Any ideas what the next update will include?

[aptivaboy]

My maintenance is up and Alibre pretty much has everything that I need as it is, other than expanded import/export options. Does anyone have any intel on what may be included in the next updated version? Just trying to weigh if I should re-up my maintenance, or not.

Many thanks!

Robert

 

[DavidJ]

For an outline, look at the 2025 Roadmap thread.

 

[Max]

Oh, you want it!

Here are some of the things...

Fillet Overhaul
Fillet Groups
Fillet groups, allowing you to create multiple fillet sizes from a single feature - much cleaner feature history


Chord-size Fillet
Sets the edge-to-edge width of the fillet geometry to constant - useful for certain types of geometry where fillets go a little crazy otherwise


Setbacks & Bulge
Fillets can have setbacks now as well as a bulge factor which changes the shape of the geometry:


Variable Radius - For real
Significant changes to variable radius fillet allow for truly arbitrary and very powerful blending along an arbitrary number of points.


Modeled Threads
Holes and External Threads now have a Model option to generate correct 3D threads.



Center of Gravity in 2D
Center of Gravity can now be projected and dimensions in 2D drawings

Reorder Design Configurations in Explorer
Drag and drop configs to reorder them.

Customizable Edge Rollover Width
Highlighted edges can be hard to see. Now they can be thicker.



Smooth Zoom + Speed
Zooming with mouse wheel used to be very choppy - it is now smoother and its speed customizable.

Customizable Rotation Speed
Model rotation used to be very sensitive as well as resolution-dependent. Its default is now much lower, its speed consistent across resolutions, and its speed customizable - it is silllllllllllllky smooth like buddah.

Precision Rotate Mode
When you're way zoomed in trying to look inside a random thing to select something, and you rotate a little, the model flies off screen. No more! Hold down spacebar while you rotate and the rotation speed is significantly slowed, allowing very fine control.


Not a full list - but most other stuff is PDM related and when we do this list more formally, we will include those.

 

[Max]

As well, you will get v29, which is going to be a monster release with a complete UI overhaul and it feels sooooo good to use, amongst other things

 

[stepalibre]

As well, you will get v29, which is going to be a monster release with a complete UI overhaul and it feels sooooo good to use, amongst other things

.NET Core v30? Is AI helping? I hope so!

it feels sooooo good to use

such a tease

 

[HaroldL]

Holes and External Threads now have a Model option to generate correct 3D threads.

Will there be an option to add a chamfer to threaded studs and holes?

Chord-size Fillet
Sets the edge-to-edge width of the fillet geometry to constant - useful for certain types of geometry where fillets go a little crazy otherwise

This is interesting. Is that anything like what SolidWorks has an option to Keep Edge when a fillet is near an edge and tends to roll over or pull the edge up?

 

[tyc]

Great new features, I will most likely wait until V29 though. I couldn't spare fund for this year's maintenance
@Max on the modelled threads development, I suppose this will not be available for Atom users, as they don't get the Holes feature. Is this correct?
3D printing community is obsessed with modelling threads(easily) , wondering giving access for threaded holes only would boost the user base for Atom3D.

 

[JimCad]

My favourite one there is the "Real threads"
Looking forward to this one.

Jim

 

[stepalibre]

Modeled Threads
Holes and External Threads now have a Model option to generate correct 3D threads.

For machining:

Are threads optimized? Or are they just regular geometry added to the model? Are custom thread sizes possible or equation driven parameters? I only see combo boxes, I assume the depth and diameter are parameters. Is the same dataset used for the modeled threads or is the modeled option a separate dataset? Is the modeled option suppressible in configurations to have a more detailed config with threads and one without?

Just questions, not expecting answers...

 

[Max]

@Max on the modelled threads development, I suppose this will not be available for Atom users, as they don't get the Holes feature. Is this correct?

That is incorrect as we are giving Atom folks the hole and external thread features since hobbyists are more likely to be the ones to be 3D printing threads! Who said nothing good can happen in 2025?

However, there are some limitations in drawings in Atom3D associated with those features. So Atom users should primarily be excited about the modeling aspect.

 

[Max]

For machining:

Are threads optimized? Or are they just regular geometry added to the model? Are custom thread sizes possible or equation driven parameters? I only see combo boxes, I assume the depth and diameter are parameters. Is the same dataset used for the modeled threads or is the modeled option a separate dataset? Is the modeled option suppressible in configurations to have a more detailed config with threads and one without?

Just questions, not expecting answers...

Thread data is identical for both cosmetic definitions and real thread definitions - the source is all the same excel sheet - same rows, same data. We have had to add in some of the missing data from previous versions of the Excel - for example max and min values might have been grayed out on earlier versions. So if you want to add custom ones, go add new rows to the thread spreadsheet, like normal.

Unlike most (all?) other CAD software, we allow you to define the material condition - Nominal - Max material - and Min Material. This effectively moves you along the tolerance bands provided in the standards. So if you want a looser fit, or a tighter fit, or an "ideal" (Nominal) fit (which probably won't screw in without significant effort), you have those choices.

I'm not sure what you mean by "optimized". If you are a chief engineer at a screw manufacturing company - don't use this tool to go home early. But it meets and probably exceeds what other software provides. Some threads can have microscopic fillets on the helices - we do not do that, primarily because if you are manufacturing something that can actually support that level of precision, you are probably not using this tool - and most people are not manufacturing these - most people will 3D print them or render them, neither which requires tolerances to .0001" - and so we keep the overall geometric bloat down. We know some of you all will put 600 of these into an assembly, even though we beg you not to do that! (No, really, don't do that!)

There are many thread profiles in the world. We do not support all of them. We do support most of them that are currently available in our excel sheet. There is no ability for you to add new thread profiles - so if you have some quirky thread that is a cross section with some weird set of shapes, you're out of luck. But I think we support around 80% of the currently available standards in the dropdown. We can add more in if needed.

The modeled option is not individually suppressible currently.

 

[Dave Machock]

Thread data is identical for both cosmetic definitions and real thread definitions - the source is all the same excel sheet - same rows, same data. We have had to add in some of the missing data from previous versions of the Excel - for example max and min values might have been grayed out on earlier versions. So if you want to add custom ones, go add new rows to the thread spreadsheet, like normal.

Unlike most (all?) other CAD software, we allow you to define the material condition - Nominal - Max material - and Min Material. This effectively moves you along the tolerance bands provided in the standards. So if you want a looser fit, or a tighter fit, or an "ideal" (Nominal) fit (which probably won't screw in without significant effort), you have those choices.

I'm not sure what you mean by "optimized". If you are a chief engineer at a screw manufacturing company - don't use this tool to go home early. But it meets and probably exceeds what other software provides. Some threads can have microscopic fillets on the helices - we do not do that, primarily because if you are manufacturing something that can actually support that level of precision, you are probably not using this tool - and most people are not manufacturing these - most people will 3D print them or render them, neither which requires tolerances to .0001" - and so we keep the overall geometric bloat down. We know some of you all will put 600 of these into an assembly, even though we beg you not to do that! (No, really, don't do that!)

There are many thread profiles in the world. We do not support all of them. We do support most of them that are currently available in our excel sheet. There is no ability for you to add new thread profiles - so if you have some quirky thread that is a cross section with some weird set of shapes, you're out of luck. But I think we support around 80% of the currently available standards in the dropdown. We can add more in if needed.

The modeled option is not individually suppressible currently.

Left Hand Threads too? I had to add them to the excel sheet. A lot of the machines I work with have turnbuckle style adjustment arms.

 

[tyc]

we are giving Atom folks the hole and external thread features since hobbyists are more likely to be the ones to be 3D printing threads!

This is an absolutely legendary move! I believe Atom will gain significant recognition once this is released. Kudos to the team.

 

[stepalibre]

optimized

I'm referring to the topology, any grouping of the surfaces are they the same as regular modeled geometry, does the hole tool optimize the modeled threads for performance reasons. Why not merge all the faces to reduce overhead or exclude the model thread geometry from the model topology? Only the top and bottom edges are useful to included as selectable edges in most common cases. An explode thread feature command or a lightweight representation would work to reduce regen and update compute time.

The modeled option is not individually suppressible currently.

Using a threaded part as a tool in a part boolean would be a workaround to that.

Alibre need performance optimizations along with these feature additions! Thanks for responding, but wait my Relief Maker license failed the other day.

 

[Max]

I'm referring to the topology, any grouping of the surfaces are they the same as regular modeled geometry, does the hole tool optimize the modeled threads for performance reasons. Why not merge all the faces to reduce overhead or exclude the model thread geometry from the model topology? Only the top and bottom edges are useful to included as selectable edges in most common cases. An explode thread feature command or a lightweight representation would work to reduce regen and update compute time.

I am really struggling to understand what this means.

If your ask is about a lightweight approach, we have...cosmetic threads.

I don't know what you mean by "merging all the faces" or "grouping the surfaces".

If your ask is about a schematic representation, for example using a revolve cut instead of a helix, we did not see the value in that given the objectives of the feature and the time associated with implementating it, given that we already have 2 other lightweight representations.

 

[Max]

Thanks for responding, but wait my Relief Maker license failed the other day.

This is not enough info for me to do much with. Please email hello@reliefmaker.com with what you are seeing and we will get you up and running.

 

[Max]

Left Hand Threads too? I had to add them to the excel sheet. A lot of the machines I work with have turnbuckle style adjustment arms.

No, but if we hear enough about it it's probably simple enough in the future.

In a pinch you could use the Part Mirror command in the Mirror tool in part workspace to get a left handed representation. I fully understand that is not workable in bulk, but if you need a one off...

 

[stepalibre]

I am really struggling to understand what this means.

If your ask is about a lightweight approach, we have...cosmetic threads.

I don't know what you mean by "merging all the faces" or "grouping the surfaces".

If your ask is about a schematic representation, for example using a revolve cut instead of a helix, we did not see the value in that given the objectives of the feature and the time associated with implementating it, given that we already have 2 other lightweight representations.

Ok, Alibre doesn't need any optimizations at all, according to you. Lightweight features and assemblies are a thing in the 3D CAD world. It will get tested. You said model threads aren't suppressible in configs you would need to suppress the hole feature to not show the modeled thread. You could have two features one modeled threads and the other without if you want to control how the thread is shown in the part. Just trying to understand the thinking behind the feature and sharing my thoughts. My use would be for custom manufacturing and general part modeling not exclusively 3D printing so it matters how I can control the feature in existing parts and assemblies where I don't want real treads shown everywhere.

This is not enough info for me to do much with. Please email hello@reliefmaker.com with what you are seeing and we will get you up and running.

Just joking, I know what to do...

 

[stepalibre]

By merge faces I really mean reduce compute regen and update compute for example:



No topology computing from cut threads:

 

[aptivaboy]

Oh wow... That is very nice looking, thank you! I went ahead and did one year of Maintenance. I would have done more but I just got hit with a massive tax bill, my punishment for investing wisely, I suppose. I'm definitely looking forward to the improved filleting controls. My other big wish list would be improved import and export options, especially since I have started doing 3D scanning and there is no easy import into Alibre from STL and OBJ scans. Even if it was an Alibre approved third party tool, something like that would be amazing. Even CadExchanger has its limitations,

Thank you again!

Robert