We use these commands quite often. To save the steps of having to select a file and then have to go to the File menu takes a lot of time. I would love to have these options available when RMB selecting the file itself. It seems like a simple and logical addition.
Below is a photoshopped edit of what I'm asking for....
I would love it if you could just double click a Change Order and it give you the same options and capabilities as when you RMB and select Edit on a Change Order. It takes less time to double click than it does to right click and then scroll over in a menu. This would save a lot of time (and confusion to new Vault users) because right now if someone wants to add a record to a Change Order they've already created they have to remember to RMB and Edit. Why can't we have the same features just by double clicking it? This would also allow you to get rid of the "View and Respond" redundancy that further makes thing more confusing for Vault users.
We have over 35 people using Vault and creating shortcuts that make messes. We can't reuse certain files because they are Released and perhaps at Revision H. Vault needs to add the ability to clear out a copied file's State and Revision to an initial design designation.
When I make a copy design of a simple assembly (composed of 2 parts and one drawing), even if I set the parameters to those files only, it takes about 5 min because Vault downloads on my computer all the files (~700) needed for the mega assembly where my simple assembly goes.
Couldn't that be simpler and faster?
I have been told by my local Autodesk support that "Inventorneeds allthefilesto be able to correctthe wholewithout compromising otherlinks"
I still don't understand why, because it works very well when I make a simple copy-paste in Windows, and it's very quick!
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.