Bring back the Version Number

[Webdad]

I've worked with Fusion 360 for 8 years, and developed workflows and SOPs that were heavily dependent on the version number in both the view as well as saving STL meshes.  The recent decision to not only stop adding the version number to mesh saves but also remove the visibility of the version number completely within Fusion 360 has severely crippled by ability to be productive with this software.

What recourse, besides moving to another CAD solution, is there for regaining lost / crippled functionality?

[jesse3M545]

I get that there may be different use cases and maybe some people don't want versioning and change descriptions, but when Autodesk rolled this out why didn't they add setting options to revert back to the "classic" versioning scheme?  This change is a real step backwards for a lot of customers.

[lawrenceWDVL5]

Upgraded from fusion: 2702.1.58  to 2703.1.11

- Web file panel, still requires the "Now" drop down menu to view versions. The lack of naming consistency across UI is poor.

- Web file panel, "Properties" still doesn't show version number.

- Web file panel, "Version icon", mouse over no longer shows the version number. It is now showing a ghost version number that's not even in the part "History". Example ghost "version v16.11". Web panel and Home panel give random version numbers on mouse over that do not match for the same part.

- Home panel, "Details" still doesn't show version number.

- Home panel, "Version icon", mouse over no longer shows the version number. It is now showing a ghost version number that's not even in the part "History". Example ghost "version v18.3". Web panel and Home panel give random version numbers on mouse over that do not match for the same part.

- Home panel, still no access to "History" popup.

- Data panel, "Version icon", mouse over still only returns the string "Version" no actual version number.

[joecamisa]

I would assume the Fusion Team but in case they were very wrong.

[joecamisa]

AGREE!

[moriarty.chch]

Using date and time to determine the version is well and good but an enormous PITA for users  🙄  

 ...  for god sake give us an infrangible version number back

the Product Management Team are clearly out of touch with users 

[joecamisa]

Clearly do not understand the importance of an infrangible version number.

It is impractical and at times impossible to include  Date+TimeStamp in the name of a file you are sharing with a third party or even another app.

The only solution is the Version Number which we had.

[cyan_perry]

Hi all,

We've been listening to your feedback and wanted to share an update. Based on what we've heard from the community, we're making some adjustments to the collaboration experience and have outlined the changes in more detail here.

Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to share feedback, concerns, and workflow examples. Those conversations have helped shape the updates we're making.

Please keep the feedback coming, we're continuing to review it as we refine the experience.

[olpprgeno]

Cyan,

I want to thank you for at least acknowledging the universally panned changes to the Save/Version/History workflow in Fusion. 

You (and I assume others at Autodesk) at least recognize that Fusion Users are not happy with this direction taken by the Fusion development team.  The disdain for the "new" workflow being forced upon them is pretty loud and obvious. 

The linked document in your post, unfortunately only confirms that this direction will continue to be force upon us.  It really doesn't take the workflow issues reported by users into account at all, only appearing to try to justify the decision and convince users that this is good for them.  Happy Sales Speak cannot gloss over the fact that this "new" concept is a horrible workflow and data management disaster for many real world users.    

I really don't see anything in that document that will make anything easier or smoother in my workflow.  To the contrary, it appears to just be more of the same, which is really just making it worse with every day that passes, and design created, without a real solution. 

The answer is so simple and obvious.  Just make this "new" concept optional and bring back the old method as a switchable option in the Preferences. 

That would solve two objectives:

1. It would give users what they want and are asking for, while giving you time to try to sell them on what they didn't want or ask for. 

2. Second it would give you a way to monitor/chart the numbers showing how many are buying in and how many are not.

Seems like a win/win to me.

Respectfully,

PG

[AndyV_MVM]

Hi Cyan

Your linked page might be a bit wordy but the key message - that you can (or will soon - the update has yet to get to me) be able to see the numbers that were previously assigned on save is a positive one. How it came to disappear is perhaps the sort of conversation to have over a beer! Whilst some of the initial responses still seem to be a little negative, this change seems to address the needs people have: you can see the old version numbers to tie things back to external files, and you can create explicit checkpoints/versions/milestones as you wish. Having history capture exports is also a major step forward and also helps address the need to reconcile files in external systems.

If there was one further ask, it would be for a preference to be able to enter the description on save (as you could before). Having the extra clicks to open history, click the default and over-type it is not as slick as it was.

That aside, many thanks for listening and adapting - and hopefully the update will get to me soon!

PS Hopefully the export file name tracking will track the 'Save as Mesh' version of export too.

Andy

[jesse3M545]

Thanks Cyan.  The blog post mentions changes regarding "Enhancing export traceability, so exported data and deliverables can more easily reference the design states they came from", which will add export identifier numbers as filename suffixes and mark these actions in the version history.  When is this being rolled out?

[olpprgeno]

Andy, 

The change has shown up on my end, so I have been able to experience the "adjustment" to adding a History button in the data panel.  Hopefully you will soon get to experience it as well.  In the mean time I'll give you a preview.

While it is better than having to go all the way back to the Home web view of projects to manage versions and/or add a description to a save, it isn't that much better.  This change simply adds a button to open a project focused version of that home page.  It is very slow to load, and even slower (glacially slow) to create a version.   This might be a better option to get to the history, the Version History process itself is not much better or a workflow improvement.

The user still is not able to quickly view, choose, and load a previously saved version from the Data Panel History as we had in the past.

There is no ability to add a note and "Milestone" or in the new vernacular "Version" at the time of a save, also as we had in the past.  The save is still blind and the process requires the user to take many many more steps (and long delays and waiting) to add a note to a save or create a Milestone/Version.

Unfortunately, and very disappointing, this big "adjustment" is simply more of the same.  It is a tiny band-aid placed upon on a huge compound fracture resulting from a self inflicted and unnecessary wound.

[AndyV_MVM]

Hi

Thanks - I have the version with the history panel launched from the side data panel, but not yet the enhanced version shown in the screen shots towards the end of the blog post.

As to "The user still is not able to quickly view, choose, and load a previously saved version from the Data Panel History as we had in the case in the past." - you can open a previous version from the history popup (using the 3 dots menu) but, I agree, that the thumbnails are lost.

If you could add the note as part of the save, then I am happy with this adjustment - but then I quite like the Version distinction and looking forward to seeing it in configured designs.

Andy

[Waitangi]

Thank you @cyan_perry for this update and elaboration!

The thoughts behind the changes, became a bit more clear to me now. However, it is still unclear when we can expect the announced changes/features:
- restoring and surfacing version numbers on legacy data
- enhanced export traceability

- ability to Create Version of a Configured Design in CE Hub

Besides that, to me it seems like even when these features gets (re-)introduced, the workflow is still quite tedious if you like to keep adding descriptions.
Will there be the option to enable a description prompt when saving? Is it possible to use a short cut? Otherwise, you always need to open the history panel through right-click in the browser or by finding the history button for that file in the data panel, then waiting for Ages to open the entire history, to then find the field to double click, then delete the description and add a new one, make the change effective and close the panel to be able to work again.

Also, it would be great to get some short information about the summary in the data panel, besides a symbol that a version exists, and the info who edited the file most recently, it would be great, if one would also see a version number. Even when having over the version symbol it only says "Version". It would be great to see in the data panel the most recent description at a glance. Does not need to be the full description - a sectional preview would suffice and showing the entire description when hovering over it.

[joecamisa]

I am repeating the comment above that EXACTLY captures my input.  THANK YOU olpprgeno.

Cyan,

I want to thank you for at least acknowledging the universally panned changes to the Save/Version/History workflow in Fusion. 

You (and I assume others at Autodesk) at least recognize that Fusion Users are not happy with this direction taken by the Fusion development team.  The disdain for the "new" workflow being forced upon them is pretty loud and obvious. 

The linked document in your post, unfortunately only confirms that this direction will continue to be force upon us.  It really doesn't take the workflow issues reported by users into account at all, only appearing to try to justify the decision and convince users that this is good for them.  Happy Sales Speak cannot gloss over the fact that this "new" concept is a horrible workflow and data management disaster for many real world users.    

I really don't see anything in that document that will make anything easier or smoother in my workflow.  To the contrary, it appears to just be more of the same, which is really just making it worse with every day that passes, and design created, without a real solution. 

The answer is so simple and obvious.  Just make this "new" concept optional and bring back the old method as a switchable option in the Preferences. 

That would solve two objectives:

1. It would give users what they want and are asking for, while giving you time to try to sell them on what they didn't want or ask for. 

2. Second it would give you a way to monitor/chart the numbers showing how many are buying in and how many are not.

Seems like a win/win to me.

Respectfully,

JOE CAMISA

[joecamisa]

Hi Cyan, this response clearly demonstrates you do not understand that we need the functionality we had restored.

This is NOT because we don't want change.  It is because Version Numbers are an integral part of a repeatable workflow for MANY users.

[AndyV_MVM]

Joe

I am a little confused, we ARE getting version numbers back - listed before the save note in the history panel as per the screenshot near the end of the blog post. Having quick entry of the save note returned is also pretty important (or at least a preference as to whether it appears on save or not) but doesnt seem to be covered yet 

Andy

[olpprgeno]

Andy,

I'm a little confused as well. 

Yes, we have Version numbers, and notes.  Unfortunately they are not nearly as easily utilized in an efficient workflow as in the very recent past.  Repeatable inline processes and procedures, as well as a UI presentation utilized to make that work, is key to an efficient workflow.  That is what was taken away, without warning, in the recent updates. 

We went from a workflow with very simple and direct access to these features, presented at every save point, to a ridiculously slow, convoluted, multi-click, laggy windowing operation, that requires a complete stop in the creative thought process.  All to provide little to no benefit for doing the same thing we previously had as an effortless operation.  

My confusion is how this horrible workflow disruption was conceived in the first place, and why anyone would possibly think it was a good idea and approve it for release. 

[engineeringNPFNM]

Cyan:

I'm glad somebody at Autodesk is paying attention, but the article you posted does read like “happy sales speak” written by someone very disconnected from the users living with the software day to day.

If I understand correctly, Autodesk’s justification for getting rid of the “classic” v-numbering system, is that it makes things “better” for some users that only want to see version numbers that they apply. I can’t help but think, it would have been a more elegant solution to simply add a user preference to hide the classic v-numbering labels in the UI, and let those users apply whatever version numbers they want using the old milestone system. Rather than making a radical change that severely breaks many users’ workflows.

Question for Cyan and the developers: Is there some reason that Fusion is no longer physically capable of using the classic v-numbering system, or is it just a choice that Autodesk have made about how they think the UI should be?

I think I represent many Fusion users when I say the Autodesk Fusion development team doesn’t understand what they have fundamentally broken with this change. The old system automatically provided a rock solid, immutable way to reference each and every specific save point in the history of a design. The new system is fundamentally broken, because every save point no longer has a guaranteed unique identifier.

This is one of those things that we’ve come to rely on, and it’s one thing that made Fusion better to work with than Solidworks etc. In Fusion, you never had to guess about the origin of an exported file, and you had an easy shorthand way to refer to any save point when communicating with colleagues. Now, Autodesk have broken it. That is truly unfortunate.

[Junliang_FIR3]

Yep exactly. As someone who really priortizes the use of versoin backtracking, it really hurts to me, a product developer who makes many versions of a product, and because of one small mistake, I need to backtrack to a previous version. Well, how do I find the correct version to backtrack to? That is there the version description comes in. Every time I make a change I think that I might want to take back if it goes wrong, I press Ctrl+S to save the version, and enter the details I have changed. And with this, I can efficiently be able to backtrack versions without a hassle. Given the current condition, that I am unable to make version comments and description, as well as history (In my hub), it makes the product designing and engineering process extremely hard. I am currently working in my friend's hub and because I have extremely confidential items for new patent pending designs, I have set contracts with my friend, and that is really something you don't want to get into. I'd rather have my own hub and mind my own business, not involving anyone else into my work and business. But sadly, Fusion has made it extremely hard. It really hurts me that a reply I got from a fusion representative today said "well, this is the new workflow and there is nothing else you can do about this." I am really depressed after hearing this. I really love fusion, as my go-to software for CAD, work, and business, however it is going down the list of softwares I would recommend and choose to use after the saddening news and change of this important aspect of engineering and CAD. It's almost as if whoever pushed the change to Fusion had no prior engineering or work experience. 

[tomsYR7VG]

I will be honest to say that I didn't read through the 5 pages of comments, but I have to voice my concern as this little change has had a huge impact on my workflow. Working on product design I have some files that have grown to the version number 400+ and I was genuinely using the save based version number to reference to when making, for example, part test prints. Now that the iteration list is hidden under history and the only descriptive info is date, description and person who made the changes, not even adding the version number in this view, reflecting on specific stages of design, versions of designed parts and keeping further track of things is crippled. I understand that I would have to change the way I organize files and versions but two steps away from release of the product is really not the best time to get this involuntary task laid on your table. So please, at least make it a toggled option like engineeringNPFNM mentioned in his latest comment, not a permanent change for everyone.