Let's start an Inventor wish list?

[Hopinc]

Here are some of mine:

 

2D Sketching:

 

1) "Haystacking" of sketch geometry - no need to trim sketch geometry to extrude, the software recognises boundaries created by overlapping geometry. This feature became available in S.D.R.C's I-Deas over 20 years ago!

 

2) Fillet corner square (or sharp), as per AutoCAD - this would eliminate many open loop errors quickly. There would be no need extend two lines to meet, and thereafter trim accordingly (see also item 1).

 

3) Ability to draw a rectangle/square about a centre point.

 

4) Polygon draw to recognise both horizontal and vertical axes, allowing one side to snap to either if required.

 

5) Ellipses should have X & Y axis dimensions as per rectangle draw.

 

Modelling:

 

1) Non-manifold topology - only the steps in the history tree that have been changed are updated, i.e. the whole model is not re-built every time a change is made towards the end of the history tree.

 

2) Ability to create more than one part at once. To save as individuals or join together to form one solid. The current method of doing this within assembly modelling is way too messy and time consuming.

 

Currently we have to have the two/more parts in an assembly, edit one part, copy the objects requiring joining and then join. This is not at all obvious to the uninitiated user. A simple join command is all that is required.

 

3) You decide to modify an earlier feature and the sketch you have just created (but not extruded) generates an error message (see attached image). Why is this? Why does the software not adjust to the new base geometry accordingly. Please don't tell me this can't be done, as again I-Deas had this function years ago.

 

 

These are just a few things I would like to see changed. I am sure you all have your own gripes and wishes - what are they?

 

 

P.S. does anyone know if Autodesk watches this web site?

 

 

Regards all.

 

 

Dave

Edited July 25, 2010 by Hopinc

[JD Mather]

Here are some of mine:

 

2D Sketching:

 

1) "Haystacking" of sketch geometry

 

I would vote against - there is too much sloppy modeling already. Just my personal opinion.

 

 

3) Ability to draw a rectangle/square about a centre point.

 

CPR add-in

 

 

2) Ability to create more than one part at once. To save as individuals or join together to form one solid. The current method of doing this within assembly modelling is way too messy and time consuming.

 

Uhmmm, multibody solids and boolean combine added two years ago (r2010).

 

P.S. does anyone know if Autodesk watches this web site?

Autodesk had an Inventor user forum and and Inventor user Wish List site?

[Hopinc]

Hello JD,

 

I thought you might be the first to reply to my post

 

Firstly, I cannot in anyway agree with you that "haystacking" geometry leads to "sloppy" modelling. What it does do is save an awful lot of wasted time. I suspect that you have never used software that catered for this?

 

I used I-Deas for 22 years and I know what an advantage it can be. You can still trim geometry if you wish, but even you must admit that being able to pick a few points inside overlapping geometry, instead of having to trim back lots of lines, has got to speed things up - yes? It also guarantees closed loops.

 

A good illustration of this is a post currently active on this forum for a grille cut-out in a plastic model. Haystacking the geometry would have saved much time doing that.

 

There are far too many functions within Inventor that wastes valuable time - assembly modelling for instance! That is something I intend to go into sometime in the future.

 

OK - you've got me with this one, what is a "CPR add-in"? And where do I find it?

 

BTW, I would be most grateful if you would please stop using acronyms and just write what you mean.

 

Quote: "Uhmmm, multibody solids and boolean combine added two years ago (r2010)" - JD, this one you are definitely going to have to explain in full detail?

 

I don't profess to be an expert with Inventor, but I have never seen a method to do what I have suggested explained anywhere before.

 

Quote: "I would vote against - there is too much sloppy modelling already. Just my personal opinion." - JD, this sounds to me like disdain for your average user. You should remember that not everyone can be an expert like you! I can understand the frustration you must feel at times, but you have assumed the mantle of guru and you must live with it. People on this forum are doing the best they can. The reason they are here is to learn.

 

After you have explained the multi-body solids perhaps you could give me your personal opinion as to why Inventor makes such a meal out of everyday functions, like joining two parts together?

 

Whereas I have a lot of respect for Autodesk, it seems to me that the program is not written to be as slick as it should be, worst of all it takes far too long to get the basics corrected. Your CPR add-in is a good example - why is it not part of the program? Or why is "feature recognition" still a download from Autodesk Labs and not incorporated within the program???

 

I think Autodesk should have a release where they concentrate purely on the basic functionality, it's way overdue for sorting out.

 

Regards.

 

Dave

[rkmcswain]

P.S. does anyone know if Autodesk watches this web site?

Dave

 

To the best of my knowledge, the only user wish list that Autodesk recognizes is this one:

http://www.augi.com/inventor/default.asp?page=1471

[JD Mather]

Hello JD,

 

A good illustration of this is a post currently active on this forum for a grille cut-out in a plastic model. Haystacking the geometry would have saved much time doing that.

 

Can you supply the url to the thread? Come to think of it the Grill function in Inventor does NOT require a trimmed sketch - sounds like the kind of "haystacking" you refer to.

 

 

There are far too many functions within Inventor that wastes valuable time

 

You are right.

 

OK - you've got me with this one, what is a "CPR add-in"? And where do I find it?

Thsi should be in Inventor (it is in Inventor Fusion technology preview!). You can download the add-in from http://www.mcadforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=11365 make sure you get the latest version.

 

 

 

After you have explained the multi-body solids perhaps you could give me your personal opinion as to why Inventor makes such a meal out of everyday functions, like joining two parts together?

 

I thought they had a good thing with Derived Components. Multi-body solids introduced in 2010 was quantum leap ahead. I'll try to post an excellent example here later (but this forum limits files sizes to such a small size that as I recall my example doesn't fit even with the EOP (End of Part) rolled up.

[Hopinc]

Hi JD,

 

Quote: "Can you supply the url to the thread? Come to think of it the Grill function in Inventor does NOT require a trimmed sketch - sounds like the kind of "haystacking" you refer to." - OK- so that was not a good example on my part, as the special plastics functions do allow for haystacking geometry. However, it is a perfect example of the inconsistency within Inventor. The question is why can you haystack within the plastic functions but not within the standard parts modeller?

 

JD, I knew that the rectangle draw feature I was seeking is available in Fusion (yet another example of inconsistency). However, I have never seen the link you posted. Thank you for that. I have downloaded and it works just fine.

 

Regarding derived components - I am fully amiliar with that technique, but it lacks the simplicity and sleekeness I am seeking. Going back to I-Deas (I am sure you are groaning at this point), this program allowed you to create part after part within one file and then decided if you wished to create an assembly or not. If you wanted you could move parts together and permanently join or subtract them as you wished. That is the type of simplicity I am after.

 

Please don't get me wrong, I am not criticising the whole of the program just some very suspect aspects of it's functionality that I believe could easily and quickly be put right.

 

On a slightly different tack, when I-Deas Master Series was in the go we used have what were called "Master Classes" - at least once a year users would get together to view the upcoming improvements in the next release, see demonstrations of techniques, have expert users on tap to question and discuss and all aspects of the software. It never ceased to amaze me how many of these users were experiencing the same problems that I encountered but were not willing to speak up unless questioned directly. They just accepted the shortcomings as the norm.

 

Judging by the number of people that have viewed this post and only JD has responded, I am wondering if the same thing is happening with Inventor?

 

 

Regards.

 

 

Dave

[JD Mather]

Hi this program allowed you to create part after part within one file and then decided if you wished to create an assembly or not. If you wanted you could move parts together and permanently join or subtract them as you wished. That is the type of simplicity I am after.

 

Works the same in Inventor http://www.cadtutor.net/forum/showthread.php?50724-Multi-body-Solids-in-Inventor

[Hopinc]

Hmm! - Something is going wrong with this for me. Using the Manage toolbox I can only create the parts as an assembly, not as you have shown as a number of solid bodies in one .ipt. If I select "Make Part" Inventor crashes. If I select "Make Components" I am then into an assembly, which is no different to the way I have been modelling up to press. What am I doing wrong?

 

Dave

[kencaz]

To the best of my knowledge, the only user wish list that Autodesk recognizes is this one:

http://www.augi.com/inventor/default.asp?page=1471

 

Also, I think these guys are pretty much the authority on Inventor at AutoDesk.

 

Rob Cohee:

http://www.youtube.com/user/robcohee

 

 

Garin Gardiner:

http://inthemachine-autodesk.typepad.com/

 

They would probably have the most influence on any added features in Upcoming Inventor Releases.

 

KC

[Hopinc]

Hi KC,

 

"Inthemachine" looks an interesting site. Unfortunately the youtube site just hangs when I try to connect. I will try it again tomorrow. Thanks.

 

RKM, My apologies for not replying to you earlier, I almost missed your post. It was KC's quotation bubble above that brought it to my attention - I blame it on old age! Your link is just what I was looking for -cheers.

 

Have either of you anything to add to the wish list?

 

Regards to you both.

 

Dave

[JD Mather]

Using the Manage toolbox I can only create the parts as an assembly, not as you have shown as a number of solid bodies in one .ipt. If I select "Make Part" Inventor crashes. What am I doing wrong?Dave

 

I hope you submitted crash report - Inventor should not crash even if you do something "wrong".

 

Now for what you are doing wrong. You do not Make Components or Part until After you have modeled your multi-body parts.

Here is a sample workflow

Design intent - model a cylindrical peg to go into a rectangular block.

Sketch the rectangle.

Extrude the rectangle.

On one of the faces or on a workplane start a sketch and sketch a circle over the extruded block but a bit smaller.

Extrude the circle, but in the Extrude dialog box instead of selecting Join, Cut or Intersect - select the New Solid option.

Extrude the cylinder going through the block.

 

Now if you check the top of the browser you have a folder named Solid Bodies (2).

You can expand the folder and rename to Block and Cylinder parts.

 

You have two parts occupying the same space - of course you need a hole in the block for the cylinder.

Select the Combine tool and select the Block as the base part and the Cylinder as the Toolbody.

Set the operation to Cut and the option to retain the toolbody (Cylinder).

The hole will be cut and the Cylinder part will have visibility turned off - right click to turn it back on.

 

Now, when you send to the shop floor these would be two different parts in the real world.

You can push them out individually to parts with the Make Part

or

You can push then all/or some out to individual parts AND assembly by using Make Components. These two tools are simply an enhanced Derived Component operation.

 

Consider the original ipt as your Master file - any changes made to the master will update any derived parts pushed out. There might be some cases where you want to add additional features to the pushed out parts without effecting the master. Of course you can do this.

 

Give it a try with this simple example and if you have trouble I will post the file.

 

Other geometry from 3rd parties can also be imported and "Combined" for whatever end results are desired.

[Hopinc]

Thanks for the info JD - that is most helpful. It is almost exactly the way I was suggesting it should be done, although slightly more complex than it needs to be. The crashes caused by the "Make Part" command to some extent makes this unusable. Yet I can still create parts through the "Make Components" path, so it is not a total loss.

 

In answer to your question, I have NOT reported the crashes using the automated report system. The reason I refuse to use this system is clauses like the one below that appear in the privacy agreement:

 

Quote: Personally Identifiable Information may be collected by Autodesk, disclosed to affiliates and third parties,and used by Autodesk, affiliates and third parties. This Privacy Policy describes the Personally Identifiable Information we collect about you and how we may use and/or disclose that Personally Identifiable Information.

I am very mindful of the fact that far too much personal information is given to God knows who on the internet without the user's knowledge. By accepting this agreement you have signed away your rights to determine if this is allowed or not and who gets it. Whereas it may be totally safe and above board in this instance, I don't like doing it nonetheless. In short I will never agree to my information being given away when I cannot decide where it goes and how it is used. Autodesk please take note.

 

I know you are going to suggest that I am cutting my nose off to spite my face, but I value my privacy. As an alternative to the automated fault report I express my views through forums such as this, and look for a response from other users as confirmation that the problem is not just local to me. Hopefully the fuss created gets noticed.

 

Edited July 26, 2010 by Hopinc

[JD Mather]

As an alternative to the automated fault report I express my views through forums such as this, and look for a response from other users as confirmation that the problem is not just local to me. Hopefully the fuss created gets noticed.

 

I would recommend an alternative approach that is just about guaranteed to get you attention and response to the problem.

Post the steps (words will do) to recreate the crash on the Autodesk Inventor user forum. No dataset is required. (although that might be helpful). I can tell you that the steps you describe are not crashing my system. I'll try again to verify.

[Hopinc]

Quote: " I can tell you that the steps you describe are not crashing my system."

 

I could have predicted that would be the case, isn't it just typical. C'est la vie!

 

If memory serves correctly JD, you did not experience the problem I had with Inventor 2011 crashing when rendering either. Now that's fixed I may do a complete removal of 2010, although I am still reluctant to do that as many people as still using it.

 

Thanks for your suggestion, I joined the Autodesk User Group International (AUGI) last night but haven't posted anything yet.

 

Going back to the wish list - perhaps now is the right time to mention a severely irritating thing about assembly modelling that needs changing:

 

When creating an assembly why can't the user pick a part(s) to copy and using a selected point on a part copy it, one after another, from one location to the next until all the parts needed are in place. This would save a tremendous amount of wasted time.

 

The pattern command is OK as far as it goes but it is too restrictive most of the time.

 

Many solid modellers that I have used over the years have lacked this simple function, and I have never understood why? It's basic stuff in any 2-D drawing package.

 

Regards.

 

Dave

Edited July 26, 2010 by Hopinc

[ecshclark]

I also used I-DEAS for about 15 years. My opinion is haystacking sketch geometry was the greatest thing since sliced cheese! It allows alot of flexibilty, even the ablility to quickly to clean-up someone's sloppy sketching technique. Inventor's sketcher leaves alot to be desired, and I find it irritating and constraining (pun intended), when stacked up (pun intended) to the old I-DEAS sketcher. You get what you pay for, I-DEAS was high-end and expensive program, and Inventor is a mid-level inexpensive program. I would add the following to the wish list: (maybe some of this is in 2011)

 

1. When using the skecher, allow the ability to add geometry to patterns using the edit pattern command. When I use edit pattern, the Geometry button is greyed out. So I either add a second pattern, and sometimes make a parameter to change both patterns if needed, or I delete the original pattern and redo it with the additional geometry. A lot of wasted effort. Why doesn't it allow adding geomety? It doesn't make sense, because a feature pattern allows adding additional features under the edit feature command.

 

2. When using the sketcher the ability to select geometry to trim or extend to, not just automatically selecting the next intersecting line. If you have to hit trim or extend 6 times to get the end to a specific intersecting line or arc, how is that efficient?

 

 

 

3. The ability to extrude a profile along a user defined vector, ie not perpendular to the sketching plane.

 

 

4. A graphical assembly constraint map. Again, I-DEAS had it, and I miss it now that I'm using Inventor!

[Hopinc]

Hi and thanks for joining the discussion. I was begining to think that JD and I are the only ones on this forum

 

It's nice to come across another ex I-Deas user. In truth I also had a few gripes with that program as well. I think you are correct that the sketcher was much better than the one in Inventor. The I-Deas dynamic sketcher was surely the defacto standard (and probably still should be) which many strived to better but in reality never achieved it's beautiful simplicity.

 

I bet that there is at least one thing you will agree with me is much better within Inventor and that is drawing planes. They are much easier to create.

 

Generally speaking I prefer Inventor to I-Deas and would not go back. It is just the silly little quirks and foibles that make it so much less than it could be. If these were addressed it would really be a shining star. Your item 2) falls into the quirks and foibles category.

 

Re item 3) What about doing a sweep along a 3D sketch, that would not need to comply with any fixed drawing plane. It should provide the result you require?

 

I went on to the AUGI web site earlier today and posted my wish list. Perhaps you might like to do the same thing?

 

Don't go away as I am sure you will think of something else to add soon.

 

Regards.

 

Dave

Edited July 26, 2010 by Hopinc

[ecshclark]

4. There is another problem (maybe I'm the problem, but this bugs me) with patterns in sketch. When you pick geometry for the direction vector, you can not go back and delete, trim, or split that geometry . I know, I know, don't use any geometry you are patterning as a vector, project an line from an axis, or use some other reference geometry. But the program should at least allow you to redefine the vector when you go into edit pattern. I like Inventor, it's super simple to learn and has a decent interface (I think I-DEAS ended up having the best interface/menu) . But there are too many areas where if you don't use a so called best practice, your are kind of stuck and may have to redo the feature, etc...

 

I think where Inventor's drafting module really shines, I-DEAS drafting pretty much fell flat on it's face. I starting used I-DEAS back in the day when they called it Geo-Mod & Geo-Draft. It wasn't much good then. It make me cringe just thinking of it. The cut command went something like this...

 

First cut second, or second cut first.

 

Nobody could pick the right order the first time around. We'd argue how can second cut first if you have to pick second first??? I think Abbot & Costello had a hand in the early code for I-DEAS, ha!!!

[Hopinc]

My colleague and I were on the first I-Deas training course ever run in the UK - the program fell over almost every 5 minutes. You are right about being expensive, If memory serves correctly we paid something like £33,000 for two seats, including two SGI Irix Indigo 1 workstations containing 128MB of ram - Ha!

 

I know I should really appreciate modern modellers more than I do, having experienced nearly all of them from their conceptions, but it's hard not to complain when the issues with the simple things, the real nitty gritty everyday use things, continue to be perpetuated release after release.

 

When a new version comes along you fervently hope you have seen the last of these quirks, but no they are still there. You ask yourself - what the h*ll are these people thinking?

 

Regards.

 

Dave

Edited July 27, 2010 by Hopinc