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

[ToddPig]

If Solidworks does it "wrong", then I hope Inventor does it "wrong" as well.  

[mcgyvr]

---

@Curtis_Waguespack wrote:

---

@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!

---

Ha.. Ha.. You caught me..

Quite frankly I forgot about the discussion and the little quirks between the two when I wrote that..

(looks like we both got confused as you edited your post too..)

Ok.. yes.. "dis-enabled" so it does NOT get in the way of selecting features behind it.. 

I want to select an axis or whatever and it goes visually transparent but its not able to be selected from.. 

[Curtis_Waguespack]

---

@mcgyvr wrote:

---

(looks like we both got confused as you edited your post too..)

---

 I think I got it sorted now ( I re-edited my post) 

as ToddPig, just said, I don't really care which company got it "right", it's just a shame they don't function the same.

In the long run, I'm sure it won't be that big of a deal, but it would be nice if the development team would look extra close at Solidworks when implementing any of the "make it like Solidworks" idea forum ideas.

[mcgyvr]

---

@Curtis_Waguespack wrote:

---

@mcgyvr wrote:

---

(looks like we both got confused as you edited your post too..)

---

 I think I got is sorted now ( I re-edited my post) 

as ToddPig, just said, I don't really care which company got it "right", it's just a shame they don't function the same.

---

I certainly don't expect 2 programs from 2 different companies to ever function the same..

They can happily function differently IMO.. process wise..

But..... Is the choice that was made in Inventors functionality a more useful one..?  "The world may never know".. 

[Curtis_Waguespack]

---

mcgyvr wrote:

I certainly don't expect 2 programs from 2 different companies to ever function the same..

They can happily function differently IMO.. process wise..

But..... Is the choice that was made in Inventors functionality a more useful one..?  "The world may never know".. 

---

I don't really either,  but remember, the reason Autodesk implemented Transparent was because Solidworks users were asking for it. When there are tools that exist in the one product, and the other endeavors to replicate those tools, and even use the same name, then I think it benefits the second product to either make the tool the same, or better, but not lesser in capability or require any perceived extra clicks.

In this case had Autodesk implemented the Transparent tool to make a component transparent and not-enabled when the tool is used, then Inventor and Solidworks would have worked the same (if I'm not still confused), but the Inventor user would have been able to Enable the component as well.

So Inventor's Transparent along with Enable would have offered something more. As implemented though it will be perceived to do less.

Again, if future "make it like Solidworks" requests were looked a bit more closely in this regard maybe it would help.

[DRoam]

---

@mcgyvr wrote:

I saw a neat idea on the ideastation ... to turn a part transparent "automatically" after a constrain selection is made to it so you can pick other parts behind it,etc..

---

But what if I want to constrain an obstructed part to something OTHER than the part that's blocking it? We need a way to control visibility/selectability (i.e. transparency/enabled) WHILE in the constraint command. It's so annoying having to cancel out of the Constraint command to toggle visibility/transparency/enabled.

Regarding the whole "transparent parts should/shouldn't be selectable" debate.... I don't think providing the wrong experience just because SolidWorks did it is the right answer, here. And yes, it is wrong. When have you ever, in your real-life experience, encountered a material that was transparent AND untouchable? Those don't mean the same thing, even if SolidWorks says they do.

Maybe "Ghost" would be a better word. So we have "Transparent" which just affects.......... transparency. And we have "Ghost" which makes it untouchable and, for convenience, makes it transparent if desired.

But then.... why not just call it "Enabled/Disabled". It's all semantics. The fact is there are two things going on here: Translucency and Selectability. SolidWorks got it wrong and lumped both of those into its "Transparent" functionality. Too bad for them. Now SolidWorks users are confused and frustrated because they became accustomed to an improperly labeled functionality.

Inventor did this one right, and a few years down the road we'll all look at SolidWorks and think, "Why did they lump these two functionalities into one? It's so nice that Inventor separated them so I can control them separately as fits my workflow!"

But whatever... I don't care what you call it. You can call it whatever you want. Just give me...

1. Separate control over translucency and selectability.
2. The ability to control those while in the Constraint command.
3. The ability to drag a selected component by dragging in empty space.

[Curtis_Waguespack]

---

DRoam wrote:

But whatever... I don't care what you call it. You can call it whatever you want.

---

ahhh, there's the thing. If you used a tool called "Transparent" or "Ghost" in a similar product, and then requested the same tool in Inventor, you would care.

[Curtis_Waguespack]

---

DRoam wrote:

 When have you ever, in your real-life experience, encountered a material that was transparent AND untouchable?

---

It's a virtual model, I'm sure we can come up with a list of things that we can do in Inventor that we can not do in real life.

But to answer your question, some of those lacy garments that the Victoria Secret models wear are transparent and I'm not allowed to touch, according to my wife.

[mcgyvr]

---

@Curtis_Waguespack wrote:

Again, if future "make it like Solidworks" requests were looked a bit more closely in this regard maybe it would help.

---

Bingo.. This was a clear make it Solidworks and the target which should have been pretty clear was missed.. 

[DRoam]

@Curtis_Waguespack, Hahaha ok, ok, I hear you.

And I knew someone would bring that up, I almost changed my posted to say "when has the definition of transparency ever included anything to do with untouchable", but I hoped no one would notice 😛

Here is the truth of the matter:

• Most of the time, when I'm making something Transparent, I'm doing so for visual's sake: to see components inside of it or components it's obstructing. I still want to be able to select that component, constrain to it, measure on it, etc., all the while leaving it Transparent.

• Most of the time, when I want to make a component un-selectable (i.e. disabled), I'm doing so for the immediate need of the current task: to select an object behind it or a face on an object behind it for a constraint/measurement. I don't need the obstructing component to stay un-selectable, I just need it briefly out of the way so I can get to something behind it and complete the current task.

My question is, are those two statements true for you as well, @Curtis_Waguespack, @mcgyvr, @ToddPig, and others?

If so, then maybe what would be most useful is a quick command for making components un-selectable WHILE in a command. Borrowing from Autodesk CFD, if anyone has used that, I might click the MMB (middle mouse button) on a pre-highlighted component to "ghost" it and make it un-selectable and translucent (maybe even with a distinctive tint so it's obvious it's ghosted and not transparent). Then I would do whatever I need to with the obstructed component. Then maybe I could hold "Shift" and ghosted components would become pre-highlight-able and I could click MMB on the ones I want to un-ghost. Or just press "Shift+MMB" in empty space to restore all ghosted components.

I just think that having a quick in-command way to select "through" obstructions would be more handy than making those obstructions permanently un-selectable (like Enabled does) or randomly unselectable (like SolidWorks' "Transparent" does).

This is one of those things where we see a problem and all we can see is the problem, like sticking our hand in front of our face and saying "IT'S HUGE!". We've all been thinking about the obstruction here and not the target. The component you want to select THROUGH isn't the issue, the component you want to GET TO is the issue, and the obstruction is just in the way. Why are we applying a setting (SolidWorks Transparent or Inventor Enable) to the obstruction at all?? Wouldn't it make much more sense to just "push" it out of the way to get at what we're really concerned with and get on with it?

If people are dead-set on Transparent parts being "ghosted" where you can select through them, then that should be an Application Option (maybe even defaulted to "on" to make SolidWorks converts comfortable). But I would not be in favor of that, just willing to concede it even though I think it's worse for Inventor long-term.

To me it makes much more sense to have "transparent" for affecting visuals (but still being able to select the transparent part), "ghosting" for quickly getting through obstructions, and "enabled" for permanently ghosting a component that you want out of the way for a while.

[smokes2998]

Droam have actually used the Sw make transparent tool ? If not please do then you will understand what we are asking for.

[DRoam]

I have and I do  And I do not like what SolidWorks does, it's inconsistent and doesn't make sense.

The part is Transparent but it IS still visible... and yet I can only "touch" it in specific situations. When doing a normal selection, using the Measure tool, or creating a Mate, I can only select a face/edge on the transparent part if there are no other parts behind it. Otherwise, the behind-part will be selected.

Not desirable functionality by any means in my opinion. Transparency should mean just that--I can see through it. Nothing else. Let me decide when a part is selectable or not, thank you. 

[Mark_Wigan]

disappointed as well,

 i just read that thread and I think that maybe we lost our way a little bit... more so because to me at least, while we were introducing the new feature of 'transparent' (whether successfully or not) we somehow thought we had to change/ reduce the functionality of the 'enable / disable' operation.

[Anonymous]

---

@ToddPig wrote:
In Solidworks, if you make a part transparent, you select parts behind it. If you rotate your assembly in a manner that there is nothing behind the transparent part then you have the option to make to turn the transparency off. All of this is done via right-click. If a part is transparent, you can still it's edges (for measurements, and with a little practice you can select it's surfaces (for more than measurements)

---

Todd,

In Solidworks holding the shift key allows selection of transparent faces in any context. Rotating the assembly is not even necessary! 

In my opinion this is superior functionality to Inventor. SW has combined both 'Disable' and 'Transparent' landscapes into one elegant feature. 

[Anonymous]

The beautiful thing about SolidWorks is that when a part is transparent in an assembly and its buried deep with other parts behind it, all you have to do is a shift+select and you'll be able to select it or measure it as if it were solid.  The day I learned that, was magical. Please Inventor, Let go of your ego and give people the options they deserve. What do you care, they're still buying your product? Are these the hills you want to die on?

[lena.talkhina]

Hello @ToddPig   !

Great to see you here on Inventor Forum.

Did you find a solution?
If yes, please click on the "Accept as Solution" button as then also other community users can easily find and benefit from the information.
If not please don't hesitate to give an update here in your topic so all members know what ́s the progression on your question is and what might be helpful to achieve what you ́re looking for. 🙂

[bkasperHX6DY]

As an Ex-Solidworks user I got confused by this at first as well. The real question is, HOW DO YOU REENABLE A PART AFTER YOU HAVE DISABLED IT? Is the only way to reenable a part from the model tree? Is there no quick way to select a part that has been disable like using Shift+click in Solidworks. Also in Solidworks, transparent parts are still easily selectable with Shift+click and if there is nothing behind the transparent part then it is selected. The whole point is to select something behind a part, but if there is nothing behind it, then obviously I want to select the transparent part.

RANT:

This crap bothers me to no end. Why can't you steal all the good Solidworks features like the transparency and the orbit functionality, or the parallel mate, or the slot mate, or copy with mates, and a vault that autoupdates out of date parts, ( I have never never never wanted to use old parts! and I never never never want to save the old out of date stuff, why can't this be a setting.), and a component pattern that doesn't need to have the first instance of the  fastener mated to the exact right hole in order to work, and just make a superior software instead of a software that's different than Solidworks. Inventor does so many things right. Like the tabs at the bottom of the screen to change between parts and drawings, distinctions between view reps and positional reps, and assembly and a modeling model tree.