Make Inventor BOM more user friendly -similar to SolidWorks

Make Inventor BOM more user friendly -similar to SolidWorks

Anonymous
Not applicable
1,075 Views
6 Replies
Message 1 of 7

Make Inventor BOM more user friendly -similar to SolidWorks

Anonymous
Not applicable

Why is it that everything about Inventor is discussed in terms of "work arounds"?  The typical user should not have to use work arounds to make things happen in inventor.  My largest complaint about Inventor is the BOM which is extremely lacking.

 

In Solidworks the BOM is Excel based and so if you know Excel halfway decently -you should be able to make the BOM "dance" or do the MJ moonwalk.

 

Inventor just isn't at that level and far away from it in actuality.  In attempting to create a custom BOM for drawings for my current employer -I found that it is nearly impossible to imbed multiple automatic calculations in the BOM such as cut length equating to a part cost by price per inch.  I was able to do this -but only by a "work around".

 

But even though I was able to accomplish this -the next step would be to add a line at the bottom of the BOM that totals all extended totals in the vertical column.   I was unable to figure out how to accomplish this -and when searching online for the solution -the constant reply seems to include the words "work around" or writing codes or macros.

 

We are now in 2021 and I would like to know why simple functions like this cannot be added to Inventor.  I would like to know why the Inventor BOM is not Excel based as with SolidWorks.

0 Likes
1,076 Views
6 Replies
Replies (6)
Message 2 of 7

Frederick_Law
Mentor
Mentor

No way.

I hated SW BOM and it doesn't work with weldments.

 

There are reason we call SolidWorksAround, SolidDoesn'tWorks, SolidSometimeWork and SolidCrash in SolidWorks forum.

🤣

 

Learn how to use IV BOM.

I'll let other do the teaching.

Message 3 of 7

Anonymous
Not applicable

I totally disagree.  It is more like SolidWorks and InventorDoesn't.

 

See a typical remark here:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/AutodeskInventor/comments/dw1pv7/adding_a_total_to_the_bottom_of_bom/

0 Likes
Message 4 of 7

mcgyvr
Consultant
Consultant

Yes there is certainly room for improvement in Inventor (and Solidworks I'm sure).. While mostly similar each seems to have its own set of advantages and disadvantages. .. Specifics of why Autodesk chose to do something would need to come from them.. Most of us are just Inventor users like yourself.. peer to peer forum mostly..

 

Stuff like that certainly can be added but typically things are driven by money/demand.. Often times functions like that are something carried out in a companies ERP system or similar.  Inventor while it has some functions really doesn't have much for costing.. 



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventor 2023 - Dell Precision 5570

Did you find this reply helpful ? If so please use the Accept Solution button below.
Maybe buy me a beer through Venmo @mcgyvr1269
0 Likes
Message 5 of 7

jtylerbc
Mentor
Mentor

There are some limitations in what the BOM in Inventor can do, for sure.  I'm not (and have never been) a Solidworks user, so I'm not going to quibble over which which program can beat up the other.  I'm just going to address how you can solve at least part of your issues in Inventor.

 

Some of what you are asking for, at least in my opinion, is better done in the parts than the BOM table anyway, even if Inventor had the capability.  For example:

 


@Anonymous wrote:

I found that it is nearly impossible to imbed multiple automatic calculations in the BOM such as cut length equating to a part cost by price per inch. 


 

If you calculate the value in the part, you only have to set that up once, no matter how many times the part gets used in different assemblies.  And it's value is available even if you are only looking at the part (not the assembly).

 

The way I would typically do this is to have a User Parameter, named something like "CostPerInch", and the parameter called CutLength (might be a Model Parameter, might be a Reference Parameter, depending on how it was determined).  

 

I would then write some extremely simple iLogic code that multiplies the two together and assigns that value to the "Estimated Cost" property.  It takes only two lines of code to do this, and I'm not what anyone would consider a great programmer.  (Actually, it could probably be one line of code, but I'm going to show it the way it actually is written in some of my files.)

 

TotalCost = CostperInch * Cutlength
iProperties.Value("Project", "Estimated Cost") = TotalCost

 

And you're probably thinking "Writing code every time would be a lot of work!"  And you'd be right.  But that wouldn't be the preferred way to handle something like this anyway.  Instead, you would write the code once, then build it into a template file.  At that point, you have not only done the cost calculation for that part.  Instead, you have simultaneously done the cost calculation for every part of that type that will ever be made in the future.  All you have to do is update the CostPerInch parameter as required, and then your parts would calculate their own costs without any further action from you.

 

Inventor is not explicitly built for costing, and it shows.  Many of its users work for companies that have MRP or ERP systems for that sort of task, which is probably why they didn't bother building it into Inventor.  I am currently at a smaller company that doesn't have that type of software.  So instead, when I'm doing a cost estimate, I tend to use Inventor's BOM to get my initial list of parts and their costs, then export it to Excel to total everything up.  But this is not something I have to do often, and I understand that this method might be a pain for someone who needs it more frequently.

 

Switching to a different system than what you have used for years is not an easy thing to do.  Some of what you want will be beyond Inventor's current capabilities.  Some of it is only beyond your current knowledge about how to use Inventor.  It takes time to get back up to speed after switching to a different software.  But the way SolidWorks did things, whether inherently better or not, doesn't really matter, because it's not the program you are using now.  And I would venture a guess that you probably did things in SolidWorks regularly that a newer user would find clunky and cumbersome, and might even refer to as a "workaround".  They simply seemed normal to you through familiarity, which you don't have built up in Inventor yet. 

 

If you want to solve some of your problems in Inventor, there are plenty of people here that will help.  Post your questions and we'll see what we can come up with.  We won't be able to solve everything, but even in those cases, at least you'll know there isn't a good solution.

 

 

 

 

0 Likes
Message 6 of 7

Anonymous
Not applicable

I did actually embed the costing into cut length parts and it may have been simpler than your suggested method.  I made a parameter named cost and in those parts where there is a cut length -I set the length parameter in the parameter manager to "export parameter" and set the cost as: "LENGTH * 0.416 ul" and so it is all calculated as inches (since there is no $ unit).

 

Then in the BOM I tell the column cells to not show the (") unit of measure and round the resultant number to .xx.  This way it looks like a cost figure but is actually an inch figure without the units showing.  The .416 is the cost per inch but it is still calculated as inches and not shown as such.  How I fool the viewer into thinking they are looking at a cost figure is through the column title.  I called it Cost in $$.  Should not have to do that.  BOM should allow the column number format to be calculated and shown as $XX.XX.  Then the column could just show "ITEM COST" (or other) and the viewer will know it is money when they see the $ identifier.

 

Also - calculations based on .XXX UL * .XXX UL do not always calculate to the exact penny correctly as it would if the column were configured as $$ rather than UL.

 

Why is there no $ unit?  Don't most BOMs use some sort of $ figure?  In SW since it is Excel based -you can set the numerical value of a column of cells to "$" and then that value is calculated as "$" and can be displayed as $XX.XX instead of trying to force it to look like money.  That is what I call "forcing a value" in a document and also a "work around"  Work arounds and forcing values should NEVER be part of a CAD document.

 

When I was in charge of the CAD and drawings for a large company -I made it company "Law" so to speak -that no forced values were to ever be used.  If you force a value in a drawing that is driven by parameters -then a person following behind you will not know the value is forced (such as a forced dimension in an AutoCAD 2D drawing).

 

This is a very huge NO-NO!   The correct way to fix a dimension in a drawing is to make the drawn item correct (unless it cannot be fit on the drawing)  and if the view is a broken view then it is largely understood that this length dimension is likely a forced dimension.

 

So this principal should also apply to BOMs.  If people get in the habit of forcing things in drawings or BOMs -then you exponentially increase your chances for errors.  And errors can cost money.

 

So I stick to my guns that if Autodesk wants Inventor to compete with other 3D platforms -then should follow suit in certain areas.   BOMs should always be Excel based (or similar functionality).

0 Likes
Message 7 of 7

jtylerbc
Mentor
Mentor

@Anonymous wrote:

I did actually embed the costing into cut length parts and it may have been simpler than your suggested method.  I made a parameter named cost and in those parts where there is a cut length -I set the length parameter in the parameter manager to "export parameter" and set the cost as: "LENGTH * 0.416 ul" and so it is all calculated as inches (since there is no $ unit).

 

Then in the BOM I tell the column cells to not show the (") unit of measure and round the resultant number to .xx.  This way it looks like a cost figure but is actually an inch figure without the units showing.  The .416 is the cost per inch but it is still calculated as inches and not shown as such.  How I fool the viewer into thinking they are looking at a cost figure is through the column title.  I called it Cost in $$.  Should not have to do that.  BOM should allow the column number format to be calculated and shown as $XX.XX.  Then the column could just show "ITEM COST" (or other) and the viewer will know it is money when they see the $ identifier.

 


 

Before I developed this method for some length-based costs, we had already been using the built-in "Estimated Cost" iProperty field for storing costs of purchased parts.  I wanted my length-based method to use that same property, and the code was the only way I found to do that.

 

It has the side effect of solving the $ problem.  Since the "Estimated Cost" property is hard-coded with the $, it gets added automatically to whatever value my code outputs.  While setting it up, I ran into the same problem you did with the lack of currency units in parameters.  I came to the same conclusion you did of making the "Cost/Length" parameter unitless.  The units of the resulting cost got taken care of by the property's built-in behavior, but I couldn't make the CostPerInch property show the right units.

0 Likes