Currently, Model States don't respect Appearance overrides on a per State basis. I was hoping to use this functionality for this purpose as we have part numbers for the machined part (MPXXX) and a part number for conversion coat (MPXXX/C2), plating, or painting. So that means if I want to avoid creating another model and drawing for the plated part I have to create a new material (ex. Stainless Steel-Red Powdercoat). You can imagine how cumbersome this would get if you work with a lot of different materials and alloys, that get different finishes and coatings.
It would be simpler to be able to have a base State in the raw material (MPXXX), then a coated or plated State (MPXXX/C2), with just the Material Appearance changed (Anodized-Blue). And if we could define material on a per face basis as well, then we could go a step further for parts that are finish machined to remove coatings from specific faces and to final tolerances. So Model states could look like:
MPXXX-Raw Machined part (Material: Stainless Steel, Appearance: SS default)
MPXXX/C2-Powdercoated part (Material: Stainless Steel, Appearance: Blue Powdercoat-Glossy)
OR
MPXXX/N2-Nickel Plated Part (Material: Stainless Steel, Appearance: Nickel)
MPXXX/F-Final Machined and Coated part (Material: Stainless Steel, Appearance: Blue Powdercoat-Glossy removed from select faces)
Handling it this way could really help us keep duplicate models, and the Material and Appearance library under control. As it stands we have hundreds of potential Material, Material Appearance combinations. Having to create a custom Material for each one is a daunting task when my goal is to streamline our processes as much as possible.
