   

No apologies for my attitude or wording - it appears that creating more options is more important than fixing what you have f....d.

[leowarren34]

For all the faults inventor has it is an amazing program however what Autodesk need to do now is perfect what we have rather than add new stuff which isnt 100%

[johnsonshiue]

Hi John,

I don't care for your offensive wordings, which is irrelevant to the issues. I only care about actionable issues. You have given a bit more information after 6 months. I thank you for that. But, you still have not shown me the past communication and defect IDs.

The appearance of the particular material is from Autodesk Appearance and Material Library, which Inventor adopted in 2013. It was meant to unify the look of materials across multiple products.

Inventor is a tool of choice. It is not perfect but it has to be useful. If it does not work for you, it is not useful. I would like to understand how to improve it so that it is more helpful to you.

Many thanks!

[ONTRAK]

From: Autodesk Customer Support [mailto:customersupport@autodesk.com]
Sent: Friday, 28 September 2012 3:46 PM
Subject: Your Autodesk Support CaseNo:07670764. has been received

kelly.young has edited your content to remove confidential information that should not be shared. 

[kelly.young]

Hello @ONTRAK your post contains confidential information that should not be shared. It stated this explicitly and you ignored it. 

Please submit another case as this is 6 years old. I can't comment on what your previous experience was, but moving forward please use professional language and follow up with support to document your issue. 

We are here to help but need you to work with support to discuss your specific issue in the appropriate manner. 

Please select the Accept Solution button if a post solves your issue or answers your question.

[ONTRAK]

Kelly



Yes! The case is over 6 years old, 2009 to be exact – still not resolved but
closed?



believe I had submitted another case in July 2017 corresponding with Beijing
office, which is either non-existent, unanswered or ignored.



Even so, your point on the case being closed - AutoDesk closed an unresolved
case, will this occur again??????????



9 years of frustration, repeating the same request over 9 years to each
support person, being told rubbish by AutoDesk as is evident in one of the
emails I sent to you today.



Have tried being polite, going via my reseller – who is more than helpful,
etc ,etc, and still nil response / rectification – now I am very much beyond
being polite and “professional”.



When is AutoDesk going to be accountable / responsible and therefore
professional?



As for new case submission and support – Try using the bolting generator and
the by hole selection. Then explain to me why it “fails to create hole”
where a hole exists,



and if the hole is blind (at a specific designed depth) and tapped, the
generator algorithm calculates the hole is not deep enough, turns it to a
through hole – expensive rework of parts if this is missed – to fit what IT
thinks is the right size



fastener. Again these issues have been noted by AutoDesk - but
AutoDesk has nothing done.



As to my oversight of including personal details, yes missed by me – so
please feel free to delete those “posts” as they are obviously an eight year
old unresolved closed case which is not relevant to the current thread.



So yes let us all move forward.



Regards.

[johnsonshiue]

Hi John,

Many thanks for sharing the Case numbers! I am able to locate the defects. Unfortunately, it is true that the two defects were not fixed after you reported. I am working with the project team to see if the issues are still reproducible and how we can fix them. I will let you know when there is meaningful progress. I am very sorry for the delay.

Thanks again!

[ONTRAK]

Thank you Johnson.



Old unresolved case numbers (over 6 years old) were of use to JohnsonShiue,
so why are they not of use for you Kelly.Young??? and why do I need to
submit another case for one that is not resolved???

[NachoShaw]

i feel your pain, i do. For all the good Inventor has to offer, there is and probably always will be things that are not working for everyone. I for example, get on ok with the Bolted connection (at least for the limited use i have for it) but other features like sweeping a simple profile over a surface just doesnt work and yet, we can do it in real life with of wood....

As for the material issue, I cant 100% answer for Autodesk but the people who write are not the people who use it. If they were, im sure Inventor would be kick ass. Its a shame Autodesk dont look more towards the real uses to make the application better. A wrong finish for a meterial isnt the end of the world. you could duplicate or edit the material, update the appearance and release  the library again with the updated appearance. at least that would fix that one.. Personally we use own own library made from the standard libraries as we can migrate them without having these issues.

Hopefully someone will fix your issue but after 6-9 years, i wouldnt hold your breath 🙂

Nacho

[dgorsman]

---

@NachoShaw wrote:

As for the material issue, I cant 100% answer for Autodesk but the people who write are not the people who use it. If they were, im sure Inventor would be kick ass.

---

Well, no.  The skills required to develop the program are well outside those required for use.  Both are advanced in their own way, and the time required to master one pretty much precludes the option of mastering the other.  There are some who can accomplish both but they are far and few between. 

In order to get things done "right" we have to rely on professionals working from both ends, and both have to accept there will be limitations and priorities.

[NachoShaw]

I sort of agree. A person may hold the skill and expertise to write a really good application but if they dont know the  parameters or industry they are writing for, it kind of defeats a purpose.

I for example write a lot of application in vb.net mainly outside of the Inventor field however, all of the applications remain within my industry that i have worked in all my life which is construction. Whatever experience i have with coding, it would be pointless for me to say, write a health care or insurance application because i dont know the industries. I would be best to call upon real field users for advice and guidance.

[ONTRAK]

Agreed, but this material appearance for Mild Steel has been "faulty" since
at least 2016 version.



There is a fix in the knowledge base created by one of the support techs
from my reseller - it is simple enough to follow just takes a couple of
minutes and fixes it, but it should not be there to start with!!!!





If they were to stop creating useless enhancements and rushed new releases,
and fixed their errors, it would be more useful.





Why is a new release required every year - it takes me a day (minimum) to
upgrade / migrate etc and then when using new release it requires time to
find where existing functions have been moved / hidden.



Is this to justify the (programmers) job and change things for the sake of
change?



I am a stand-alone user - what is the interruption to productive output, for
a multiple user / vault based setup??



Why not every second year a new release, with interim years major Service
Pack. That would be great.



Also with the ''every year new release "system" ', it is followed 6-8 weeks
later with a "fix the stuff-ups Service pack" - pretty much says it all.

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Guys,

I have a feeling this thread is getting a little bit deviated from the issues we are trying to solve. The enhancements Inventor team has been working on do not come from somebody's imagination. You may not find them useful but some users are using them. Please do not generalize issues. We are fully aware that we cannot make everybody happy. But, we are trying very hard to make sure Inventor as a tool is useful and helpful to you at professional level.

Any actionable suggestion is always welcome.

Many thanks!

[ONTRAK]

No not necessarily straying off track,



Some enhancements have been very useful - for example being able to section
components not just assemblies - greatly used and appreciated.



some enhancements were to things that worked great as they WERE, and the
enhancement created the problems - Bolting Gen worked great in R2009, you
could select individual holes in arrayed holes, 'by hole' worked correctly,
etc



The improved? / Enhanced version ruined that - the algorithm that was added
/ edited for thread length causes issues in blind holes - it can and does
over-ride the calculated & designed length and can turn it into a through
hole,



now you can only select the master hole in an arrayed set of holes, and
using 'by hole' selection it tries to create a hole where a hole exists
using and fails, causing the bolted conn to read as in error - this gives
illumination to the "red cross"



indicating sketch / part / constraint problems.



Yes agree that not everyone uses the enhancements, or likes / dislikes them,
but perhaps if programmers were made to use what they produced for a period
of three months it may give them a better perspective of what users put up



with when they, the programmers, get it wrong.