Product Desgin Suite 2012 Network LIcense query

[phildoyle8528]

Hi,

I wonder if anybody can answer my query?

We currently use Inventor 2009, Mech 2009 3DS MAX, etc from FlexLM network licenses.   Each product has its own license key within the license file so we can manage and monitor access to the products using option files.

We are piloting the 2012 products as we are planning to move to them over the next few months but have noticed an issue.

Because Autodesk have bundled all of the products together in one Suite they have covered them by a single license key e.g.

PACKAGE 85814PDSP_F adskflex 1.000 COMPONENTS="85795PDSP_2012_0F

The problem we have is we cannot control/monitor access to the various applications because they all use the same license key!   For example we could have users "playing" with Mudbox tieing up licenses that Inventor users need and we would have no way of knowing.  We could install just key products but that causes issues when you then wish to deploy the extra products (so Im told)

Also, if we run out of licenses, our managmenet software (JTBReporter) has no way of knowing whether we are using too many Inventors, 3DS MAxs etc

Regards,

Phil

[TravisNave]

The 85795PDSP_2012_0F feature will still break down the usage on the status enquiry by product pulled.  So if you pull a Max license, it will show a Max license pulled in addition to the PACKAGE feature license in use.  If you have separate Max licenses that are not part of the Subscription group, then you can combine your license files if you generate them all on the same date. 

[phildoyle8528]

Hi Travis,

I dont think 2012 works the way you say.  Upto 2011 the license file had individual products within the license file.  From 2012 onwards they appear to have been removed.

If you look at the section below from our license file you will notice it has products keys for older products eg 2011, 2010 etc but only a single 2012 component.  Both the LMTOOLS utility and our JTBReporter only sees the use of the single 2012 key not matter what product is opened. 

PACKAGE 85814PDSP_F adskflex 1.000 COMPONENTS="85795PDSP_2012_0F \
 85573INVBUN_2011_0F 85607SHOWCASE_2011_0F 85615ALSK_2011_0F \
 85580MBXPRO_2011_0F 85545AMECH_PP_2011_0F 85503MAXDES_2011_0F \
 85579INVNTOR_2011_0F 70400INVBUN_2010_0F 83900MBXPRO_2010_0F \
 71800AMECH_PP_2010_0F 70000MAXDES_2010_0F 85577INVNTOR_2010_0F \
 59300INVBUN_2009_0F 59200AMECH_PP_2009_0F 612003DSMAX_2009_0F \
 70200MBXPRO_2009_0F" OPTIONS=SUITE SUPERSEDE \

[DarrenP]

yes you are correct

so if some opens up mudbox it will take a product design suite license you cannot change this since it is part of the suite package

[TravisNave]

Phil,

You are misunderstanding what I wrote.  It will indeed pull from the Product Design Suite.  Your NLM will show one license in use for the feature code for the Design Suite.  It will also then break down further and show the product version pulled.  For example, it would show a license in use for the Suite 2012, but also for Max 2011 if that is what you opened. 

You should still be able to combine existing Max 2011 files with the Product Suite so long as both are created on the same date. 

[phildoyle8528]

Travis, I agree that if we were running 2011 versions of the products then it works like you say.   But as we plan to only run 2012 versions then I do not see how it can log the different componenets of the suite as there is no entry for them in the license file.  I have had this confirmed via our Autodesk reseller who spoke with Autodesk.

It looks like you either have to create multiple package installs or us GPOs to control access to the executables.

I am surprised nobody else has raised this as an issue as it affects a business ability to manage its licenses when it has a large user base of pooled licenses.

[TravisNave · Accepted solution]

Yes, that is correct.  But originally you mentioned that you are using 2009 versions.  These will be superseded by the new Subscription suite for 2012, use a 2012 suite license, but still show as 2009, for example.  There is a lot of confusion and learning curve with the new suites and cascading of files.  We're all learning.  Good Luck!

[raulingeniero79]

Hello everyone. So I have the same concern of Phil. If I install a network license of a product design suite, we can't open two software of the suite on different computers at once? This can be a problem for the success of the suites because it limits the flexibility and the use of all programs. Could someone from Autodesk answer this or give an alternative.

Thanks.

[TravisNave]

You can open all the suites at once on one machine though. You're looking at it all wrong. No matter the product, you'll need one license for each computer. The suites simply expand the product usage. Now instead of having two MAX licenses, for example, you can have one plus the new suite. That would allow Inventor and Max on one machine with one license and the other user can still use the remaining MAX seat. Other than needing two MAX and one Inventor. There is great benefit in the suites. You're looking to be able to split the package magically with one seat on two computers. That's never been the case. Not even with MDT and AIS back a few releases ago. One seat per computer. Same as always. Just now that one seat is good for more.

[raulingeniero79]

thank you for your quickly answer, that is so clear. then I need to purchase one aditional license of the product that I want to use in a diferent computer. I was thinking that I could open only one product at once, then what is the advantage of the network licencing for only one user at once? If I have one license, I rather instal stand alone license, and if I have two license, instal one in each machine.
Excuse me the ask but I have no experience in network licensing.
Thaks again.

[TravisNave]

Right. The benefit of network licensing is you can install to an infinite number of clients but are limited to how many concurrent seats you own, and one seat works for multiple products. Stand alone is one install for only one computer. Glad you're a little more cleared up. 🙂