V23 - "Other" Requests.

[HaroldL]

The 'extrude to surface' tool still doesn't work properly. That could do with putting right.

Example: extruding a cylinder to a sphere with a 3mm offset.

Are you asking that the offset reflect the surface it is offset from? In your example the end of the cylinder would be a spherical radius offset from the sphere? That would be nice.

And... The ability to select multiple surfaces to extrude to. That would be awesome.

+1 for this. I could see that this would be a handy function to have - it should be a selectable option

 

[bigseb]

Are you asking that the offset reflect the surface it is offset from? In your example the end of the cylinder would be a spherical radius offset from the sphere? That would be nice.

Yes, exactly. Very handy.

 

[JST]

Ah, one other that I just realized about... Multiple constraint.....

Suppose you have a large number, say 30 pc, that all need to be on the same plane, the ability to select a "multiple constraint" and then mark each of the surfaces that you want coincident on the plane, one on each of the pieces, and then have the "execute" or "OK" button apply the lot at once would be really extremely useful.*

I see this as the first selected is the "master", and the others selected would be then constrained to it, and move to conform to the constraint.

There is the question of whether this is a single constraint, or if it appears in the tree as a number of them.

I think it should appear as a single constraint, editable. And, when edited, any individual surface can be deleted from the list, except the original "master" surface or plane.

I confess I have not yet thought out which constraints this should be possible with, and which it conflicts with.

However, I initially think it has to be possible with "coincident" constraint with a plane, and therefore also for an offset of the same type. I cannot immediately say why it should not be possible with anything that "coincident"applies to.

Fastener, that is just not possible in my view, because you have a multiplicity of BOTH destination references and object references. This depends on ONE destination reference and multiple objects.

Coaxial, that should be possible, given suitable objects.

Angle.... maybe, but I do not forsee all the ramifications clearly there

Tangent, I think yes.

I do not think there is any way to do this now, or if there is, it is not findable in the help

* Imagine, for instance, that you are doing a facility layout. You have a large number of "things" that need to be constrained to a floor plane, which are perhaps all different, so an "array" is not applicable. You will have a huge number of constraints applied just to get the items down on the floor, and then you start locating them.

Much simpler to collect a lot of constraints in one place by the "multiple constraint", and a much cleaner design tree.

 

[bigseb]

Ah, one other that I just realized about... Multiple constraint.....

Suppose you have a large number, say 30 pc, that all need to be on the same plane, the ability to select a "multiple constraint" and then mark each of the surfaces that you want coincident on the plane, one on each of the pieces, and then have the "execute" or "OK" button apply the lot at once would be really extremely useful.*

+1. Creo has this. Massive time saver.

 

[HaroldL]

If I'm not mistaken, this used to be possible in v21, maybe someone still on v21 could verify it. You could select planes from multiple parts and they would ALL be constrained together.

I just tried this in v22 and it is a Massive PITA to not be able to select multiple faces or planes or whatever and have them all constrained to the same plane. Any combination of Shift+select or Ctrl+select all the planes to align, either before or after initiating the Constraint dialog ALWAYS defaults to only the first two features being constrained. Even with the Constraint dialog active selecting subsequent items will only replace the last item selected with the one just selected. I think we lost something useful with the new constraint tool.

 

[NateLiquidGravity]

If I'm not mistaken, this used to be possible in v21, maybe someone still on v21 could verify it. You could select planes from multiple parts and they would ALL be constrained together.

You definitely could not on v21. I'm still on that on one pc.

 

[JST]

Feature request ticket submitted

 

[HaroldL]

You definitely could not on v21. I'm still on that on one pc.

I might be thinking of using the Equal constraint on arcs/circles.

 

[HaroldL]

Ah, one other that I just realized about... Multiple constraint.....

What we need is something like this.

 

[JST]

What we need is something like this.

Well, now, that would be just fine.

As-in YES.... that is pretty much what I want exactly, with a couple additions that I had not thought of.

I LIKE the folder, and also the opportunity to dissolve the multi into separate mates.

I don't recall SWX having that, but the version I used was from 8 or 9 years ago.

 

[HaroldL]

I don't recall SWX having that, but the version I used was from 8 or 9 years ago.

From the info I could find online, Multi-mates was introduced with v2012. When I was still working I used it a lot for inserting screws when patterning wouldn't work.

 

[bigseb]

What we need is something like this.

Not bad. The Creo Multi constraint was a bit different. Either way its a useful feature.

 

[jasonmburns]

Still pushing for Automatic Physical Threads in Alibre Atom3D for 3D Printing similar to the way Fusion 360 does it.

https://www.autodesk.com/products/fusion-360/blog/tip-tuesday-making-real-threads-in-fusion-360/

 

[TimoCAD]

My thoughts and needs:
- split line drafts or split line wizard for very complex tooling
- folders in the design tree for Editing of booleans within the part file (multibody parts)
- simple parametric surfacing Tools (extrude, revolve, sew surfaces, extend surfaces, fillets, cut surfaces on planes and bodies) for hybrid modelling

 

[jfleming]

I'll add this...

1) Free up some space on the ribbon for part modeling. I don't understand why the Add/Remove Extrude/Revolve/Sweep, need to be duplicated side by side. IMO the decision for add/remove material should be in the flyout window as a choice. As shown below. This would allow for 5 other icons to be larger (Mirror/draft/shell/Boolean/etc.)

 

[NateLiquidGravity]

1) Free up some space on the ribbon for part modeling....

I'm not completely opposed to having Boss and Cut as an option in the dialog, but it isn't as intuitive to add and cut with the same tool for new users. What would you use as an icon?

However I think thinwall should be an option at the bottom of the normal dialogs. Thinwall tools are already hidden by default.

I'd suggest you (personally and anyone else reading) ditch the ribbon and use traditional menus, toolbars, and custom toolbars instead. It will free up screen space and all the tools I use are visible at the same time.

 

[simonb65]

I'd suggest you (personally and anyone else reading) ditch the ribbon and use traditional menus, toolbars, and custom toolbars instead.

The ribbon is a common look on most modern windows applications, however, the Alibre ribbon tends to be very confusing to users as the concept of the ribbon (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/uxguide/cmd-ribbons) was that it was laid out based on workflow and current operation context ... and sadly Alibre doesn't really do that (apart from 2d and 3d sketch mode). So it appears at best clunky and un structured. I agree that standard toolbars offer better use of real estate on smaller and lower resolution monitors, but I personally like the ribbon concept ... it just needs a major overhaul with some ergonomic thought put into it, then the benefits will come to the surface! At the end of the day, it's what your used to, and how productive you can be with it, that really matters.

 

[HaroldL]

However I think thinwall should be an option at the bottom of the normal dialogs.

I had turned this in as a suggestion years ago complete with a "marked up" image of the Extrude dialogs. I don't know how difficult the programming would be to implement it but it seems like a no-brainer to me. I'd like to see it implemented since I found helpful when I was working with SolidWorks.

 

[jfleming]

When making a new drawing, this popup appears for filling in the title block. The "Tab" key is useless in this window. It should tab from "designed" to the text box, where I can enter text information, then tab again should move to "scale", etc.

Instead I have to take my hand from the keyboard to the mouse, back and forth for each item in the title block.

Also, it would be nice if certain parts of the title block data could be pre-populated based off of what file folder they are in, or somehow link back to some common file for all the parts in the folder. (I know a vault would probably do this, correct?)

 

[Jake_Steidy]

4) Request that when utilizing the constraints provided in 2D drawing mode they have the ability to dimension and fully define a part. Simple example here is I was drawing a circle on a midpoint line of a square. The square is fully defined and I defined the one element that should be needed to define the circles position, the 0.281" distance. That is because it is defined by a concentric constraint on the point on that ref. line, and then the ref. line is defined at the midpoint of a fully defined line. (No adding a horizontal constraint to the reference line is not possible, and does not fully define the circle)
So basically what I am asking is that constraints have the ability to fully define the position of components being drawn, it would clean up my part drawings, instead of needing redundant dimensions.
Best regards,
Jake