Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE OFFSET OPTION IN EXTRUDE. WOULS AVE A LOT OF UNNECESSARY COMMANDS
INSTEAD OF OFFSETTING A PLANE . PROJECTING LINES AND THEN MORE SKETCKING. IF SKETCK CAN BE DONE IN ONE SKETCH AND THE OFFSET FROM PLANE COMMAND WAS THERE. WITH OPTION TO REVERSE .WOULD BE A BIG TIME SAVER. LIKE SOLIDWORKS
That way you'll also have much more control over your features.
Placing an user workplane which is parallel to your sketch plane takes about 2 seconds AND can still be used afterwards for other features unlike an offset in the extrude itself.
Any new functionality has to fit with the Inventor workflow and how the tool is designed to work.
If the Inventor devs rushed to add features without enough analysis or testing, it could cause bigger headaches for users and devs in the long run. You cannot simply add everything it doesnt work like that. If you are interested, here's a post that talks about it : Re: Why are some ideas not implemented? - Autodesk Community
Yeah some users want functionality from other software to be included in Inventor, but they forget that it's not the same platform. If some people absolutely want a SolidWorks feature and can’t adapt to Inventor’s workflow, maybe it’s time to go back to SolidWorks.😂 BUT it doesn't mean adding SW feature is a bad thing.
Then, the right thing to do, is for Autodesk to warn each and every potential customer that their software is inherently slow, cumbersome, and may never improve. Then, and only then, allow the potential customer to decide which CAD tool to purchase for the long haul. people's livelihoods are being ruined. We all know that all companies and bosses are demanding quicker work to get done all the time, and making users suffer for multiple years of crippling slowness, while some snicker and laugh on the forums, is cruel and unusual punishment, to say the least. Many have been fired for the slow ineptitude of Inventor, and that is not an overstatement in the slightest. What is being done is dishonest, immoral, and misleading.
"Autodesk must warn potential customers that their software is inherently slow."
Expecting a company to list every possible flaw of its products before you buy them is unrealistic. All software has its limitations, and these are usually covered in the documentation, system requirements, and user reviews. It's on buyers to do their research before investing in a product. Autodesk offers trial versions and plenty of documentation, giving users the chance to test the software before making a decision.
"Inventor is inherently slow and cumbersome."
Performance issues in CAD software are often caused by things like inadequate hardware, poor configurations, or inefficient user workflows, rather than the software itself. Calling Inventor "inherently slow" overlooks the fact that plenty of users get great results with it. Autodesk do updates that improve performance and features, so the idea that it's always slow just doesn’t hold up. Sure, some updates might not be perfect, and I get that, but every software has its flaws. Nothing’s perfect.
"People have been fired due to Inventor's slowness."
Blaming a tool for job losses simplifies a lot. I'm sorry if you or someone you know got fired but I had performance issue in the past with Inventor and I fixed it. I was blaming the software as always but it was my inexperience that was the cause (didnt knew much about patterns and model state so everything was ... a mess haha) What I mean is Inventor can be slow but for what ive seen, most of the time, it's on the user.
I understand the frustration with software performance, but your arguments really overgeneralizes and exaggerates the issues. If the goal is improvement, constructive feedback will always be more effective than broad accusations.
If the goal is improvement, trolls like yourself should abstain from putting snickering emoticons and telling users to go to another CAD program. Censoring people who have valid inputs and criticisms never benefits anyone, especially the company needing to improve their product. The fact is that I know of a few who have lost their jobs due to the overall slowness of Inventor, and flippantly brushing it off as user inexperience or "workflows" is an easy out for trolls like yourself. One man I know has 15 years with Inventor, and is about to get fired soon by corporate execs who do not understand why the work takes so long as compared to SolidWorks. All they know is "he is slow" and you and I both know that corporate execs and bosses often must drop the axe on some scapegoat. Not rare either, as I have seen similar results at other companies. Now, about speeding up the software...
I’m not here to troll, I’m here to engage in a constructive discussion. Making a joke or adding an emoji doesn’t change that humor is just a way to lighten the mood. Insults, on the other hand, don't move the conversation forward. Valid criticisms should be heard, but trying to implement features that are unrealistic or cannot be added due to the software isn’t the right approach. Dismissing every response that doesn't match your viewpoint as "trolling" or easy outs also isn’t the right approach and just stops the conversation from being productive. We're all aiming for improvement here.
People losing their jobs
I can understand the frustration of losing a job due to performance issues. But blaming the software entirely is oversimplifying things. From my experience, factors like hardware, training, and workflows are often just as important. I’ve faced performance challenges too, but through getting experience and learning more about the program, I was able to overcome them. There’s always room for improvement on both sides.
Comparison with SolidWorks
I get the comparison with SolidWorks. It's a solid tool, but no CAD software is perfect. I’m not saying Inventor is flawless, but it’s not as bad as it’s sometimes made out to be. Many users get great results with it. If it doesn’t work for your needs, though, there are plenty of alternatives.
That said, if the discussion continues with insults or completely unrealistic reasoning, I won’t engage further. Let’s keep it constructive and focused on solutions.
@tstout9GFVP "One man I know has 15 years with Inventor, and is about to get fired soon by corporate execs who do not understand why the work takes so long as compared to SolidWorks."
Sorry, but there are multiple things wrong with this...
First of all, if his workflow is really so slow compared to SolidWorks and they know about this, then the company should switch to SolidWorks immediately.
If they don't know, then inform them, show them it's the software which is the bottleneck and not the designer.
Second, if they still want to fire him after that,
then A-> they are a sh*t company and your friend will be better off in the long run,
and B-> sometimes having 15 years of experience simply doesn't cut it if you didn't learn new skills during that time... I've also seen people who had 15 years of experience, but still didn't rename parameters or even used constraints...
Thing is, as mentioned above, the feature you are asking for is already perfectly possible in Inventor by creating a User Workplane, which will always be a better practise then adding the offset in the extrude feature. If Solidworks has this feature, then it's probably to quickly add stuff on request without thinking much further ahead.
Again working with Workplanes gives you much easier access and A LOT MORE possibilities (placing the workplane under an angle or at a dynamic midplane between 2 surfaces?) then a simple offset could and they are perfectly reusable for other features as well.
In your case, what if the offset changes? You'll have to look through you browser nodes, looking for the correct Extrude, edit it and save it again and this is there was only one extrusion using this offset. If there are more you either have to edit them all or you have to remember to reference the parameter each time you created the feature.
Meanwhile, I just change the position of the workplane and done... also when creating the extrusion I don't need to remember any parameter names, I simply click on the workplane...
