MATERIALS SPECS - better database

[danmachen]

A constant problem when working with inventor is that the material database is not large enough!

It only contains for example Mild Steel, Steel and Aluminium 6061 (a grade not readily available in the UK & Europe). For engineers this is simply not large enough or specific enough.

It does not include the various 5000 series, 6000 series and 1000 series alloys. It does not have listed any of the various types of Steels, coppers, titaniums, polymers, etc.

Our solution to this is to have to spend the time creating our own database and populating properties.

This is something that could be imported by Autodesk in an automated way from a reliable materials source.

Check out this website for a comprehensive database of materials and their alloys, material properties all included!!!

http://www.makeitfrom.com/

Building on what has been stated at the link below, I would prefer to have the heat treatment listed for materials, as well as material and alloy only.

ALUMINIUM 6082 - T6

(MATERIAL),(ALLOY),(HEAT TREATMENT)

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-ideastation/materials-materials-materials/idi-p/3920608

having these properties automatically in Inventor means these fields can be searched and standardised in applications such as Autodesk vault.

This means supply chain teams can also build on that information.

Perhaps material costsgo up - this means supply chain could then filter for components for cost down exercises by material, etc.

[Anonymous]

The current material situation is a bit cumbersome.

as we have multiple material librarys,  and multiple appearance librarys. and too many combinations theirin.

You are close to the perfect solution for rendering and materials,  nearly anyway.

The materials physical properties alone should set the parameters for appearance.

Lets use aluminum as an example.

Ideal Scenereo - For most industries

1.    MATERIAL: User picks the physical material

         ALUMINUM

2.    ALLOY: User then may check a box for particular alloy if need be, 

          (the default alloy is set to a common standard that is then set as default in the template)

           (the alloy modifies physical properties for the material,  apperance only changes if an alloy has visual affect)

         ALUMINUM - 6061

3.    FINISH: User can then choose the finish or machining operation used on the material. (as material check box)

         ALUMINUM - 6061 - R(x)          sets shine/reflect

         or ALUMINUM - 6061 - Knurled       adds knurl bump map etc...

4.    COATING:  User can then choose a coating option.  Paint, galvanized, anodized, etc.

        ALUMINUM - 6061- R(x) - Paint(RGB) Egshell

This presents the opportunity to add the finish and coating field to the BOM, if needed for finish and paint tracking.

This simplifies the library so I only have (1) aluminum.

If i edit that base material and make variants(with check boxes only),  it auto names them based on the options that have been checked, and you still have the ability to list it in the BOM as just the Base material name if you wish  ie.. Aluminum  as opposed to Aluminum - 6061 - R(x)... etc.  Otherwise the BOM can get too big.

The material library browser could be modified to easily show the check box options for a material in a table format.

The subname for the "user optioned" material in the library would be a combo of the above 4 catagories.

and the name that shows up in the BOM field under material could be listed in this long format, or just show up as Aluminum if a simpler BOM is required. and of course finish and coating could be turned on if needed there too.

With a system closer to this,  you never have to worry about naming, etc.  it is what it is.

Aluminum is Aluminum plain and simple.  it's real world finishes and surface processes modify the appearance further as an overlay to the original material.

Updating a material, would consist of adding more finish and surface options over time, since Aluminum itself does not change its nature... ever.  why would the material need constant updating version to version.

Make it a modular material system,  add modules over time.   So my Aluminum in 2014 will be the same as my aluminum in 2018, perhaps with a few new modules though.

You guys are close to a system that is this simple, intuitive, and realistic,  It's just not there yet.

Eventually this should evolve into a master industry library that covers every program across the planet.

so that my aluminum is the same in my Photoshop, Inventor, Poser, Revit, solidworks, 3dstudio, etc...

The renderers change,  the material charectersitics do not.

overrides will still be possible if you just want to play with funky colors and unrealistic materials though.

Anyway just a though on getting this material system standardized and simplified a bit further.

T.S.

[DRoam]

Love the detailed description of an alternate system, I definitely agree that this would simplify working with materials in Inventor while simultaneously increasing versatility.

[bentbrandt]

Yes yes yes! Please simplify the materials and surfaces, (3 extra kudos from here)

purging old surface links is a nightmare!

[thyzsz]

Great idea!!!!!!

[guido_66]

In case of surface treating or coating of an assembly (as is very often the case), one should be able to set these as properties for assemblies as well.

[Anonymous]

this is a great idea. I do have one addition make it possible to display materials by UNS number on a drawing.

[Anonymous]

Very good idea!!!

This is real working.

I have also one addition: We need a field to manage the material number according to EN or DIN.

Often you can buy the equivalent material from different sellers and many sellers use their own description. In these cases the material number is very helpful.

[davef]

As others have said - this is a fantastic idea!  Autodesk, please heed this feature request.  The functionality described by the OP, tsreagan, suits my use of Inventor perfectly. 

[sgwilliams]

I have to agree. Your Idea is a good one. We Machine, Heat Treat, Grind, Plate, Electro Polish, Deep Freeze...ect Ect. Many different grades of High Carbon Alloy Steels. This would simplify the models and the different stages of manufacturing for us. I for one wish I could vote twice.

[Anonymous]

Just a note on this: If the option to add paint or other finishing techniques (galvanising etc), being able to set the paint thickness would be very helpful.  This would change the overall dimensions of each part which can be important when they are included in assemblies.

[Anonymous]

Version 2015 now inserts flanges from the content center as steel material and plate appearance. 2014 was steel and steel. The plate appearance is black and hard to view in inventor or drawings. Now they need to be selected and modified. Would you please change them back to steel, steel.

Thanks.

[n.schotten]

I'm missing the color option as a last item on the list. The finish (piant, anodized etc) is just a look, we need to add color to it as well.

Also, like Spackle42 said, setting a coating/finish thickness (for paint/powdercoat etc.) would be nice. Especialy if measure/dim and constraints take this into account as well. Possibly use the same setting options that are in place for tollerances. (mean, min, max etc.).

[DRoam]

Would love to see this implemented with the next release 🙂

[malcolm_smith]

Anything to fix the colour situation! Every new release seems to come out with a new colour pallet. Colours and textures that used to work get replaced with ones that dont. If creating new parts made from a part created in a previous version, we seem to end up with parts that are one colour as a multibody part, another colour when the bodies are made into component parts and yet another coulour when placed in an assembly. It's a nightmare!

[Anonymous]

Is it possible to have a standard inventor materials library which lists European or UK standrads rather than US standards which have no relevance to most of what I design. Maybe they could be filtered in a similar way to the fasteners in the content centre?

[SmithKL]

Ah............... the original poster obviously hasnt EVER been in this situation.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

[DRoam]

Love that video, @SmithKL.

How does it relate to the OP?

[Anonymous]

This would be a great fix.

[Anonymous]

Join us.  😉

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-ideastation/importing-material-libraries-from-matweb/idi-p/50...