Inventor 2019 Axis-to-Axis Mate Constraint Default To Forced "Opposed" Solution

[jletcher]

I understand you added it from someones idea, but why could you not have left the default selection the old way? This way it does not screw up other peoples workflows?

When on the fly this thing is now a nightmare. I don't understand why it was even needed but now more clicks more wasted time for me and others.

Make it so users can default to old style please, these are things you should be thinking when making changes. I understand you wanted to please someone but don't do it at the expense of others. You can leave it just change default default to old style, I will never have a need for this new way.

This is going to drive me nuts and many users have already called asking if there is a way to default to old.

This should be easy to fix.

kelly.young has edited your subject line for clarity: 2019 New mate constraint nightmare

[SteveMDennis]

---

@jletcher wrote:

Come on @Cris-Ideas there is no reason to call me a fool, I don't see the flip in your 30 second video. I see Inventor doing what you told it to do.

 I want to see a correctly constrained assembly do the flip, you did not have that in the video.

I thank you for trying but it is not what I want to see, don't get upset because I don't see it and start insulting.

---

@jletcher if I understand your point of view correctly, just to clarify, you consider a "correctly constrained assembly" to mean the components participating in the mate axis-axis to be fully constrained, i.e. they have 0 DOF correct?

If I understand you than you are correct it will not flip if both components participating in the axis-axis mate are FULLY constrained.

[Cris-Ideas]

But this will not flip in any case because other constrains define the direction. It can only go of axis.

And in fact such assembly is over constrained in most cases.

Assembly will only flip when we consider axial mate to define direction, so to hold direction it had on applying it.

Than if this "axial not flipping theory is true" this assembly should not be possible to flip because it is held by this axial mate.

It is possible to prepare assembly in inventor that will show 0 DOFs  and it will be possible to flip.

So simple question: if I prepare assembly showing 0 DOFs for any of the components and than flip it with ordinary workflow will this be prove?

Cris

[jletcher]

@SteveMDennis

 Yes that is what I am saying thank you.

 Does that mean you also see these options were not needed to fix a problem but to give users another way to flip as they constrain?

 Now with that am I going to see a fix to make "udirected" default? Please, please please

 I would be just as happy if you want to private message me with a registry hack

[SteveMDennis]

---

@jletcher wrote:

@SteveMDennis

 Yes that is what I am saying thank you.

 Does that mean you also see these options were not needed to fix a problem but to give users another way to flip as they constrain?

 Now with that am I going to see a fix to make "udirected" default? Please, please please

 I would be just as happy if you want to private message me with a registry hack

---

@jletcher I know you will probably not agree but in my experience (20+ years) most of our users do not fully constrain like you do and rely on the DOF for dragging etc. (I know you said you don't use dragging).  For those users aligned and opposed allow the user to better define their constraints (if needed) in one shot. I cannot force them to fully constrain their models and when they don't the undirected can be ambiguous.

There is no registry hack today.

Trust me that this thread and this change away from undirected is top of many people's minds here at Autodesk.

I am not able to commit or even hint at such a change but we are actively talking about it please believe me.

After all this I do think I fully understand where you are coming from now and acknowledge that we overlooked the affect when doing this project. My apologies to you.

[Cris-Ideas]

---

@jletcher wrote:

@SteveMDennis

 Yes that is what I am saying thank you.

...

---

@SteveMDennis wrote:

If I understand you than you are correct it will not flip if both components participating in the axis-axis mate are FULLY constrained

So @jletcher if yo have tow components that are fully constrained  so have 0 DOFs than your axial mate is useless, this components can not move anyway.

Cris

[jletcher]

@SteveMDennisWrote:

@jletcher I know you will probably not agree but in my experience (20+ years) most of our users do not fully constrain like you do and rely on the DOF for dragging etc. (I know you said you don't use dragging).  For those users aligned and opposed allow the user to better define their constraints (if needed) in one shot. I cannot force them to fully constrain their models and when they don't the undirected can be ambiguous.

So you make me and my clients do more to please those that don't use Inventor correctly?

That's not right what good does it even do to inform Autosdesk of issues if you all are unwilling to fix issues to make things faster.

 I think you just took my last hopes Inventor will get back on track of caring for users.

 Thanks anyway.

[jletcher]

@Cris-IdeasWrote:

So @jletcher if yo have tow components that are fully constrained  so have 0 DOFs than your axial mate is useless, this components can not move anyway.

 Sorry I am not understanding.

If I have 0 DOFs and want to animate I use drive constraints.

If I want a hinge to open and close I use flexible.

All will use the udirected mate constraint and have 0 DOFs, but can still move.

[DRoam]

---

@jletcher wrote: 

 Now with that am I going to see a fix to make "udirected" default? Please, please please 

---

I'm with you in hoping this fix will be made.

---

@jletcher wrote:

 Does that mean you also see these options were not needed to fix a problem but to give users another way to flip as they constrain? 

---

This, however, is not true. See the image below, from a comment that I posted very early on on the original idea that sparked this enhancement:

Note that in this situation, all that's needed to fully constrain the elbow is:

1. A zero-offset axis constraint between the horizontal elbow leg and the ball valve, and
2. An opposing-direction mate between the horizontal elbow leg's hole and the ball valve's right hole

Before the new axis-to-axis mate enhancement, this would require two constraints (an axis-to-axis mate constraint, and an Angle constraint). Now, this only takes one constraint. So the enhancement doesn't just aid in flipping as we constrain; it also gives an additional tool in our arsenal to achieve a fully defined design with less constraints.

Now, one might argue that there's no reason to add this functionality to the Axis-to-axis mate when the Angle constraint does just fine. But my response to that would be, how would you like it if the opposed/aligned functionality were removed from Mate/Flush constraints, and every single face-to-face Mate required both a Mate constraint for offset and an Angle constraint for direction?

The ability to define both offset and direction in the same constraint not only eases the constraint process, it also facilitates better communication of design intent via the constraints themselves.

Hope that helps clarify the intent/purpose behind the new functionality... (at least, as I understand it).

I agree the implementation could use some refining, though.

[Curtis_Waguespack]

---

@jletcher wrote:

So you make me and my clients do more to please those that don't use Inventor correctly?

---

Good gravy! 

I believe somewhere in this train wreck of a thread, it was mentioned that the general idea would be to have a predictive solution, so that when you apply the 2nd constraint, Inventor would "know" not to apply the mate solution when that will cause a constraint conflict, and instead default to the flush solution.

In doing so it would aid those who use Inventor as you do and all of those "dirty sinners" that do things differently than you.  

[jletcher]

@DRoamWrote:

@jletcher wrote:

 Does that mean you also see these options were not needed to fix a problem but to give users another way to flip as they constrain? 

This, however, is not true. See the image below, from a comment that I posted very early on on the original idea that sparked this enhancement:

Sorry but I think you proved my statement.

The "were not needed to fix a problem" was a flip everyone was saying happens with undrirected @SteveMDennis just admitted there was not an issue with it when fully constrained as I stated.

You proved  the new options are just giving users another way to flip as they constrain.

So how was my statement wrong?

 But good example what it could be useful for if you don't use the piping side of Inventor.

Now, one might argue that there's no reason to add this functionality to the Axis-to-axis mate when the Angle constraint does just fine.

I would not argue that because you pointed out a good fact that this new option can help with less constrains if you do a layout like that.

 But again I never said remove it some feel it is needed, you pointed out a good in fact a very good place it could be used I just want the norm of 20 years to be the default.

Thanks for the post it shown me a reason for it if someone wishes to do layout like that.

[jletcher]

@Curtis_WaguespackWrote:

I believe somewhere in this train wreck of a thread, it was mentioned that the general idea would be to have a predictive solution, so that when you apply the 2nd constraint, Inventor would "know" not to apply the mate solution when that will cause a constraint conflict, and instead default to the flush solution.

 So I would still have that extra click to pick the oppose or align?  Still an extra step not needed by many. So you saved me no time I still have to move my mouse and click.

That is what I am trying to avoid. Solid Edge was bad for your fingers it had 10 clicks just to change the text size in a drawing. After many talks with them throughout the years they have finely started removing those extra clicks.

I just don't want Inventor turning into nothing but clicks, and sad to say that is what they are doing.

Thanks for the reply.

[Curtis_Waguespack]

---

@jletcher wrote:

I just don't want Inventor turning into nothing but clicks, and sad to say that is what they are doing.

---

First let me say that I never saw this issue being about a fully constrained vs under constrained assembly... that was how you chose to frame the conversation,and now you seem to want to frame it around extra clicks...and continue the bickering. 

I came to this thread trying to understand the issue that was being discussed, and maybe help clarify the particulars of it, and I feel I do understand it  at this point. To me this is a very worthwhile improvement, but the current implementation of it is off, as has been said over and over already.

So now that I understand the issue, I see no value in getting worked up over the possibilities of what the development team might come up with as a resolution here on this forum... that conversation belongs in the Inventor beta discussion forum. 

 Edited by
Discussion_Admin

[jletcher]

@Curtis_Waguespack

 I don't find what you wrote to be incorrect, I do come off wrong many times then not.

 I don't believe I am the only one that knows Inventor as I may come off.

 If it sounds like that I apologize to all.

It just seems no one cares to point out the issues with all the extra step it takes to do things now in Inventor, and the cost to people that use it.

I may come off hard because I have sold Inventor to many people claiming it was faster and more stable then other software. People trusted my word so I guess when I see Inventor adding clicks and making it harder and harder to do things and more bugs then improvements I take it personally.

 I guess I am going to have to learn not to do such, I guess with all the things I have pointed out and not 1 thing has ever been fixed got me to where I say Autodesk don't care, that is wrong to say as well.

 I try to start off right but when someone calls me out I get heated up and start going back to old habits. 

Like here many claimed these options were needed to fix a problem but finally admit there was never a problem.

So I want to apologize to all I may have offended and calling these options worthless as @DRoam pointed out a good reason for it if you layout piping the way he shown.

So apologies again to everyone and I will no longer point out any issues.

[Discussion_Admin]

Everyone,

A reminder

Please remember these are professional forums and as such deserve a professional decorum when participating.
the ground rules
Thanks
Discussion_Admin

[kelly.young]

Hello Inventor Forum Community!

Thanks to all who have participated in this thread and shared their opinions and experiences regarding this topic. We have created an internal ticket INVGEN-18286 documenting all of this discussion's highlights. Obviously there is no time table or promise, but it is being discussed internally as stated prior.

Everyone that has contributed is a well seasoned veteran and I can tell that you all are passionate about Inventor and the ability it gives to design and manufacture. As an employee and community member I appreciate all of your feedback, but also the help that you give to others.

At times we can all stray from the issue, but I personally don't want anyone to feel like they are being silenced, just take any constructive criticism supplied as a nudge in the right direction. We can all communicate professionally, as we do at our jobs everyday, but make sure that we are all on the same page of solving problems and finding ways to get work done. 

Continue focusing on documenting clearly, providing supporting material to recreate and show the issue, and do your best to identify where improvements can be made. Assumptions of intent and agenda won't get things fixed any quicker, just makes it harder to identify the issue. It is never our intention to throw wrenches, but provide an ever improving product that allows us to create. 

We are listening internally here to all comments given and I will continue to do my best to bring problematic things to the development team. Thank you for the detailed discussion and the desire to make Inventor the best it can be.

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

[3D4Play]

I have .02 for this one. I actually logged in just now for two reasons. One of them was to see what - if anything - has been posted about this new implementation of the mate constraint, because I am really frustrated by it too. I usually end up changing the constraint to undirected, wishing that was the default. Why? I think it's because of my workflow, which a) intuitively plans for a second constraint to manage the directional degree of freedom, and (Johnson's gonna love this one),  b) my workflows frequently utilizes component patterns. That "new and improved" directional mate tends to flip my large patterned assemblies around in a most unfavorable way. I didn't have 'that' specific problem before. OK, so I'm also open-minded about it. I think the other thing that frustrates me about the new implementation is that the arrow to indicate which direction is opposed or aligned isn't easy to see in a crowded assembly when one is working at at "close" range.  If one of my components is 50 mm long, being axis-mated to a tube that's 2 m long, I don't know which direction one of them is pointing without zooming out. But...think about it...by that time I've already selected both axes (or edges, which makes it a little more confusing because I'm selecting an edge not an axis per se), and the preview with tin can sound has already dinged me.

In this case, letting us choose default setting, or remembering the last setting, doesn't seem like too much to ask. In fact, I think it took exactly one revision cycle to make such a thing happen on the new hole command?

Now, I'm off to address my second reason for logging in tonight: Ranting about demoting frame assembly members.

[josh.nieman]

@SteveMDennis

Good morning!

I'm not about to wade into this hip-deep pig pen of a thread, but if you'd like some examples of workflow or desired behavior, I'd be more than willing to get in touch with you.
A colleague and I just returned from IMTS.  We'd spoken briefly about this very topic with one of the guys at the booth, Mark Sauro, a bit.

We use the HELL out of adaptive, and love it.  It's likely one of, if not the, favorite features in Inventor.  Ergo the majority of our hole constraints really need to be undirected.   

If you'd like to discuss it any further, I'm more the happy to discuss it or provide some video.  

Thanks !

[SteveMDennis]

@josh.nieman

I believe we have internally acknowledged that undirected has value for those who rely on it or better "make use of it".

Can it be dangerous, yes no matter what some say, it can be used incorrectly, hence our changes.

We will make a change here, not sure right now what the change is or when it will appear but this is never far from our discussions.

Thanks for reaching out.

[jletcher]

 @SteveMDennis

Should have been done already.

losing lots of time going back to change it to undirected.

Inventor has lost its edge.

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-ideas/stop-changing-the-user-interface/idi-p/8246174

[kristin.jakuszanek]

I understand the function of this new axis to axis mating, yet it is difficult to use for certain applications. For example, for a lot of jobs I work on in inventor I am placing cylinders in as pieces of duct. When I go to mate the axis, I don't care which direction the cylinder faces, and as a result am constantly having to choose the undirected option since it is flipping my cylinders that are constrained and facing the right way because it wants to match the axis. This forces me to put in an extra step, since after choosing undirected I must use the free rotate tool to have my part face the right way. Sometimes even doing this will cause the part to pop back into the wrong orientation. 

I understand wanting people to use your new features, but why not include an option to allow user to determine how they want their axis to mate, instead of forcing everyone who doesn't care for this option a massive headache in trying to work around this funky opposed axis mating.