Currently, Geometry text fields are changed to static values as soon as the text editor is closed. Here is the recorded behaviour: https://somup.com/cZiXIqEspN Please develop this functionality and help customers to use parameters for this function! Now the link to the parameter is lost. Show More

Add a Increment field to the Limits tab on constraints. This would allow me to constrain a component with a maximum & minimum offset, and for that offset to work incrementally e.g. max: 5000, min:0, increment:1000, allows 5 positions, I can drag the component within the set limits, but it will snap to the specified increment.... At the moment I can set the max & min, and drag my component, but it can fall anywhere between.   Show More

If a virtual component is inserted into an Inventor.IAM using the “Create” command, you can only create one instance with the same name. If the virtual component is inserted into the assembly via the Vault integration, you can create multiple instances of a virtual component of the same item in an assembly. You can also create multiple instances of a virtual component using “copy” and “paste”. Why does Inventor lock up when inserting another instance of the same virtual component when you can create it in other ways? Users miss the ability to assign instance properties to an instance of the virtual component. What do you need this for? A sealing tape is installed in an assembly. The sealing tape is used in different places and each piece of sealing tape has its own length. At the end, the designer wants to know how much sealing tape was installed in total and can add up the individual items. In addition, you can specify exactly which piece (with which length) should be installed on the drawing. We are aware that this task can be solved if you create an empty file, link it to the item Sealing Tape in the Vault and then work with instance properties in the empty file. However, this means I lose the advantage of a virtual component where I can create components for the BOM without using a file.    ==>   ==>  Show More

I know there's already a few ways to get this, just thought as I was typing this out, if it had an auto suggest the rest of the parameter name like when you are typing in a combo box   Show More

It will be good if you could make easy to insert a custom property into a text. It is very complicated. With many comboboxes. It would be easy to type like this <custom.CUSTOMPROPERTYNAME> and it would be the active drawing's custom property. Another problem, if you use a custom property in many texts and have to add them every time. Why can't you copy them? Show More

Add percentage units to API and user parameters. Show More

I'm about a step away from just using the inventor library and coding it, but I really feel like this should be a base option. If the Parameters window was a dockable window, and you could place it right beneath the Model or as a side-by-side to your CAD file instead of it being a floating window, changing parameters would be so much quicker. It also makes it easier to reference the names of each parameter. Show More

When creating an iLogic rule I find sometimes that I want to change the expression of parameters or give the parameters a name other than the default.  It's a pain to have to close the rule editor, open the parameter editor, make the changes and then go back to the rule editor.  It would be handy if we could do that either directly in the edit rule window or maybe just have the rule editor and parameter editor open at the same time and be able to make changes without closing either one. Show More

Hi   Parameters have a small amount of expressions, some are superfluous, some are needed but we need more. Not many more, only 1. If Then. The possibilities would be endless if expressions had an If Then expression.   Expressions are the backbone of parametric design so lets make parameters more dynamic.   Example If (ThisParam > 4, True, False) If (ThisParam > 4, 4, ThisParam)   Please add this functionality to make all of lives better.   And before anyone mentions iLogic, its not always fit for purpose.      Thanks Show More

Just as it says. Inventor seems content to remove assembly constraints I have previously created between component parts. It seems to happen when I am editing mate constraints to flip the solution from mate to flush or back. No good design software should automatically delete constraints the engineer placed there for good reason. Fix this pronto! Show More

sometimes it's necessary to give a user of a form a hint in a tooltip. In iLogic-forms it would be helpful to be able to change the content of the tooltip text e.g. by using the string value of a rule or a user parameter to display different information to the user depending on a context.   This could also be extended to the text of labels, that could display different information depending on some state, that an iLogic-rule is generating.   Show More

Many engineering drawings benefit from specific note call-outs (flag notes). We have put a custom symbol together for balloons that allows us to attach another custom symbol for note callouts. The flag note symbol has a prompted entry field that can be edited to reference different notes in a text box but it's in no way connected to the notes. This becomes a problem when a drawing has dozens of notes, callouts, and sheets, and requires additional notes to be added. Every single prompted entry needs to be checked/changed to ensure the correct instruction is being referenced. If we had the ability to directly reference numbered items in a text note, that would be fantastic. Creating a referenceable field seems like the most difficult part since inventor would have no way of knowing which text field contains the numbered list you want to reference, and the note text itself doesn't have any referenceable data. It might be good to be able to add hyperlinks to notes (similar to how bookmarks work in pdf files). This way, a user could highlight a numbered list, or each numbered item individually, and apply links to those numbers. Once those fields exist, it would be great if a prompted entry could be modified to reference different parameters or iproperties (on a symbol to symbol basis). i.e. one symbol might just us a prompted entry but another instance of that symbol may be connected to a note number (or any other normal field which can be referenced in notes).   Show More

In our design proces we use skeleton modelling to define parts. Some of these parts in a design are already being manufactured while other features still are in development. The parts and the parameters that drive those features should therefore remain locked. But at this moment it's not possible to lock parameters in a design.   It would be a great addition to Inventor to be able to lock individual parameters from being changed/edited. An extra column for check-marks added to the parameterlist (like the "Key" and "Export" column, see example image below) to lock individual parameters is desirable. Lock Parameter column added   In 2014, this idea was posted but has been archived. I think Autodesk should (re)consider this idea. Show More

Concept: Imagine a tool that would allow you select a sick constraint, right click, change doctor priority. It would force the program to essentially treat it like a healthy constraint and instead highlight the other inconsistent constraints as sick instead. Also Inventor will need to include a clear all forced healthy tags button. Similar to the "Show Relationships" or "Show Sick Relationships" or "Hide All Relationships" buttons.   Benefits: If you haven't figured it out already; This would massively increase our speed in troubleshooting sick constraints in cases shown below. But primarily will assist in forcing the program to recognize that the constraint in question is correct and that something else is wrong. You could apply tags to all sorts of constraints you believe to be correct to ensure the program wouldn't consider them for it's Sick calculations and in essence allow us to eliminate factors one by one instead of simply guessing. Time regained (where before you'd waste so much time.) Easier/speed up Learning time Decrease barriers to Entry Higher ease of use Save Parameters Save Named Constraints Example: We've all had the scenario where you have Sick constraints on perfectly healthy components. i.e. When a part somewhere else updated or changed for whatever reason, but your objects over here are tagged Sick b/c something it's constrained to is constrained again to it (some times is a long dependency chain). You end up checking all the constraints but still cannot find out why its Sick so you try to use Recover or Diagnose and it just suppresses or deletes the constraint and now everything is fine, but your part is now floating in space. This is a method a lot of people use, they just delete all the constraints and start over b/c it's easier than using the techniques given to us. This shouldn't be the solution. Imagine the time wasted. Side note: Yes suppressing/deleting tends to (but not all the time) show us something else is causing something wrong. But blowing up half a complex assembly to figure out the cause shouldn't be the solution. Also sometimes you can't apply ground to those parts b/c you need to to move.   So the idea of Changing Priority with forcing healthy would really simplify this process b/c keep parts in place and instead showing other other options to track down. Show More

There is no Fx function for a part that is extruded between surface or planes. This extrusion length is not listed on the Fx list. It would be good to have. Also, can we get an button on the Extrusion dialog box (and other dialog boxes) that will  (Fx) Export a dimension when created. Can have it as a pull down to select Fx export and other Fx options. I use the functions to populate my bill of material for part size length, width, height. the dimension exported helps, because it will adjust to my part size when making changes and update my BOM. It would be good to have Fx export on a sketch dimension. can add to a right click menu with a Fx pop out to select a function option. These suggestions would make it easier to know what the relationship is with the part. I always have to edit sketch/extrusion write down the dimension <d16> then find it in the Fx list to export.  When deriving solid bodies for top down parts. I think the Fx relation should be derived with the part. this will help know what the part size is for BOM export dimensions. thank you Sergio             Show More

This idea is to improve our overall controls over the Sketch Dimensions. Imagine being able to take a dimension and right clicking it and picking the Redefine button. Then picking the new defining feature and keeping the parameter name and value entered and all references to that same dimension. Currently: You have to delete the dimension and place a new dimension, then change it's name and update all other references to that dimension which could be dozens+ and the entire process can take hours depending on the complexity. Not to mention the parameters name in the list of parameters move and you can't resort/arrange that list. So if it's a very important dimension on a template for length, you better hope you don't ever have to move it. It's currently not user friendly to leave us having to work around this type of issue. (sorry, I don't have an good example image to show for this. Maybe someone else can comment with one?)   Allow us to align & arrange dimension in sketch. This would allow us to neatly organize dimensions for later use downstream for users that are trying to evaluate how a part was made and why. We are trained from day 1 of drawing layouts to be OCD about the placement of dimensions. And to be given a tool (Inventor) that just willy-nilly throws dimensions around in space just feels wrong. Now let's talk about how: You would simply select the 2 dimensions side by side, right click menu>Constrain Dim>Align Text Lines. This would constrain the text lines to always be aligned, so moving 1 would move both. You can further right click and disable the feature to break them apart.  Select multiple sketch dimensions, right click>Constrain Dim>Landing Gap. This would space this from the edge of source for sketch dimension. Similar to how Styles already does this. It would just automatically snap them into place and when you zoom in and out, it'll scale with the view. You could even select multiple sketch dimensions for it to automatically stack them.   I would say this next image would require you to select the defining feature for the landing gap.   Lock placement of sketch dimension. Select>Constrain Dim>Lock. It'll update the original placement of the dimensions arms to the new location and stop it from moving around every time you open/edit the sketch. You can unlock later too.   Allow us to update sketch dimension visual scaling. Simply by selecting sketch dimension and right click>Update visual scaling. See related idea 4 for another image.  Allow us to leave leaders in the sketch to help us leave direct notes behind for future users downstream. We don't intend to share these things with downstream vendors or shop workers. But for fellow designers. So they don't make a change and unknowingly forget a limitation/factor of the current design. Others have been complaining about these topics since I started back in 2004.   This idea is a combination of these related idea posts that have been ignored: https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-ideas/more-control-over-sketch-dimensions/idi-p/3824727 https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-ideas/possibility-to-change-dimension-attachment-in-sketch/idc-p/7872993 https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-ideas/ability-to-redefine-dimensions/idi-p/4303586 https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-ideas/dimension-line-rescaling-in-sketches/idi-p/7844101 Show More

Currently, in Inventor feature sketches, angle dimensions erroneously flip to other quadrants than the actual angle being dimensioned, whenever said dimension is changed. On top of that, they continue to erroneously read as their originally intended smaller supplementary value, instead of the larger supplementary value one would expect to see whenever an angular dimension is, in fact, dragged to another quadrant of the linear layout being dimensioned. See attached image file for verification and clarification. This broken code needs fixed as soon as the next minor release of Inventor.   Show More

it would be great if we can control the precision of the length (unit quantity ) of structural parts. because of the minor variations the parts show separately. shows error in merging the parts. Show More

There is a functional restriction in the bore info in drawings. For left-hand threads, the note LH should be displayed in the bore info. However, this only appears as part of the thread class. If, for example, only the size is displayed in the bore information (usual display for standardised sizes in Germany), it is not clear whether the thread is a right-hand or left-hand thread. This can easily lead to errors in production if it is not entered manually. Translated with DeepL.com (free version) Show More