HISTORY TREE NAMES

turan_aydin

Currently HTN (History Tree Names)  are in the following format
Extrude 1
Extrude 2
Revolve 1
Revolve 2
Chamfer 1
Chamfer 2
Fillet 1
Fillet 2 
etc...
and this actually  tell us only the type of the operation , yes we can rename them but this is time consuming
The suggestion is to have Names like:
Extrude 25mm
Revolve 30°
Chamfer 5mm 
Fillet 8mm
Thicken 2mm
Draft 3°
Rib 2.5mm
Shell 2mm
Hole M10mm
Boolean Union (Subtract or Intersect) 
Move 45mm (instead of Transform 1)
Copy 45mm (instead of Transform 2)
Modify fillet 8mm to 3mm
Move face 6mm
Offset surface 7mm
Plane offset 20mm
Helix 4 revolutions
etc.

Some of them will be repeated like
Fillet 5mm
Fillet 5mm
but this is better then Fillet 1, Fillet 2

At the end you still can rename it.

alessandro_cavoli

I like this suggestion!!

lougallo

@turan_aydin Although it seems easy, this is not really a scalable option and there are many things that might no fit this naming convention. Building something that works for you might not work for everyone. Might be better to do this as a script that processes your tree bases on your formate for certain types.  I like the idea but not something we are going to do at this point.

MBartlett21

What I'd like is Extrude to rename itself to Cut Extrude if it was cutting material away.
I often have to look back in the extrude's definition to see whether it was a cut extrude or not

owen_sparks

I'd still like the option to turn off automatic sequential naming and force the user to name the feature before accepting it.

O.S.

Bryan_Jones

Personally, like owen_sparks, I would like to be able to force users to name features.  This should be a company level setting as I have a huge issue with learning what somebody else has been doing in an assembly, part studio, etc. having to comb through sketch1, 2,...543 instead of having even a vague reference to what it is.  Currently, our company is global and we collaborate among many designers.  Some are better than others with respect to housekeeping.  Those that aren't I would like to at least force getting into the habit of naming features.

S1mon

I would only be remotely ok with this if it would automatically update if I changed the dimension. I've worked on too many other people's models where people name features this way, then the feature dimension gets updated for whatever reason, but the name doesn't. Even if this was an option, I'm not crazy about it since I would prefer to name my features so they make sense to me and my team.

I much prefer that people capture the design intent in naming the features (e.g. instead of Offset Surface 3mm, we have Main Wall Thickness). As much as I would prefer engineers to name every feature, I've never quite been ready to force it on people (something you can do in Solidworks). I do very strongly advocate at least putting features in named folders to group together functional/physical areas of the model.

Like @MBartlett21 I would like it if some of the features would be generically named so that it's more obvious what flavor we're dealing with (e.g. a protrusion or a cut). Transform feature naming is also pretty stupid this way. If I select Scale vs Translate vs Rotate, those are almost different features that happen to be grouped under one tool. I'm probably not going to go back and convert a Scale to a Rotate. I get that they're all affine transformations and they go together mathematically, but from user perspective, they're often very different.

eric_pesty

I agree that naming features is good practices but forcing manual naming of every single feature would be really annoying when your are just trying to do something quickly... Naming every few "key" feature is enough to convey design intent.

I like how if you mouse over a mate in the assembly it shows a preview of the mate parameters (or config parameters for parts/sub-assemblies). It would be nice if the feature tree in a part studio did the same thing, flashing the dialogue parameters as you mouse over, maybe only in a certain "mode" (like the "show mate mode in assembly as it could get distracting sometimes) so you could learn more about the different features by just mousing over it rather than having to rely on feature names or having to edit time to see what they actually are.