I believe Vault should allow a user somehow to be able to move files from different folders into a similar folder all at once. It would be convenient to conduct a search and be able to move all the related files into a folder of choice. Right now Vault has a restriction where you can only move files that are in the same folder. This might be a difficult request for Vault to accomplish, but I think would be well worth it. Please consider.
At my point, it miss the ability to go from the software file directly to the same file in the vault explorer.
It would be perfect to be able to right click in the navigator/explorator of the software where we are working right now to directly have the vault explorer open and the same file selected. Or, at least, visible.
You can actually open a file from vault but not the other way.
Folder and lifecycle state security is a useful feature, but it can be really hard to use. For example, it's hard to find out which users have access to which folders. Likewise if a user doesn't have access, it can be hard to figure out why. If you are managing many folders, you are forced to manage them one at a time.
One possible improvement to provide a view like in the Effective Folder Permissions app, which unrolls the security settings to show a per-user view.
If I have an item released and I want to migrate it to my current version of inventor, I have to change the state to Work In Progress, check the file out, save it, check it back in, update the item in item master, and finally re-release the item. Currently my company has about 200,000 items in our item master, so doing this manually is not an option. Can we get a utility that will do all 6 of these steps automatically?
We're using full SQL replication and as far as I know, the document numbering schemes are having no issues with being used across multi-sites so on face value, I can't see why the Item numbering schemes should.
Technically speaking again, I get the 'if a workgroup goes down' theory but to be honest if a business is large enough to justify having multi-site replication, it'll be sitting on a pretty good IT infrastructure so although you can never say never, it's a rare occurence for a site to compeletely go down. However, item's being created is an event that occurs multiple times, hundreds of times per day.
In addition to that, I worked in the reseller channel for nearly a decade and this was never publicised by Autodesk, I had no idea that we needed to consider this when building multi-site implementations. A Google search for "autodesk vault item number replication" returns zero information on this and confirms that I haven't missed an technical publications on this story.
The concept of having a numbering scheme per site isn't a practical one, if you allowed the option of defaulting a specific numbering scheme to a specific site then it would be close to being a considerable option. If it was up to me, I'd consider altering product behaviour to either:
1) Provide an administrative option whereby if a workgroup goes down, prevent any Items being generated. Then it's up to me, if a site goes down I can simply stop Items being made until things come back online.
2) Keep the current existing workflow, but in the event of a disconnection between publisher and subscriber, when the failed site comes back online, Vault creates an ADMS task to automatically renumber any Items created during that time with the [@WORKGROUP suffix], giving them the next available number. Warn all users with an in-client prompt that the Items they're creating may be automatically renumered when the system fault is resolved.
3) Most if not all everyday Vault users are not going to have a clue about what we're talking about here, so when this numbering conflict occurs through standard workflow, at least give them an in-client prompt or warning explaining why their Item number isn't now what they first thought it was.
4) Make the Item numbering schemes work the same way as the document numbering schemes!
I can think of many more options, most of which including the above are all much more favorable than what we have now which is Vault modifying production data at will without any warning to the user.
** Pulled from newsgroup post: http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/Autodesk-Vault/Item-
We have customers which require the use of the NTLM protocol for email notifications. Currently, Vault Professional only support SMTP protocol for this feature.
Please at support for the NTLM protocol.
We have been using CO's in Vault Pro for years for engineering and couldn't do without. Now, since we have production engineers switched over to digital CO's, they are now trying to figure out how they can use this same system to manage their change requests for tooling, reworks, etc.
We proposed to them that they just use our CO form; but, we have alot of CO related properties on the general tab which means nothing to them. As well as item-related props within the CO itself.
So, what I am proposing is that there be a way to have different forms or templates for a CO based on what department is initiating it. We could have different props on the general tab as well as different props within the CO, as well as routing lists that would vary too.
We looked at a separate Vault, PLM 360, but then you are talking two different systems that you would have to search in which is not a good thing. Often the data is the same data, just re-used in different methods.
Is this a valid request? A screen shot is attached.
When running a Copy Design on a file (say an assembly), if one of its dependants (even if not copied) was used for simulation, the simulation result's files are copied to the temp during the Copy Design.
It sometimes results in an error stating "The specified path, file name, or both are too long", and the Copy Design cannot be done.
Could the simulation files be ignored during Copy Design?
The username of a Windows Account (Windows authentication) is projected with the domainname attached to it.
This value is used for system properties like Checked Out By and Created By.
When using (one of) these property values in the Vault Revision Table is will alsways display the usename in this configuration. So the domainname is also projected on the drawing.
I thinj that it will be a good idea to have an extra editable field in the usersettings to change the display of the username so it will be configurable like the normal Vault account username.
Danny van Duijn