BEST PRACTICE! Sketch Per Feature (& Features Instead of Sketches!)

[@rackhir100]

One sketch per feature, you ve said that many times. Since i implemented it my parts more adaptive and clean. You re totally right man.

[@sagarpaul587]

It's been a month since i started learning inventor and sir your videos help me to connect the dots of all those lengthy tutorials that i have been watching lately.

[@TheChrisrobbo]

Cheers Neil Sorry for drinking your beer in Australia last week! Thanks for taking the time, it was appreciated. Let’s all get behind Neil so he continues these videos so we can all learn best practice

[@Neil3D]

Thanks Chris was awesome to meet you and cheers for the tip you sent as well! Much appreciated!

[@chrishahn267]

Wow, this was a great video. I've been using CAD software (not Inventor) for over 20 years. I orginally learned the "create your part with as few features as possible" technique because we were designing systems with many thousands of parts and our workstations would routinely crash. That was with Pro-E 2000i. I've never thought about changing to a single feature per sketch technique until this video, but it makes a lot of sense. I'm going to give it a shot!

[@Goat_Beans]

Hey Neil, cracking video again. I have been a fan of the channel for a bloody long time now. I work in the nuclear industry and one of the biggest pet peeves of mine is that we don't require any of our engineers/designers to have professional training in inventor/vault. People still seem to think that anyone can just pick up this software, day one, and be able to pump out models and drawings without issue. I spend a lot of my time troubleshooting and educating people on 'best practices'. I always point them to your channel as a point of reference! Cheers for the years of content! Ben

[@jorgito999]

Mate, it is common in any industry, if the part looks ok many think it is ok but it is a mess inside. Very few people in management value good practices in drafting and setting up correctly templates, styles, libraries, etc in an engineering office, they just tend to look at the end result.

[@autodeskinventorsolutionsa9481]

Good old tutorial, many thanks!!! I have learned a lot from your channel. I often look up for some of your videos to refresh my knowledge on specific subjects. One thing I'd like to add to the best practices topic. It would be even better in this case to create the sketch for Cut feature on the same workplane that was used for the Block feature (not on the face on the Block). And instead of the edges project the sketch lines from the first sketch. This way features themselves are less dependent on each other. Only the sketches are. And sketches are less computationally expensive. The part becomes more robust and easier to change for the future requirements. At my company we use top down approach for modelling conveyors. Most of the parts are dependent on some base skeletal part with only several sketches. So changing the length in the base part would cause updates in hundreds of child parts. Having properly built sketches and features is crucial

[@jrichlin]

Great addition to the topic, thank you

[@giveusthebigtastyback7124]

This is the first of your videos I have watched and I just loved it! Thanks for the insights

[@tonyparks1177]

High Neil another good best practice video and clearly explained, if you go to Application options and under Part you can tick the Display extended information which shows in your browser more information on how the part is created, I'm sure you know this but for anyone who doesn't! Also looking at the browser in the top right hand corner click the 3 lines for extended options gives you Autoscroll think this was added in version 2023, so when highlighting a part it show automatically in the browser, this works best in an assembly. Keep up the good work mate.

[@gussanders5518]

More best practice videos would be excellent, higher level insight on considerations for making things easier to change, more robust, easier to follow etc. Miss the inventor content, am now using solidworks alot for work, would enjoy examples of top down breakdowns of the fundamentals of parametric modeling less focused on the software and more the theory/approach.

[@MsVelog]

Thanks, for the best Inventor tutorials. Happy to see new videos about inventor from you.

[@juanlegrange941]

I have actually followed along with that "tutorial" (2:44) and as a beginner I found it useless, did not learn anything, however the way you explain it make so much sense, have been watching your videos for a while and I must say I have learned a lot from your videos than any tutorials out there, thanks for the great content.

[@michaelvanrooyen1856]

Hi Sir, Like your vidio, I am exploring Inventor, I am Solidworks Pro and used to sketch as much as possible in base sketch. I also found problems in Inventor sketching MY way,. Thanks a million

[@davidf.6073]

Please more best practice videos! Inventor (& Solidworks) lets you do so many things in so many different ways - some of them clever and some causing major headaches and tears later on. From a mechanical engineer who uses Inventor nearly everyday, I'd love to see: routing, CAD to CAM best practice, ipart/iassembly/ifeature best practice, Vault, studies, and so much more. Also, for me, Tech3D for nearly two years has been a lifeline on how to learn Inventor. Neil conveys his techniques in a interesting, clear, and knowledgeable way - sometimes even making it pretty entertaining! Thanks for doing what you do! 😁

[@antoninodenaro1861]

Good tutorials and good explanation for using feature and sketch

[@timchristman2814]

Hi Neil, great video as usual! I have a question, at 9:55 in the video you talk about fillets and using the feature and not sketch. We do that now, however we instruct our users to not put the fillets or chamfers in until the very end of the model, basically the the very bottom of the model tree. When they need to make changes we also have them move the EOP above the fillets and chamfers at a minimum. Is this something you find useful and recommend as well or are we being a little to "over constraining" with our users?

[@caseypierce2840]

YES to this! You are not being over constraining...Fillets and Chamfers tend to be the first features to fail in a model when something is changed, so applying those at the end of the model tree is fantastic!

[@ChuckKarl525]

Thanks Neil, very helpful!

[@FTMJarra]

Makes perfect sense, cheers Neil 👍

[@stevewalton6829]

I come from a one-off, new product development environment, so I don’t spend much time with ilogic, top-down methods or designing repetitive parts and assemblies. I try to teach new users to plan the modeling techniques based on how they plan to modify the component over its entire design life. In fact I recommend building a rough model to understand the geometry, then remodeling as time allows so that the critical dimensions and features can be adjusted easily. I try to limit my sketches to 15-20 geometric entities each. Another goal is to make sketch and feature dependency/references match the 2d print dimensioning scheme. I also limit projected geometry to the minimum necessary to create the feature. That minimizes any broken geometry when I roll back the model tree. Finally, fillets and chamfers should be at the end of a model tree whenever possible.

[@vyfastify]

I totaly agree with your best practice. Maby not always 1 sketch per feature, but in general you ar right. My approach is that i think how part is manufactured: take a block of metal (or what ever) and then start milling, drilling grinding, welding etc., in other words remove or add stuf as i progress. Another thing to alway keep in mind, is question: will other person pick up and continue my work if something happens to me.

[@gerritvisser]

thank you, helps me a lot in F360 as well.

[@PavlushaPushkin]

Специалист своего дела. Прекрасная манера изложения. Все понятно доступным языком. Спасибо.

[@martinhinsley6198]

Loved the description "BURN THROUGH". Had`nt heard that before but is a great bullit point description. Great stuff Neil. All the best from fellow Brit.

[@Atit-820]

Thanked, very good content

[@antalz]

Coming from Fusion360, one easy way to get around finding the right feature is to click one of the surfaces. Fusion360 will put a small black line under the corresponding feature on the timeline. I think around 8:10 that's also exactly what inventor did, it highlighted Extrusion9 right there. Adjusing the sketch was messed up, but that's arguably because of not dimensioning/constraining the sketch in the optimal way. Nevertheless, you can sidestep all of that hassle by following best practice. As you said there are a bunch of places where following best practice might not make a whole lot of sense. For example in my bevel gear tutorial I do a lot of work out of a single sketch, mainly because the cone angles of the gears, the gear ratio and the shaft angle all have to match up, and the teeth have to be in the same place too of course. That's much easier to guarantee if you capture all of that in a single sketch. Edit: you have a cog here in an .ipt, but that means you can't do any kind of mates or joints right? That's only for .iam?

[@Neil3D]

Yea the cog part at the end was purely to demonstrate the purpose and point of this video, it should have been a seperate part and assembly but the focus was purely features and sketches keeping on point. Re the gears and teeth, honestly I don't know the first thing about specialist gear design and the formulas/parametrics that go into making a functional gear. As a dummy looking at it, a gear appears to be a uniform pattern of teeth so my initial thought would be to follow this rule, but if it genuinely is far too complex to do that with the angles and parameters needed then yea it absolutely can go all into one sketch.

[@robertojofre15]

thanks a ton, these fundamentals are key!

[@jeremyjpegan]

Bro, most underrated channel! I work in Revit and am looking to use the inventor to Revit workflow in some cases. Keep grinding brother!

[@kevinli2574]

I came from CATIA where there was a model tree for sketch features. When I started using Inventor and SolidWorks I surprisingly found that there wasn’t a tree for the sketch, and it is very difficult to control a complex sketch. The first best practice I set for myself was “always use 3D feature over sketch feature”.

[@fjnagle2nd]

All great reasons for your best practices and I completely agree. I guess I was blessed to only have had to work in a single user environment from the beginning of my Inventor experience. Having only ever having to think about what worked best for me, I never gave a thought to how what I do would affect others work flow. Also when I started with Inventor (Series 9) storage was a concern. I guess coming from that mindset has affected why I've never seen fit to change how I do things. But you are absolutely correct, even my humble workstation is resource rich both in RAM and storage. As usual, great stuff Neal. God bless and stay well. Please don't look at any of what I published as "tutorials". ;)

[@edouardstringer3601]

Neil, At 8:05 you change the Feature Priority. Do you have a button setup for that on your keyboard or is there another quick way to access it?

[@yalanir]

Shift+Right Click will bring up the priority selection menu :)

[@drewnix7201]

Hey. Thanks for the great tips! Love your videos

[@isaith777]

Hey, good to know I'm doing it right ¡¡ Great video

[@bes445]

more of these little tips! great stuff

[@bobvidal7096]

Beautiful !

[@Goat_Beans]

Quick tips like this are incredibly useful! No idea what the KZbin algorithm is like for them but are KZbin shorts any good for quick tips in terms of engagement and monetisation for yourself? I'm thinking Ian Hubert style haha

[@andrenell2237]

Hi Neil, I am battling to get cables after I created a segment for a wire or cable to run along. Can you help

[@JeffreySBarrero]

Ops I missed this video, and you mention here some things I asked for in previous comment. I know Inventors performance is always pin to the processor, but does the drawing side of inventor benefits more from the video card?

[@controlsgirl]

Great share

[@czr7j9]

Makes sense when things gets complicated

[@latto101]

The amount of times I’ve preached this is unreal. The amount of times I’ve gone in unconstrained sketches is a personal hell of mine.

[@luneriezebos1815]

uehm, shared sketch could be considered best practice.... but in general I fully agree.

[@SermedAlWasiti]

Good one, mate, as always...BTW, planning on getting "your" GT77 soon...;)

[@Neil3D]

LOL thats the one! And yea it arrived at home whilst I'm over in Australia, it should have arrived before I went to Oz so I could have took it with me but FedEx are hilariously incompetent. But yea, it's waiting for me back home!

[@vernarddevilliers7899]

Can you do a video on setting up inventor? Like all the little settings that you like to change to make life easier.

[@Neil3D]

Honestly there isn't much, I only change two or three things and they're purely cosmetic! I think I did that in the last live stream that I did about GPU ray tracing, no idea what time stamp sorry but I vaguely remember setting up the application options in that live stream. Possibly something I could separate out though.

[@duane1234561]

ohhh this feels like a tutorial, BRING THEM BACK BRING THEM BACK . haha just kidding thanks for the video

[@Neil3D]

It did feel like one didn't it! Ah the good old days

[@almostanengineer]

It was like half tutorial, half tip video, and this was what I miss from Neil’s original videos.

[@MatsNorway]

Tip for anyone else i guess :) ctrl+b finds the feature (or part) in browser.

[@2fast4ulsr]

This is exactly how I do everything. It makes it so much easier to modify.

[@JeronimoStilton14]

Id still consider myself a bit of a beginner to inventor but I have way more problems updating geometry with projected geometry than just sketch features. If I applied parameters to the circle and square that you first drew and then adjusted them they’d work every time, doing it on the projection route would be a toss up. Maybe there are intricacies but that’s my two cents

[@nachoshaw7084]

Hey, in relation to best practices, would you please look at and hopefully discuss Y up vs Z up and the sharing of models to other platforms where Z is up? Z should be up but inventor is Y up. Yes you can change the orientation but change it and then watch in frustration while inventor persists to maintain a Y up view. It drives me nuts along with why on earth inventor is Y up in the first place... 😊😊

[@beno9966]

The Y or Z up should make very little difference. When sharing a model, you should be able to re-define what is "up" just as when you take an Inventor model into a Cam environment. Z becomes up.

[@nachoshaw7084]

@@beno9966 I disagree. I went through a whole process on this. By default, Inventor is Y up and when sharing with Rhino, 3D Max, Navisworks, Autocad, all of the models are rotated 90 degrees which is an issue. Yes you can change the orientation which we did at the time but even when your template model is re-oriented, Inventor still persists a Y up environment in automatic view rotations. There is not a true way to change the UCS and make Z up be Z up

[@Neil3D]

Must admit I haven't experienced this issue. I've just spent 20 mins trying to make it an issue but can't? I modelled a part in Inventor, stock, imported it into AutoCAD and it came in the right way up... imported it into 3DS Max and was able to chose Z for the up axis (part was modeled with base sketch on XY plane) and it came in the right way up... no rotation by 90. In what context is Inventor categorising the "up" direction? Because to my knowledge the up direction is arbitrary in Inventor and set by you when you begin the modeling, if you sketch on XY then Z is up "in theory" but I don't see anywhere where Inventor has an upwards classification other than viewcube and camera settings which shouldn't impact export and import? If you can give a repeatable workflow and the version you're on I'll try and reproduce.

[@nachoshaw7084]

@@Neil3DHey, thanks for replying. By default, Invnetor doesnt show the UCS in the bottom corner and all of the templates are set with a Y up. Its not exactly arbirary because Invnetor will still attempt to force a Y up orientation even if you have set Z as the up with the view cube aligning with TOP. I created a dummy model in Inventor with a native untouched UCS have the Y up. When imported into autoCAD & Blender, they import it rotated because natively, these 3D applications are Z up. I then adjusted the Inventor template to have a Z up with the view cube aligned with TOP. when you start a sketch, Inventor will automatically rotate the view back to a Y up and you can easily miss this and start modelling Y up. Navisworks collaboration tool depends mostly on all geometry being correctly oriented. AutoCAD, 3D Max, Revit, Blender, Catia all are Z up native, Inventor is not and although it is possible to get it Z up, inventor does persist a Y up orientation. Here is a link to a comparison image - www.dropbox.com/s/kzjqy3qv0h17jij/view%201.jpg?dl=0 and here is a link to the persistent Y up on a sketch start with a Z up setup - www.dropbox.com/s/letyea8gfvlrkp7/View%202.gif?dl=0 & www.dropbox.com/s/u9kyk7fcmh2aj0c/View%203.mp4?dl=0

[@brainnurture1828]

I love you bro loll you are so funny

[@andrealves2210]

if you see my models you would use much more "biiiiip" sounds... good learning today. tks mate!!!

[@thomasfeiller7062]

Rt click and select "find in browser"... what's the big deal? But the general theme of the vid is spot on.

[@andyhelipilot3528]

Would you be prepared to release a fair complex file in which best practice has been followed? A great learning tool from experts in the field like yourself. Here is a drawing of what we are to create, have a go following best practice. Then compare with your file to learn different methodologies and a experts opinion on how to tackle that part most efficiently. A series like this would be priceless for training I believe. What’s your thoughts?

[@BeezerWashingbeard]

Great approach, but I find that it's sometimes prone to errors. If the projected geometry is changed significantly, the sketch lines will sometimes lose their respective references, and EVERY single feature after that in the model history will fail. Fillets, chamfers, holes, shells etc absolutely last does help though.

[@Piou2fois]

How many sketches I have seen with chamfer, holes and almost everything in it... There are few situation I use one sketch for several features by sharing it is for the holes. I create a single sketch with all holes centers and then create features based on same sketche but of course with different holes definitions. Help to remove holes without loosing others and keep the feature tree clean. There is one nothing I never do : pattern of entities in a sketch. best way to create a huge mess....but that's another story

[@quadrannilator]

I don't know what has improved in the last 3 versions but Inventor is pretty dumb when it comes to machining welded assemblies, with which I have to work a lot. Because of the unavailability of features in the Welded assy environment, I have to derive that assembly and machine on it in the part environment. And when I try to machine THRU multiple parts - which are still seperated by their original seams as an individual part - especially if the THRU selection contains a welded region, the pattern will not include all the parts in selection. That is when I am forced to sketch features as simple as circular holes, and pattern them in a single sketch to machine everything at once. One of the things that most angers me about Inventor and its developers, is that this issue of part features, like making OD threads on welded parts, has been a feature request as far back as 2009 and it is still not available in Inventor 2018. (Haven't checked later version.) I mean, that kinda leaves me with very less respect for the dev team. How hard can it be to make this happen...

[@beno9966]

The Weldment environment still needs a lot of love, in fact a lot of workflows in assemblies are a bit weak, especially if you are coming from other software where you might be used to doing more in assemblies. Inventor treats assemblies as a box that you just put things in.

[@quadrannilator]

@@beno9966 Well yes, I would generally concur with you. Given that there are already machining commands in that environment, why not add a few more? Something like OD threads post welding is still a subtractive workflow, so you have the hole command that can do ID threads but not the regular OD thread feature. So strange in a way... Frame generator and its associated commands have received a good uplift and so have model states (LoD like things). But it still is difficult to conveniently model, document and keep integrity of sequential file generation/workflow, such as in Cast/Weld parts and assemblies, in which operations and manufacturing drawings simply have to be created in the manner they will be carried out in real life, and not just be content with model data.

[@luneriezebos1815]

Hmm, I stand corrected...

[@maage89]

Hey NeiI, I love your videos, but with this one, I gotta disagree - at least somewhat.. Building the features like you are, is creating a lot of adaptivity which can be really hard to control. For example when you added the fillet on the first extrusion sketch, your circle was no longer in the center, but you didn't even notice it. I would always project the center planes, because no matter what you do to your part, they will always be there, and won't move. When making most of the design intent in one sketch, you have everything in one place. If you for example decided to change your first feature from a square to a hex or a circle, all your features in the model tree will break, because they are linked to it. Now you have to spend time fixing each of the features, instead of simply fixing it all in the one sketch. In my opinion, best practice is fewer features, or at least shared sketches 😊

[@R4GEcraft]

^This. One sketch per feature should not be an absolute rule. I often use a single sketch for a whole complex geometry i'll extrude because it's easier to sketch it rather than "redoing" it in every sketch with projection and risking losing every feature if i want to add one in the middle down the line. I wouldn't do an aluminium extrusion with a dozen of extrusions but just one, then 4/5 holes then the filets. The construction tree is easy to read, easy to modify and it was easy to create in the first place Same with holes on a surface, i would use one shared sketch with all holes as points with their needed distance between each other, rather than one sketch per hole dimension with projections of every other features i need to position my new hole. However, when there is a tool in Inventor you can use for a feature on your part, you should use it instead of sketching it. Filets, chamfers, patterns and threaded holes for exemple

[@beno9966]

Exactly. One sketch per feature is fine for a simple model or beginner but there are many examples where it's just not the right approach. Sketches relying on feature geometry is bound to fall over on complex models that might be an iLogic configuration etc. Not to mention if you are deriving the model to use for other models, sketches being dependent on feature geometry will very easily break if you add a chamfer later in the design process. The edge is lost. Selecting a feature and going "find in browser" is how i usually navigate models with a lot of features to begin with. This is fast. Apart from that, most of the important dimensions are then just controlled via parameters that are named accordingly.

[@hieronymuslarsson1388]

To me, a main sketch often feels like the most easy and natural way of working out/controlling/overviewing how features/solids interrelate. A system of two or three sketches in different origin planes, or origin-derived planes, works as a robust master plan/skeleton of the design where everything is editable in the same context, and it's visible how things affect one another and relate to external constraints like the max build space (might be in the sketch as construction geometry). But of course, sketches can't get too messy and have to be made with editability in mind. Everything that's either "repeat" or non-critical about the design, usually mirrors, patterns, chamfers, fillets , is done with the modeling tools. However, functionally critical chamfers/fillets would go in the main sketch. I might also mirror things as construction geometry in the main sketch for the purpose of for example checking vs. external constraints/references.

[@Neil3D]

I've watched it back a dozen times and can't see where adding a fillet threw a circle out? The circle isn't perfectly central at 8:48 but that's the other side of the part and done before I changed any fillets, and probably was off-centre the whole time. I knocked this up super quick the day before I was flying to Australia and probably just forgot to constrain it but I didn't see anything move with a fillet placement? Making that central and tidy wasn't the focus of this, it was about the pattern and talking points around that. Either way, everyone is welcome to do things how they personally feel comfortable and companies are fine to find what works for their designs.

[@chrisose]

Bitching for bitching's sake. Do you feel better now?

[@martinfarrow2825]

ideas for videos . people send you drawings of things and you pick out and draw them on a video showing best practices, easly set up an email adress just for content.

[@Neil3D]

Not sure I want to go that specialised into Inventor content again though, it's too ring fenced within the KZbin ecosystem. Also, I don't think I'd get much in the way of production drawings due to IP complications. Cheers though I'll keep it in mind if I do need to mix things up later on!

[@MrThebathtub]

Is it just me or are the lines/dimensions in Inventor hard to see? Projected geometry and construction geometry especially. This is one thing I wish they'd bring over from Fusion 360 into Inventor. Sketching in Fusion 360 is very clear and easy to differentiate between dimensions/lines.

[@rodolfocastelobranco1082]

👏👏👏

[@iceisnice74]

Hi Neil. Going to have to disagree with you here. Projected geometry is fragile. Work geometry, and their projections are far more resilient. See resilient modelling methodology webpage. Otherwise the logical structured approach, with the primary feature being simple and fail proof, is indeed best practice, and to be honest your approach in general is refreshingly realistic and pragmatic - real world. I have over 30,000 hours with Inventor, and the number of times I have heard experts share their gems of wisdom would have made me millions if I had a dollar for each one. Sadly most of them have been useless in the real world. I think in reality the best of us use less than 75% of Inventor’s capabilities in any day - there is always a better cleaner more elegant solution possible. T

[@rstige]

You make parametric designs by using sketches not features. Reduce features to a minimum and do the ground work in the sketches. That makes a robust and flexible model. Sketching on a face should be avoided if possible. If you change the geometry on the face the next sketch in the tree will loose its reference. Avoid having fillets and chamfers on the sketch and put them at the end of the tree. If you delete a fillet or chamfer in the middle of the tree and you have a sketch on a face connected to that feature, your sketch will loose its reference.

[@caseypierce2840]

admit it....you secretly missed doing this. ;-)