Community
Inventor Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Inventor Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Inventor topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Inventor 2014 Wish List?

137 REPLIES 137
SOLVED
Reply
Message 1 of 138
FProcp
15142 Views, 137 Replies

Inventor 2014 Wish List?

Constraints.jpg

 

Maybe the sketch environment could be a little tidier?

1 - I think by default the constraint icons should be smaller so they don’t pile up on top of each other and you can’t see what they are. They appear to be much neater and easier to read in SW?

 

2 - In the attached sketch it shows there are 3 dimensions needed even though the lines are now dark blue in color showing they are constrained. They are really not fully constrained because the length of both those lines can be changed.

I think there should be a symbol to show those line end points are not locked down. I have drawn “x” marks on those lines to show that. Maybe that or something else would be enough to quickly show not locked. Sometimes on complex sketches I spend much time searching for lines that don’t have their ends locked to fully constrain the sketch. I often use automatic dimension to find where those naughty lines are but an x on the end would be much faster.

 

The sketch environment is the basic backbone of the entier program and it needs to be perfect. Smiley Wink

 

 

Franco
GMT +08:00
137 REPLIES 137
Message 21 of 138
jletcher
in reply to: FProcp

Put back my classic Interface.. New interface is crap and hating it more and more every day.

 

Keep Autocad out of Inventor already starting to look like it. ( next thing you would want the command line)

 

Fix the bugs...

 

I rather wait 2 years for the next release and have my Inventor back to the working Inventor it once was....

 

Smiley Happy

Message 22 of 138
Greatwhitenorth
in reply to: Anonymous


@Anonymous wrote:

So please, fix the software, because it is driving us CAD managers nuts.  


I'd like a Purge command for the Vault.

____________________________________________________
Product Design & Manufacturing Collection 2021 | Vault Professional 2021
Dell Precision 7670 | Intel i7-12850HX - 2100 Mhz - 64GB
nVIDIA RTX A3000 12GB | Windows 10/64 Pro
Message 23 of 138
jletcher
in reply to: Greatwhitenorth

bsstewart wrote:

 

I'd like a Purge command for the Vault.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They do...

 

 

 

 

 

it's called un-install Vault Smiley Wink

Message 24 of 138
dan_inv09
in reply to: Anonymous

Not really the 2014 wishlist but, fix the forum so that when I reply and have to sign in it doesn't reply to the post at the top of the page instead.

 

Looks like lots of votes for "Fix Stuff Instead!"

I say make marketing work. Hey, they will be getting better functionality in current features-maybe they could just ignore that the oversold them to begin with, new users aren't going to know that we've had it for years but it was just crap. And if they can't sell it without new features, fire the bums and hire some new people who can. I used to work with a salesman who could sell ice to Eskimos - it was up to Engineering to get it to provide light and heat, but he was still getting his commission.

 

I wouldn't mind if they skipped 2014. For 2015 come out with a new numbering scheme to reflect that they're starting fresh with what could be considered a new, finished product. Or maybe something like, "Inventor II 1.0"-call the old ones 0.1.whatever ... 0.11.whatever and 2008 becomes 0.12.whatever etc. 2013 is 0.17.0.13800.0    you get the picture.

 

One big thing that I think falls under fixing, but it could be considered new functionality: make everything that looks the same work the same. i.e. an assembly sketch should behave exactly the same as a part sketch (drawing sketches too!). Among other things, no more of this "A cyclical constraint dependency was detected." if you know what I mean.

 

I could go on and on but I've got to get back to fighting with Inventor.

Message 25 of 138
Anonymous
in reply to: FProcp

I'd like to see the "Instance Number" field of an iCopy feature accepting parameters. Only the "Offset" field can utilise them at the moment. And the arrow next to both fields doesn't work like it does on any other field that has it. Feels like a bug to me.

Then the next step would be to be able to manipulate iCopy through iLogic.

 

And extend the features of iLogic in general. I'm not a trained/experienced OO programmer, so the Inventor API is mostely useless to me.

 

Thanks!

Message 26 of 138
Anonymous
in reply to: Inv_kaos

Well besides the few Inventor/Vault bugs I provided, and the one example you provided which I have also ran into, another favorite of mine lies in the Cable and Harness module.  I know picking on Cable and Harness is like shooting fish in a barrel, but there are a few bigs ones in there such as:

 

When placing segment points you are unable to select certain cylindrical objects, such as other Wires/Harnesses or Tubes/Pipes.  It is frustrating as we usually run a bundle of Pneumatic lines and wiring harnesses together, and I am unable to place a harness segment off of any of those, instead I need to place it off of something flat, and then move it where I want it.  Heres the fun part, if I place the segment point somewhere, then select "redefine" to move that point, I can now place it off of objects that I wasn't able to previously. 

 

Another one, is once you are done placing your Tubes/Pipes/Wires/Harnesses, and it comes time to document them, you are unable to place balloons on most of them.  For some reason Inventor doesn't like to place ballons on long tube/pipe runs, and it prevents us from making a proper drawing of then.

 

Now to be fair, we only upgraded to 2013 about a month ago, and I can't remember if I've tried doing either of these things in 2013, so it could be these were 2012 bugs that were fixed in 2013, I'd have to fire up Cable & Harness to find out, but I really don't feel like doing that to myself right now.

Message 27 of 138
AMontembeault
in reply to: FProcp

I want real statistical tolerance analysis like CETOL for pro-e and solidworks, and the abillity to apply GD+T at the model level and incorporate that into the tolerance analysis.

 

For those unfamiliar with CETOL:

http://www.sigmetrix.com/tolerance-analysis-software-cetol.htm

http://www.sigmetrix.com/gdt-software.htm

Message 28 of 138
kstate92
in reply to: Anonymous

If Autodesk had any courage*, they would adopt the Tick-Tock model from Intel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Tick-Tock

 

* Being a publicly-traded company, such courage would probably result in them getting sued by institutional shareholders who would also advocate the immediate killing and eating golden egg laying geese.

KState92
Inventor Professional 2020
AutoCAD Mechanical 2022.0.1
Windows 10 Pro 64 bit - 1903
Core i7-8700 32 GB Ram
Quadro P2000
Message 29 of 138
FProcp
in reply to: FProcp

Autodesk Inventor is a history-based design tool meaning that there is a history tree of 2D sketches placed on top of existing model surfaces or existing work planes that 3D features are created from. An Inventor 3D model is like the Eifel tower in that every leg (2D sketch) below the level you’re on could affect something on your level. History-based design relies on a linear recipe of features, built on top of features, on top of even more features. Editing that geometry requires the tracking of that history to learn what change will affect what you want to edit and being aware that the editing of those early features can cause inherent problems with other subsequent features.

 

Because you will have a lengthy recipe for creation of even the simplest of parts, to make edits, to reconfigure geometry, to make a design change requires some serious knowledge of how it was designed in the first place. It’s bad enough diving into a complex part you have designed yourself, but editing someone else’s work, can be the stuff of very bad nightmares.

 

We really MUST HAVE more aids to learn/trace how a model has been created/designed. This is a huge weakness in history based modelling and until Inventor Fusion can fully take over all model editing, we desparately need this. People at my work do not look favourably towards implementing Inventor to do all mechanical design work (only do a small amount now) because they say it takes way too long to edit existing 3D models

Franco
GMT +08:00
Message 30 of 138
stevec781
in reply to: jletcher

Every release its the same, fix  the bugs, but they cant even do that without breaking something else.  Meanwhile solid edge has seamlessly integrated history free modelling, ProE(creo) has just added some great free form capability and Ironcad has a history based modeller that can handle changes by automatically adjusting the feature tree.  To me it looks like Inventor is slipping further and further behind.  Its about time they started listening to their users.  I have dropped my subscription, the "improvements" have been minor and not worth the migration and bugs hassle.

Message 31 of 138
Anonymous
in reply to: FProcp

After looking at the small list of improvements for 2013, I don't expect much out of 2014. If anyone wants improvement, I suggest looking at competitors. Autodesk's business model is not about producing quality software, it's about getting customers on subscription & then milking the hell out of them.

Message 32 of 138
kstate92
in reply to: Anonymous

True to a degree - though I doubt this thread is full of folks working pro-bono.

 

I does remind me: does Solidworks still require users to be on subscription to access Service Packs?

KState92
Inventor Professional 2020
AutoCAD Mechanical 2022.0.1
Windows 10 Pro 64 bit - 1903
Core i7-8700 32 GB Ram
Quadro P2000
Message 33 of 138
Anonymous
in reply to: FProcp

Something for press-tool / sheet metal progression stamping dies would be great.

 

We folk who design press tools generally get sidelined, so it would be nice to have some functionality like undeveloping 3d pressed sheetmetal parts - or Autodesk encouraging existing 3rd parties (who offer such addons to Solidworks) to develop something for Inventor.

 

To give a hint, something along the lines of what "3dquickpress" or "Logopress" can do.

 

I know there are some fairly recent developments (pardon the pun) with addons like Sheetmetal Inventor from Spi, and there was recently an add-on by 'logopress'; which unfolded 3d forms (which now seems to have disappeared from their website) - but in general, Inventor has lagged behind in this field for at least the last 8 years.

 

This is the (currently missing) add on for the development blank by Logopress http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqlZ7V_Qwig 

 

.......As you will see, it looks very powerfull indeed - and shows that the Inventor software is capable of such gymnastics if it is instructed.

 

There are bolt on options for many systems (like the above ones for Solidworks), whilst others have inbuilt capability  - like Topsolid "Top-Progress" and Vero Visi Progress from the Visi package. I think Cimatron also have something in this field.

 

To give a visual of the power of stage unfolding forms in Visi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed_R8Ic2B60

 

But Logopress and 3dQuickpress and the others also aid with 'strip' design and layouts and have standard parts available used in tooling, such as punches and dies, chutes, pillars and bushes, flying cam units, and so on.

 

Inventor has.......well, none of the above. As far as I know. I am still on 2009 at my place of work, so things may have changed a little, but from what I can find out on the internet, it is still in the same boat. (The 'subscription update' plan was too excessive and made no real sense).

 

However, as more and more other systems are now encorporating add-ons and specific press-tooling capabilities, the time may come where we have to start looking elsewhere than Autodesk.

 

I think that would be a shame, I like Inventor very much, much better than odd packages with odd methods of working and nasty interfaces.......and I like Inventor much more than Solidworks, which I have always found cumbersome and clumsy.

 

It is not my choice at the end of the day, I can only offer advice to the management when the time comes, but Autodesks lack of action in this field when compared to some of their rivals means that it will increasingly make more sense to spend more money on something else which has specialist tools, even if it means a major re-training and a sever from legacy data.

 

The direction with logopress looked promising (as in, if they could do that blank development in Inventor, maybe they could do the whole Logopress suite for Inventor like they have for Solidworks) - but at the moment and for the forseable future I will not have much to lay on the table as options for sticking with Inventor when it comes to press tooling.

 

For our other jig and fixture work, Inventor has been (and continues to be) great. We 'get by' with tools and such, but when up against people with specific tools they are bound to be doing it more efficiently than we could.

 

I can appreciate that there perhaps is "no market" for such things with Autodesk and that not many customers are pushing for such tools. Maybe that is why the Logopress add-on has disappeared, due to lack of interest and demand.

 

However, maybe it is a chicken and egg thing where if there is nothing great for tooling design in Inventor then folk won't be investigating a solitary blanking program addon - as they will ideally want the strip-layout tools and form stages and all the rest of it.

 

 

Message 34 of 138
nannerdw
in reply to: FProcp

I'd like the ability to create manual IK chains, similar to how it works in 3ds Max.  It could be a constraint between a parent and child part, temporarily grounding the parent while the child part is moved.  The current workflow in Inventor involves manually grounding and un-grounding components so they don't get shifted around unexpectedly.

Message 35 of 138
Anonymous
in reply to: FProcp

Good day,

 

I've read through the 4 pages of wishes, with very little attention given to the drawing environment. I did an exercise a while ago where I captured my wishes as I was drawing. I have many more, but for the drawing area, I think these would go a long way in making my life easier. Also, IMHO, the drawing enviroment deserves a lot more attention, its through this medium that most people ever see our designs, in 2D! So here goes...

 

  • Dragging leader with Part Priority on does not snap to part edge
  • Being able to dimension break view line
  • Different detail view shapes, that can be dimensioned to part sketches, or even use part sketches
  • Automated centrelines on only certain parts in a view
  • Window multiselect CL to resize them together
  • Auto CL does not recognize derived parts, i.e. iParts (flanges)
  • Tangent edges on selected parts only
  • Lock dimensions that are aligned
  • Snap radius dims to other radius dims
  • Dimension to a sketch symbol
  • Use part properties and values in sketch symbols
  • Align sketch symbols with better grip control
  • When copy/paste symbols, I don’t want to deselect the view first
  • Link part parameters in the Hole Notes, i.e. PCD
  • Add Vertex to leader to open space (i.e., not model edge)
  • When editing leader text / normal text, centre the text in the editing window

And in a Part, reorder User parameters. Not just a sort, actually change their order.

 

Please and thank you.

Ryan

 

PS> attached my raw stuff too...

Message 36 of 138
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Oh, and 1 other that springs to mind; The ability to fill a defined sketch boundary with holes, with a defined pitch and direction

Message 37 of 138
SBix26
in reply to: Anonymous


@Anonymous wrote:

 

  • Use part properties and values in sketch symbols

Elaborate on this one a bit more-- we have a sketched symbol that uses part iproperties, works very well.  Are you asking for something different?

Message 38 of 138
Logos_Atum
in reply to: Rory_M

An option if a mirrored object is to change with the parent object as this is altered.

Would come in quite handy.

Dogs aren´t flammable.
Message 39 of 138
Anonymous
in reply to: SBix26

In that example I wanted to link a parameter to the sketch symbol, like a thickness. If I remember correctly, it was a standard weld that was best displayed using a sketch symbol, rather than an actual section. So we created the weld detail, but the thickness of plate changed. 

This reminds me; If you have ever used weld end fills, they often disappear when the model updates, especially when placed on a arc or circular shape. I actually dont attach my weld symbols to the weld end fills anymore because of this. 

Message 40 of 138
kstate92
in reply to: Anonymous

Welds are a 71 out of 100 (see me after class).  Waaay too prismatic, leaving a plethora of wacky lines in the drawing views.

 

If you're putting down welds around two symmetrical lugs that don't have enough space around them for simplistic fillets, odds are the several groove and fillet combos on one lug will end up differently shaped than the other, even when creating them in precisely the same manner.  I also love when a completely separate weld (not even on either of the two participating parts) will fail or prevent you from adding a new weld.  Just changing the order of weld application can sometimes solve the failing issue (WTF?).  Spooky influence at a distance, if you will.  I also have had welds cause modeling errors when creating a derived part from a weldment.

 

My models almost always have a circular groove weld joining a tube and solid round.  I had to just model my own weld bead part, as the groove weld for this joint type has a flat face, leaving both the shop and the customer with the assumption the weld OD is machined flush, not just the standard, slightly convex 'as-welded' cap.

 

And having to manually add the cute weld 'decals' to the ends of incomplete welds.  How about just automatically adding a weld texture to every freakin' surface of a weld bead your own modeler just created?  Under what scenario would you *not* want every weld surface created to look like - you know - A WELD??  If anything, decal everything and give the user the option to *deselect* faces they don't want looking 'weldy'.

 

No doubt, doing 'welding' ain't easy (or too great) in any modeler, as most of the models or drawing of models I see in my work don't have one weld shown; just empty grooves.  Not too many programmers weld, apparently.  Say what you will, but at least in 2D AutoCAD, you can get (fake and idealized) weld representations right.

KState92
Inventor Professional 2020
AutoCAD Mechanical 2022.0.1
Windows 10 Pro 64 bit - 1903
Core i7-8700 32 GB Ram
Quadro P2000

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report