Selecting parts through a transparent part (in an assembly)

[ToddPig]

In a Solidworks assembly, when you make part transparent, you can select through the transparent part, and move (drag) parts that are not fully constrained.  Does Inventor have the ability to do this?

Thanks in advance,

Todd

[SteveMDennis]

---

@mcgyvr wrote:

---

@SteveMDennis wrote:

@mcgyvr

I guess if I had read that first sentence as the be all end all of the request I would have recommended we not accept it at all since we HAD it already with the Enabled functionality.  

---

@SteveMDennis

But you don't have it with Enabled.... You don't have it with transparent either..

THATS the reason for this post..

---

OK I guess you need to be more specific... I have read here that Transparent in SWx is see through to our human eyes and you can pick through them. Do I have that right?

If so how is this different than Enabled?

Sorry for being obtuse but I guess I don't get it. While we do have access to SWx I am not an expert by any means.

[ToddPig]

Very weird comment. If " Inventor Enabled equals SWx Transparent", then this post would not have been started.
There are more similarities between Solidwork and Inventor than differences. What gets confusing is when the same word, does something different. The way the "transparent" feature works in Solidworks is much more user friendly than in Inventor.

[SteveMDennis]

@ToddPig wrote:

Very weird comment. If " Inventor Enabled equals SWx Transparent", then this post would not have been started.
There are more similarities between Solidwork and Inventor than differences. What gets confusing is when the same word, does something different. The way the "transparent" feature works in Solidworks is much more user friendly than in Inventor.

@ToddPig

 Sorry if that put you off a bit... I'm a literal person, I tend to not get hung up on language but focus on functionality. My read was that they are functionally identical or very similar (see through and non pickable).  @mcgyvr and you are now telling me I have it wrong.

Exactly how are they that much different other than name please.

[mcgyvr]

Steve,

Im away from my computer right now but when a part is "Unchecked for enabled" can I measure or constrain to it?

I don't believe so and thats a big difference.. 

Seems like transparent in Swx is like transparent in Inventor BUT the transparent part is "getting in the way more" than in swx and preventing easy movement of parts behind it and other little nuances like that..

Lets just combine enabled and transparent nuances and call it "transparently enabled" 

Its transparent.. its not in the way but still accessible.. I can measure/constrain to it.. I can move parts behind it.. I can still select it though if needed and uncheck transparently enabled.. It slices.. It dices.. It even juliennes..  ok. not the last 3 parts.. 

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Guys,

I just play around with Inventor and SWX and I think I know the subtle difference now. When a user wants to select an object, he has to click somewhere regardless. The major difference here is in the way the program handles cursor hovering, actually not about selection itself. SWX applies a more conservative approach. When cursor hovers over any selectable geometry (face or edge), nothing really happens. User has to click it in order to select it.

Inventor on the other hand applies a more aggressive approach. When the cursor hovers over any selectable geometry (face or edge), the face or edge will highlight. This is called pre-highlighting. For face or edge, pre-highlighting is always enabled. For component, pre-highlighting can be controlled in Tools -> Application Options -> Color. As cursor hovers over geometry or components, pre-highlighting can flash, annoying some people. Some users do like this approach though.

Regarding Transparent vs Un-enabled in Inventor, they appear the same visually but they differ functionally. Transparent only changes the appearance of a component. The geometry is still the same. It just can be seen through. All the assembly level workflows remain the same for transparent components. Selection and pre-highlighting are the same. This is more viewing and documenting purpose.

Un-enabled is a functionally different option on the other hand. It is like taking the components out of context. Un-enabled components can be seen through but they cannot be selected at all. This is particularly handy when you want to work on a part or a group of components in a large assembly. You still get the sense of the nearby components but they don't get in the way. To certain degree, Un-enabled is a temporary state during the design phase. Eventually you want to enable the components.

In terms of improvement, I would say Inventor should allow user to disable pre-highlighting on geometry (face and edge), which could create a more conservative selection behavior.

Many thanks!

[smokes2998]

Angry elf.

I have using Inventor 2010 2013 2014 2016 for a lot of complex design and models and  I still think inventor vastly inferior to SW 2015 and SE st3 st8. Inventor doesn't understand the need of engineers who design from scratch or do things on the fly.

For example the derive tool needs to work from a top down approach which it doesn't do, You have to open a new part open derive tool find the part you want to derive then save it. this is a ballache when you have  lots of directories to go through to find the **** part or assembly in a project file.

SW you click save as and you can select the drop down to save to assembly to part or a surface or to step file for example.

With inventor you have to use the derive tool as you cannot, configure parts features like SW, being able to do a configurations on a part is useful for managing a machined cast part in a drawing so you can have cast drawing with a different part number and a machined drawing with a different part number linked to the same model.

Transparency tool discussed is not just about making a part look transparent it is about be able to select parts or assemblies or feature and sketches, through quagmire of other parts and assembles to edit the design and being able to see design changes on the fly you cannot really do that efficiently with inventor no matter what you do

[Anonymous]

Trust me, as Bill Clinton says "I feel your pain", but from what I see in the examples you specify, a lot of the pain may very well be from the process you take. No saying it's you but a lot of people that come from other software tend to, by human nature, force the software they are on to act just like the one they are used to using...if that makes sense. Again, that may or may not be the case here.

But I really, really have to disagree with the claim of "Inventor doesn't understand the need of engineers who design from scratch or do things on the fly." Sorry, but I find that statement to be extremely incorrect. If anything it's the complete opposite of what you state. First and foremost, unlike SW, Inventor doesn't dictate you workflow. You can design in Inventor in any approach you care to. Top-down, bottom-up, middle-out. A vast majority of what I've done in Inventor has been basically "on the fly" and never had much of an issue in the process. Maybe we simply approach things differently? Have you tried using Fusion or its functions in Inventor? How about using Relax mode, do you use the Design Generator tools, the analysis tools, Simulation tools, etc.? There's numerous ways/commands in Inventor to do what I refer to as "what-ifs". And this is not meant as any kind of insult and frankly I don't know why people tend to take it as one, but have you had formal training in Inventor? And by "Formal" I mean by Adesk or one of their better resellers? And by better, I mean there are resellers out there that frankly don't know their arse from the elbow when it comes to training. I've had to "cleanup" their training messes on numerous occasions. I'd suggest someone like Imaginit or Ketiv.

For example, the derived part issue you pointed out, the "ballache" seems to be more the process that you have your files scattered all over the place. I'll have to assume you don't use Vault. Even if you do, why are your files all over the place? Would it help any if you had the part needed already open? I find this issue along the lines of when I have one of my guys detailing a part/assy and they have to navigate to such part when they go to create that first view. Once I informed them that if the file is open in Inventor, the file reference in the view command will default to it or if multiple files are open, you simply select the one you want in the pull down. None of them knew such and guess what? All that complaining has gone away now.

As far as the Transparency tool in Inventor, I have to agree with whoever said they feel it's done correctly in Inventor, for the simple fact that in real word, if a part is transparent, it's still there, you can't simply reach thru it and grab the item behind it. The next time you're walking down the street in front of a store and try to grab the display items...can't do it. Thus in Inventor, in order to do such, you use the "enable/un-enable" command. To me that just makes sense. There are a number of approaches to be able to work with parts that are buried in an assembly in Inventor, I've listed a few of them previously, I just don't see what the issue is. I've had no problem doing such in assemblies of engines to aircraft and I can't recall the times I've actually used the "enable" command to do such. I honestly do not see what the fuss is about other than people trying to force Inventor to be more like SW.

Again, I don't want to get into a peeing match here because just as you can posts numerous examples of how Inventor can't do something, or does it wrong in your opinion, I can do the very same thing for SW. And as far as proving how Inventor is leading the pack, well I can very easily do that by simply using SW's own published info as proof. But again, this is not the place. My main contention is, Inventor should improve issues it needs to improve (same with SW and any other cad package out there), but to claim it needs to be just like its competitor? No, sorry, again, that's like demanding Ford change their trucks to be just like Chevy.

[SteveMDennis]

OK all,

 Johnson showed me SWx this morning and I understand @mcgyvr point a bit better.  What I think SWx is doing is if a part is transparent and your pick point is over a edge/face of something behind it you get that behind thing. If you pick in space (i.e. still over the transparent face but not over anything "behind it" you get the transparent part). 

I actually could do that in Inventor by putting transparent parts at the back of our selection list (the list you get when you use select other), that way if there is nothing else in the list that is what you get but otherwise you get the things behind it first.

An interesting problem here (which I assume SWx has) is what if you want to constrain/Mate to an edge of the transparent part and there is an edge of a behind part RIGHT under it in 3d space? Which do you get?  You would have to rotate to get the transparent edge?

Having said that, our UX guys will make that decision. Personally I'm with @Anonymous I think we got it like real world, transparent means I can see through it nothing else. But I do concede people coming from SWx will have issue with it.

So in the end I am educated a bit more on this topic, you guys now have the history of our process here and I will speak to our UX guys about thinking on this more.

[ToddPig]

Can you please define "peeing match" for me?

[mcgyvr]

@SteveMDennis

I agree.. transparent is transparent.. Its a well defined word with a clear (pun intended) meaning.. 

And yes I was going to suggest that a simple "solution" might just be to change the code so that if a part is transparent its "moved to the back" or bottom of the list as far as the "Optimized selection" set goes.. 

To me the "intent" of this request/need is to make it transparent so that I can easily see through it.. BUT 100% interact with it (measure/constrain/move parts behind it)

It being transparent is only one part of the desired functionality..  

What about "See Through" for the function name? To me that implies a bit (be it a small bit) more than transparent.. 

I really do like "See Through".. 

And trust me.. I do NOT want to just make Inventor just like Solidworks.. BUT this is one time where the way that I'm reading that it works there has a few key advantages that Inventor users like myself would benefit from...  

[mcgyvr]

---

@ToddPig wrote:
Can you please define "peeing match" for me?

---

Pissing Contest..

a contest or rivalry in which the main concern of the parties involved is the conspicuous demonstration of superiority.

[Anonymous]

"peeing match" cuz the actual term of "pissing match" will be edited.

***edit: Holy crappers... they block "****" but not "pissing"....lol***

Just as "****-for-tat"

In other words, SW does it like this therefore it's better...yeah but Inventor does it like this, therefore it's better...etc.

There are a ton of those types of posts here and I didn't want this one to be just another high-jacked one of those.

[mcgyvr]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

In other words, SW does it like this therefore it's better...yeah but Inventor does it like this, therefore it's better...etc.

There are a ton of those types of posts here and I didn't want this one to be just another high-jacked one of those.

---

Welcome to the world.. We all have opinions..

I originally thought Inventors "transparent" was done correctly.. And for what it does its good..

But upon further thought I can see benefits to the way Swx does it vs Inventor and now feel that adapting those Swx nuances that "transparent" (See Through) would be more useful than it is now..  Enabled can go the way of the dodo bird for all I care.. (Until I can really see the benefits to it.. but I really can't at this time)

I'm glad that I'm not the one with the final word at Autodesk.. You get opinions from many and must make a tough call to decide whats the "best" direction to move forward with knowing darn well that you will make some upset but others happy.. Thats a very difficult thing to do over and over again.. 

[SteveMDennis]

---

@mcgyvr wrote:

---

 

I'm glad that I'm not the one with the final word at Autodesk.. You get opinions from many and must make a tough call to decide whats the "best" direction to move forward with knowing darn well that you will make some upset but others happy.. Thats a very difficult thing to do over and over again.. 

---

Thanks for that paragraph @mcgyvr! it really is tough, my team has to deal with this all the time with almost every one of our projects and try to come up with the best solution for all 300,000+ Inventor users...  maybe we missed a detail here but we are trying!

[Anonymous]

---

@SteveMDennis wrote:

---

Thanks for that paragraph @mcgyvr! it really is tough, my team has to deal with this all the time with almost every one of our projects and try to come up with the best solution for all 300,000+ Inventor users...  maybe we missed a detail here but we are trying!

---

Oh Paaaahhhleeeeezzzze!!! You Adesk guys get 6 weeks off each year, it's a cake job and we know it....

But seriously Steven, I know where you're coming from, being a reseller (or I was before this) was no stroll in the park either.

[SteveMDennis]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Oh Paaaahhhleeeeezzzze!!! You Adesk guys get 6 weeks off each year, it's a cake job and we know it....

---

I know that was in jest but can't let it go... 🙂 For the record we absolutely do NOT get 6 weeks off a year!

The sabbatical is 6 weeks every 4 years!! I'm almost to my next one when I hit 20 years next April!

We actually only get 2 weeks vacation every year no matter how long you've worked here! 🙂

[mcgyvr]

---

@SteveMDennis wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Oh Paaaahhhleeeeezzzze!!! You Adesk guys get 6 weeks off each year, it's a cake job and we know it....

---

I know that was in jest but can't let it go... 🙂 For the record we absolutely do NOT get 6 weeks off a year!

The sabbatical is 6 weeks every 4 years!! I'm almost to my next one when I hit 20 years next April!

We actually only get 2 weeks vacation every year no matter how long you've worked here! 🙂

---

They just changed the "policy" here and I finally get 6 weeks each year... (I've been here 20 years too)

I was locked at the max 4 weeks for the past 10 years but thank you HR lady for winning the battle for more this year.. 

But now I'm maxed at 6 weeks.. Oh well.. 

And yes.. Thanks Steve for hanging in there..

I really think a slight change to transparent and we would have very useful tool.. 

I've been sitting here modeling and "pretending" it was working as discussed and I would really benefit from that additional "tweak" of dropping the transparent to the bottom of the selection list when others are present

[DRoam]

My two cents... Steven and the UX guys got it perfect as is. SolidWorks got it wrong.

As Steven said, "Transparent" means I can see through it, that's all. Selection should work just as always.

"Non-Enabled" means it still exists, it's still in the assembly, and I can still see it, but I can't select it. Makes perfect sense. And it just happens to become transparent as a bonus to help you select components behind it which is likely your motivation for "disabling" it in the first place. You can (or should be able to) adjust the transparency of Enable or turn it off altogether, but right now it's tied to Transparency. But this is a separate issue and has been addressed here.

The only thing that's missing..... was stated in the VERY first post of this thread (but no one's discussed it since)!!

---

@ToddPig wrote:
In a Solidworks assembly, when you make part transparent, you can select through the transparent part, and move (drag) parts that are not fully constrained.

---

That's all we're really missing here.

SolidWorks does it wrong by allowing you to just pick willy-nilly through a transparent part like it's not there. What if you wanted to pick the transparent part?

However, while Inventor does it right by only allowing you to select the behind-part via a Select Other operation.... you then cannot drag the part!

That's all that's really missing here: We cannot use Select Other to pick a behind-part, and then drag (by clicking somewhere in space) to drag the part (this has been brought up before here).

The debate of whether you should be able to select through a transparent part is totally up to preference. But the drag issue is a straight-up limitation, and I really hope it might be considered as part of the solution to this topic.

[mcgyvr]

I saw a neat idea on the ideastation today (but it was one large multi-idea post so I didn't vote for it because some of the other content wasn't useful or already part of Inventor)..

But it was to turn a part transparent "automatically" after a constrain selection is made to it so you can pick other parts behind it,etc..

Thats a great idea IMO..

Have that transparency happen automatically to a part as soon as its the first constraint selection. 

[Curtis_Waguespack]

---

@mcgyvr wrote:

But it was to turn a part transparent "automatically" after a constrain selection is made to it so you can pick other parts behind it,etc..

---

Hi mcgyvr,

Now hold your dag gum horses there!

To implement that idea wouldn't you automatically make it not enabled after the constraint? Rather than transparent.

From above: "Transparent" means I can see through it, that's all. Selection should work just as always.

defining this for myself here:

Autodesk Transparent = can't select through transparent component

Solidworks Transparent = can select through transparent component

I'm still struggling to shift my mind here.  It still feels like Autodesk's "Transparent" is a bit like me saying:

"Hey I created a new AA battery, yeah I know there's already a AA battery in the industry, but mine is shorter."

"Oh, you were expecting to be able to use my new AA to power your TV remote? Well, sure you can, you just need this adapter."

"What do you mean that it's not really a AA battery then. It says AA right there on the package."

I hope this helps.
Best of luck to you in all of your Inventor pursuits,
Curtis
http://inventortrenches.blogspot.com