Symmetric constraint involving a Width Mate like solidworks

[Anonymous]

it would be very useful if inventor has this constraint.

A width mate centers a tab within the width of a groove. Groove width references can include: Two parallel planar faces Two non-parallel planar faces (with or without draft) Tab references can include: Two parallel planar faces Two non-parallel planar faces (with or without draft) One cylindrical face or axis

Examples:

[Anonymous]

I would like for it to be reopened! In my opinion Inventor users don't know what they are missing if they have never worked in SW. This is one of those feature they would all be thanking you for and have no idea what they wanted. Having been in SW, this is a no brainer! Very frustrating that Inventor doesn't listen. As a user, I can't shout this one loud enough!! It's NOT the same as symmetry. And if there is no plane, you have to dig into the part and create one! Lots and lots of EXTRA clicks!!! And yes, if they were modeled correctly, some parts would have mid-planes, but not all parts are symmetrical; you want it in the center of a feature! SW allows you to just select planes you want it in the center of!! Other parts or of the same part! Again, no-brainer if you are looking for improvements of the software!!

[Anonymous]

What is described above should be an obvious, necessary assembly functionality.

I believe SolidWorks has had it for more than 15 years.

[Anonymous]

This is a feature that Inventor needs. It's a hassle to make reference planes and you can't make them off of two faces of a part in an assembly, which is exactly when you'd need them to use the symmetry mate. Anyone who's used SW extensively knows how nice this feature is, and how symmetry is NOT the same thing.

[CAD-One]

For “Width” being such a old request and Autodesk not doing anything about this; I bet SolidWorks might have a patent on this. ^wink ^wink

[Anonymous]

I'm fast learning AutoDesk aren't very forward at listening and take forever to introduce anything suggested, see the spellcheck scenario for a prime example.

---

[jmorganDHE2K]

 I agree, this is a very useful feature. 

[Anonymous]

The following mates types would save time calculating & reinitiating commands.

- An option to select multiple items for a single type of mate selected instead of reinitiating the mate command each time.

- A width mate would be very helpful to place an item centrally between two faces/planes

[jholland3XDLM]

This is asked for a lot with various terminology.  It took me some time to find this one, and I believe it is worded best for the feature we want. 

I'll add some photos to illustrate this concept.

I would like to put this switch into that square hole. The hole is not the same size as the switch, for clearance.

The switch was downloaded and the origin planes are not centered. The hole is offset from center (I could link the distance to the mate, still not the best solution). I will have to open both parts, create two work planes each and then constrain them together. Then I will forget which planes should go together. The proposed mid-plane constraint would fix everything here.

So a constraint dialog that allows 4 selections, (or three if one has a origin plane or center point that can be used.

1a and 1b are green; 2a and 2b are purple:

Granted most of those parts should have origin planes to to help out. But this is not always the case, at which point you must start creating work planes. Even with naming the planes it can get confusing very quickly.

In this example I would like to place the T shaped slider in it's slot. I had to create a work plane to mate to. This is simple enough but this is a very simple assembly I created just to illustrate my point. It would be great to select a constraint option in the assembly file that centered this object without having the work-planes already in place. Even if the tool creates a work-plane that would be acceptable (although not ideal), but only if it auto-hides it as well. Nothing irritates me more than opening a assembly with 100 work planes visible.

I do know about the symmetry constraint, which is good but quite doesn't address centering a single part into a feature.

[krista.vanderwerff]

Please!  This may be the most frustrating thing I have encountered in switching to Inventor.  This creates so much extra work for something that is a basic function in all three other programs I have used.

[Anonymous]

"Thanks for sharing your Idea. We use this forum to guide product development and help users in the best way we can based on voting. We occasionally merge Ideas or archive old ones to keep the forum working properly - it ensures there is room for people to review new Ideas and that the most relevant and meaningful ones can gain votes. We’re archiving this Idea because it's been on the board for well over a year and hasn't received many votes from the community. If you want to raise it again and try to gain more support, you're welcome to do so. We’ve found that pictures and mock-ups can help get concepts across and win more votes from other users. If you have questions or see a connection between this Idea and others, let us know. - Inventor product team"

It's this kind of approach that means you're more than 10 years behind Solidworks in terms of functionality. As a recent convert  (new role in a co. that uses Autodesk products)  I'm shocked at the lack of usability in Inventor in comparisson to SW.  As said above, this is one of many simple improvements that could and should (patent status allowing) be incorporated.  The vote system simply isn't working. People don't "hang out" here, they come for help, advice and to air frustrations. If a post doesn't directly apply to them they're not even going to look at it let alone vote for it.  Adopt improvements that improve the software on their own merits. It's not a popularity contest and how are people that have no concept of a feature they've not used yet supposed to evaluate it?

[Christian3.14]

I found people that were looking for a width mate in a post from 2011. It's 2020... how has this simple and extremely useful feature not been added?

[Christian3.14]

Please add this. The current way is so frustrating.

[Justinas.Storta]

Hello I know that there is already a idea for width mate but it already started in 2013. And nothing. What's the point to click vote button if nothing happens. Maybe instead we have to create more of the same ideas that Autodesk make it work. Now there is symmetry function but WTF, how it's work? How long do we have to wait? Please one more time community VOTE and make a difference. And Autodesk NO, NO and No if you have it don't wait until 2022 version and then show it like it's a some kind of miracle because it's not. Thank you. 

[Sergey_Dukman]

I would suggest "in addition to" rather than "instead of". If you will find it worth to change the title of your idea accordingly, then I vote for it.

[dan_szymanski]

Idea added to backlog for future consideration [49206]. Thanks!

[jhollandKM5RX]

Hey Guys, I totally agree with this..

Symmetry is not the same as the almost-but-not-quite-comparable Width mate from SW.

A solution for the need for Inventor to create planes to impose constraints would be to have The proposed width/ centering function in Inventor;

•  Create construction work planes based on 3-4 selection faces (cylinder+ two faces/ 2 faces+2 faces) that are either visible or not via an option within the feature itself.
• Create a midplane between the previously selected faces.

This way it can work within Inventor's interface without much tweaking for the developers. Similar to when you create a sketch on any face, Inventor creates a sketch plane that can be edited, shown, or hidden to help eliminate the clutter of workplanes and the cumbersome task of creating them individually. I believe this would help large scale updates to a top-down design as well by keeping the referenced work planes grouped together for internal reference. Autodesk.. PLEASE consider adding this feature! We would highly appreciate it! 

[Anonymous]

I recently moved from Solidworks to Inventor, and the transition has been a smooth one in all ways but one: Inventor does not have a width mate feature to aid with assembly. A width mate allows the user to center a part, feature or component equidistant between two edges or planes on a different part, feature or component, without the need to sketch and mate additional center planes. It is not the same as the current Symmetry feature, because Symmetry does not allow the user to select different faces on the same part, e.g. centering a clearance hole between the top and bottom edges of a slot in another part. I've linked to a YouTube video with a demonstration of the width feature below.

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

Of course there are other methods of centering assembly components that yield the same result, but those methods require opening individual parts and sketching new workplanes, or measuring then adding or subtracting diameters of slots or holes for an offset mate, etc. Adding a width mate feature would streamline workflows by eliminating these extra steps. This feature has been requested repeatedly for a decade now, as shown by the archived Inventor Forum post from 2011 and the Inventor Ideas post from 2013 linked below.

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-forum/width-mate/td-p/2937346

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-ideas/introduction-of-width-mates/idi-p/4352019

I sincerely hope this post can reach the developers so that this incredibly useful feature can be added as soon as possible. I also posted this request in the Inventor Forum for exposure.

[didier.spinnewyn]

Hello,
You can use the joint command and the slide type then right click and select between 2 faces.

[vgospodinov]

Hello!

I'm working with assemblies containing multi body parts, center planes are frequently unavailable and  I have to clutter the browser tree with planes and sketches in order to accomplish basic tasks. For the current symmetry constraint, even the ability to select two planes that belong to the same part will be of great benefit.