Using assemblies in a number of places with the Vault

[pkee]

Hello

I use Inventor 2013 and the Vault basic 2013 and I have a query regarding the ease of using the same assembly in many different places.

Basically we have a sub-assembly (call it assembly A) of 4 parts, very simple stuff, and it is used in about 100 other larger assemblies. Assembly A never gets editied due to its simplicity. When I go to open one of the larger assemblies, it askes if I need to check it out - fine, but then it asks me if I want to check out Assembly A, as it has been edited out of turn. This just is not true.

Assembly A is added and removed from many of these large assemblies we use so I wonder if its the history of this assembly A in the Vault that is changing, and so wants me to check it out.

This problem happens alot with alot of the sub-assemblies I have and its becoming a major pain when I open one top level assembly and it want to check every sub-assy out.

Should I use the same sub-assembly everywhere or not?

Thanks

P Kee

[cbenner]

Hello,

This "Edited out of turn" thing has been an ongoing pain in the rear of most Vault users... basically forever.  You know the file has not been edited at all, but Vault still wants you to check it out to update it.  Supposedly this is being addressed for some future release with a solution.  For now I'd say, yes... go ahead and use this assembly wherever you want it. 

I don't know if anyone else has any workarounds but I usually just go ahead and check it out, otherwise IV won't let me save my parent assembly and check it into Vault.

[pkee]

Yes this 'Edited ou of turn' thing!

I dont particularly want to check them out everytime because the history of that assy will grow and grow without any changes you know. But now that I know its actually a unversal pain Ill try figure it out.

Thanks

[Cadmanto]

PKee,

Welcome to the forum.

No, I would not create a new assembly just to avoid this issue.  What is the status of this assembly "A"?  Released, WIP or what.

I used to find this very annoying as well.  I always just took ownership of it (if it's state wasn't "Released") and moved on.  Never asked beyond that if I did do this.

If this sub assembly "A" is not in the state of "Released" you might want to think about placing it there.

If this solved your issue please mark this posting "Accept as Solution".

Or if you like something that was said and it was helpful, Kudos are appreciated. Thanks!!!! 

     

[brendan.henderson]

The OP is using Vault Basic. So no Lifecycle states.

I would guess that most Basic users have this probelm. I certainly did with the first 3 Vault Basic release before I cracked the darkies and upgraded to Workgroup. Releasing files certainly locked down a lot of the problems but there are still some. This is very topical in that I have been conversing with Scot Moyse today about this and other Inventor/Vault issues. He has a compelling arguement that this is Inventors fault and not Vaults.

The above doesn't solve the OP's problem. My best suggestion is to upgrade to at least Workgroup and use the Lifecycle states to control file access. It's not perfect but is much, much better than how Basic handles it. Other than that you could use Copy Design (can't remember if that's in Basic) and copy the re-used sub-assy into your new project, thereby leaving the original file alone. Trade off is the database size increases.

If you get into the habit of just check it out and in, then the problem just propogates to the other places the assy is used. A new version is created. Been there, done that. It's a bigger and continuous PITA IMO. This might not be a problem in a 1 person office or a small team.

[Cadmanto]

Thanks Brendan for the clarification.  I am used to Vault Workgroup, so I have never experienced what you are talking about with Basic.

I do have Vault basic, at home, but I do not have it running seeing I do not have access to Windows server 2003.

Anyway, like you said, this does not resolve the OP's basic issue.  I aggree with you in upgrading to Workgroup.  That would at least be a step in the right direction.

If this solved your issue please mark this posting "Accept as Solution".

Or if you like something that was said and it was helpful, Kudos are appreciated. Thanks!!!!