cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Additive Assembly Features (Extrude‑Add at Assembly Level) for True Top‑Down Design

Additive Assembly Features (Extrude‑Add at Assembly Level) for True Top‑Down Design

Description:
Autodesk Inventor currently supports assembly‑level cuts, but not assembly‑level additive features. I would like to propose the ability to create Extrude‑Add (and similar additive operations) directly in the assembly environment, with the added material being assigned to a selected part.

This would allow users to sketch in the assembly, perform an Add‑extrude, and have the resulting geometry applied directly to the chosen component, without switching into part editing mode, without creating derived parts, and without relying on adaptivity or in‑place editing.

For Cut‑extrudes, the feature should be able to affect multiple components at once, similar to multi‑body cut operations.

Why this is important:

  • It enables a true skeletal / top‑down design workflow without the instability of adaptivity.
  • It eliminates the need for double derives and reduces the number of fragile external references.
  • It simplifies the design process by letting the assembly act as the master context.
  • It reduces file complexity and improves model stability in large assemblies.
  • It aligns Inventor with workflows already common in other parametric CAD systems.

Summary:
Introducing additive assembly features would significantly streamline top‑down design, reduce dependency on derived parts and adaptivity, and provide a more robust and intuitive modeling experience for complex assemblies.

6 Comments
enochbQS6E9
Enthusiast

Is there a reason you don't do it all as a multi-body part? That way all of the design data is in one file, no breaking of references between geometry etc.. 

The idea is to avoid this kind of top down skeletal design and simplify. With the idea in mind less references are needed which brings advantages. Deriving as per multibody design makes files unnecessary large and users may be confudes by all the different references. Using the assembly as the skeletal master may simplify this.

enochbQS6E9
Enthusiast

I don't what size of project you normally work with. I'm doing 1000-2000 part projects with only one multi-body part design file driving the assembly with little to no time wasted managing references. Inventor handles 1500 features in the tree just fine. Maybe it maxes out on larger projects. Maybe I'm still missing the point but I thought that is what multi-body parts were for.

dba78
Advocate

I'm not sure to understand your request.

You want to modify a part in the context of an assembly, w/o going to edit mode? 
Given, you have 5 instances of the part in you assembly and only want to edit one of them?

How should be the references be handled in your opinion? If you add material to a part, all instances reflect this - since they are the very same part. Otherwise you need a new part, to leave the other in the original state...

I don't know, which other CAD-System you are referring to, but I would say, the functionality you describe, violates the philosophy of Inventor ("digital workbench": you put physical stuff together to an assembly, just as you would in real life - assembly is only the sum of those elements with the logic of relations between them).

  • Adaptivity can be turned off (I believe even in the settings)
  • The participants of Cut/Hole Features in Assemblies can be managed in the Model Browser (those features are not meant to be present in the underlying parts, since they are created "after" assemblying stuff together) - I talking about the Inventor-Features. Assistants like Boltconnection can push the edits down to their participants 
  • If you want to change a part in Assembly Context, all references are affected. If you need it otherwise, then you create a new part (with or without deriving from the original)

Maybe the other Systems rely on a complete different approach... 

Or are you looking for an automated workflow only? (clean adaptivity, create new file, replace component, etc...)

Maybe I completely misunderstand your request 🙂

The idea is totally new and has not been thought out already and there is no concept.

It is only a push in the right direction of how things can be simplified that I have seen over the last 20 years.

Like said:

  • Using the Assembly selves as the Master document and not the different multi-bodies.
  • It eliminates the need for double derives and reduces the number of fragile external references.
  • It simplifies the design process by letting the assembly act as the master context.
  • It reduces file complexity and improves model stability in large assemblies.
  • It aligns Inventor with workflows already common in other parametric CAD systems.

Al these thoughts together will have its benefits on for example Autodesk Inventor performance and will have a better Inventor Vault integration because the assembly is the trigger and not a related skeletal part. Hope this explains my thoughts a bit better.

dba78
Advocate

Hmmm.... Still don't get it. You basically repeated your original post w/o any further explanations, details. Can you serve an example use case...? Which other CAD-Systems are you referring to? What are double derives in your workflow?

I'd really like to understand your point, in respect to widening my understanding of real-life modelling strategies.

 

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

Submit Idea