Counterbore hole with c'sink dia

[pmonteiro]

Hello.
I would like to present an improvement in inventor, which would be a great increase in productivity and in my opinion and is missing in inventor.
The possibility of creating more elaborate holes with the hole feature.
An example is the attached figure. Inventor doesn't allow you to create the chamfer according to the standard.
For example, if you have 60 holes in a plate, you have to add 60 chamfers manually.
Imagine the productivity if you could create the complete hole with the chamfer and save it as a preset, for example!
There are many other applications besides counterbores.
That would be fantastic and super productive!
Before you answer: Doing as ifeature or creating illogical code to add the chamfer doesn't seem like the best way to go.
Thank you for your comments.

[jtylerbc]

You should post this on the Ideas forum, if there isn't already something equivalent there.  That is the best place for it to gather some support and possibly get considered for implementation.

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-ideas/idb-p/v1232

That being said, there may be a simple way you can improve your current workflow, even without code or iFeature creation:

---

@pmonteiro wrote:

For example, if you have 60 holes in a plate, you have to add 60 chamfers manually.

---

Make one hole with the chamfer, then create the rest as a pattern.  This gets you out of the majority of the manual chamfering.

[Frederick_Law]

Wouldn't a note on the CB saying "DIN 912" enough to tell machine shop to CS it?

[chris]

@pmonteiro I deal with this constantly, as we make high pressure waterblasting components and there needs to be a sealing surface, often times 59º under the counterbore. I just have the holes set up with an ifeature, or I just control them with separate extrusions in a form

[pmonteiro]

Okay, any strategy is valid.
Whether it's productive or not.
The point here is to be productive and the example of the counterbore with chamfer is a simple example.
Besides, the example I gave is something standard, the inventor was supposed to comply with it.
These are standard housings for DIN 912 screws.
Thank you for your comment.
It's always good to share experiences.
Thank you

[pmonteiro]

Hello.
Indeed you could, any strategy is valid.
Some are more productive than others.
Manufacturing is increasingly hanging on to the 3D model.
So I prefer to have the 3D complete, with all the geometry defined in the model.
What's more, the example I gave is something standard, and the inventor was supposed to comply with it.
This chamfer is imperative, otherwise when you torque the screw without this chamfer the screw head will break.
Thank you for your comment.
It's always good to share experiences.
Thank you

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

[pmonteiro]

Hello.
Thanks for the tip.
You don't always have patterns.
In fact, our project avoids patterns, it has good and bad things.
We identify more bad things than good, these are strategies, it works for some and it doesn't work for others... normal.
I repeat, the example I gave is something standard, the inventor was supposed to comply with that.
Thanks for your comment, I'll post it where you say.

Thank you

[James_Willo]

Hi, as said above, if you can find this in the idea station please vote on it, otherwise please create your own idea. 
We have discussed making more complex holes in the past.

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-ideas/idb-p/v1232

[jtylerbc]

---

@pmonteiro wrote:

In fact, our project avoids patterns, it has good and bad things.
We identify more bad things than good, these are strategies, it works for some and it doesn't work for others... normal.

---

Out of curiosity, why don't you use patterns?  Assembly component patterns I could understand avoiding - there are things about them that can be a bit annoying  But I don't know that I've really seen that many complaints about part-level Feature patterns.

---

@pmonteiro wrote:

Thanks for your comment, I'll post it where you say.

---

Found your Idea post and gave it my vote.  I have potential use for this idea as well.  My other suggestions were aimed at making it easier in the meantime, but I think this would be a useful tool to add to Inventor.