Community
Inventor Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Inventor Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Inventor topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Forced to check out Subassemblies that I have not changed

52 REPLIES 52
Reply
Message 1 of 53
Anonymous
6892 Views, 52 Replies

Forced to check out Subassemblies that I have not changed

When working in the top level assembly, Inventor will often force me to check out subassemblies that I have not changed.  Sometimes I am simply moving parts withing the top assembly and Inventor sees changes in several of the subassemblies and ask if I want to check them out.  None of these assemblies are adaptive and the only file I am actually changing is the top level assembly (which is checked out to me).  There are times when all I've done is open the top assembly from the vault and Inventor tells me that I have modified several subassemblies and component files within the subassemblies.  I have not made any modifications since the previous day when I checked in my changes at the end of the day and suddenly I have to check out 10% of the files because I have "modified" them by opening them.  This creates probems with numerous unnecessary versions in the vault and at times problems with subassemblies being checked out by co-workers working on the same machine but a different section.

 

-Nick

 

Windows 7 64 bit

Autodesk Inventor 2010 Simulation SP3

52 REPLIES 52
Message 2 of 53
cwhetten
in reply to: Anonymous

This happens to me EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.  It is way beyond the point of frustrating.  Now it just makes me want to put my fist through my monitor (I haven't, but I cannot guarantee that I won't).  It really makes a mess of my vaulted designs.

 

The other issue that I have which may or may not be related is that Inventor says that I have to save library and Content Center parts before I can check in an assembly.  I haven't made any changes to the library or CC parts (that's the whole idea of library parts!!!), but Inventor insists that I need to save them and it won't allow me to check in my design until I do.

 

-cwhetten

 

 

Message 3 of 53
Anonymous
in reply to: cwhetten

I get the same problem with the Content Center files.  Not all the time, but occasionally Inventor tells me that the library files are out of date, but then I try to check them out and save them and errors occur during the save.  I haven't isolated when this problem arises, but it is very frustrating and sometimes inhibits my ability to save and check the assembly in.

Message 4 of 53
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

This is nothing new Inventor has done this for as long as I can remember ( I have been on since IV 5). Autodesk does not seem to be in any hurry to fix this major problem. If you do a search for DIRTY FILES you will get a lot of hit to research the subject. FYI This is an Inventor problem not a Vault problem.

Message 5 of 53
saainsworth
in reply to: Anonymous

Our users are experiencing the same problem.  The biggest issue is the impact it has on the ability to have multiple users working in parallel on sub assemblies within the same main assembly.  This must be improved.  Even if the user has to manually dictate to Inventor what the scope of his work is.  However, it should be enough to check out files.  If the file is not checked out -  Inventor makes no changes - ever.  If there are changes made that effect another part, a pleasant warning can be given, but the changes wait until the file is checked out.  The software should never dirty a file that is not checked out.

 

If the above cannot be accomplished it would still be great improvement if users were allowed to save an assembly and check it in without being forced to check out and save subs and parts that were dirtied.  Not as good solution but it at least lets us get our work done.

 

 

Message 6 of 53
Anonymous
in reply to: saainsworth

For us, another very frustrating problem is working with Frame Generated parts and Vault. It recognizes these 'dirty' files, and wants to checkout the Entire FG assembly! So, after the 50th time of saying No, you eventually give up, and allow Inventor to check them out, only to be asked for each and every frame member!

 

So, you think: I know, I'll hit Check out all. But wait, Autodesk says NO!, just like Ron Burgandy SAYS NO!. You them hit the prompts to say 'Never ask me this again in this Session', knowing that Inventor will now happily checkout any file it wants, even if you've only hovered over the part with the cursor. Meanwhile, your co-workers are wanting to lynch you, because you've got everything this side of the pacific checked out!

 

So you apologize, undo checkout, shutdown Inventor (to end the session and re-initiate the check out prompt) and continue. Your patience marker is reset to ZERO and your count up to 50+ questions begins again.

 

🙂 Big of tongue and check, but we all know whats its like! #rant

Message 7 of 53
saainsworth
in reply to: Anonymous

I've noticed a couple of other things where the interaction between Vault and Inventor needs to be improved. 

 

We often use iassemblies for right and left hand versions of machines.  I find it frustrating that the iassembly factory does not check out the instance files that were generated.  On the other end if I'm working in the drawing it will only check out the instances.  In fact if I try to open the assembly from the drawing it opens the instance, which I can't edit anyway even though it checked out.  I believe the software should behave as follows (maybe as an option).  If the ifactory is checked out, then any generated files should be checked out.  If an instance file is checked out (from the drawing or other assembly) the factory should be checked out.  If you open an instance from within another file it should open the factory or at least prompt you to open the factory.

 

The other area is level of detail.  I'm not sure why but vault ignores files that are suppressed in a level of detail.  There should be an option to pick them as well.  I run into this when creating a substitute level of detail.  If you check out your whole assembly and then created a substitute and check it back in, you will find all the parts are still checked out.  The only way to resolve this is the change the level of detail back to Master, but then the new substitute will get left behind when checking in.  It seems like there is really no way to get it all checked in at once. An option to include suppressed parts would be great.

 

Scott

Message 8 of 53
bentbrandt
in reply to: saainsworth

We have the same problems factory part files and assembies that are put in assemblies are suddenly "changed" and needs to be checked out of vault.

 

Before checking in the finished .asm or .idw I usually save the assembly and do an undo checkout on the affected standard files that I know are not changed. Then a refresh from vault resets the files to "unchanged" and then I do the check in.

 

Its stupid but seems to be the only way we can avoid all the additional versions of files.

Purging version 78 of a nut that has never changed is equally frustrating.

 

In addition we only have one project and the only library we have are for textures. Our parts "library" is in a folder. 

 

Peter

Message 9 of 53
scottmoyse
in reply to: cwhetten

there is a work around so you don't have to save before checking it. just close the file and inventor will say the file needs to be saved, click yes, then it will bring up the check in dialogue. However, if the file you have open (and checking in) hasn't been checked into vault before, say a new drawing of an assembly, then the work around won't work because the add-in won't prompt for the file to be checked in on close.

 

I will have a bit more to say about this issue once i get to the end of this thread


Scott Moyse
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.


EESignature


RevOps Strategy Manager at Toolpath. New Zealand based.

Co-founder of the Grumpy Sloth full aluminium billet mechanical keyboard project

Message 10 of 53
scottmoyse
in reply to: Anonymous

yup it relates mainly to Inventor's hatred of having to reference read only files. Bit of a bi*ch when thats what vault is all about.


Scott Moyse
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.


EESignature


RevOps Strategy Manager at Toolpath. New Zealand based.

Co-founder of the Grumpy Sloth full aluminium billet mechanical keyboard project

Message 11 of 53
scottmoyse
in reply to: saainsworth

see my work around further up the page. this accomplishes your second option


Scott Moyse
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.


EESignature


RevOps Strategy Manager at Toolpath. New Zealand based.

Co-founder of the Grumpy Sloth full aluminium billet mechanical keyboard project

Message 12 of 53
bentbrandt
in reply to: scottmoyse

Thanks for the workaround

 

But the issue is more that no workaround should be needed.

 

The vault should not ask to check files out that are not changed. -eg. a constraint in an assembly should not force an update to the constrained parts, only to the assembly in which it is applied.

 

Peter

Message 13 of 53
scottmoyse
in reply to: bentbrandt

how do you get on with your texture library? Are you ok with the non stop links Inventor creates for each texture file that has ever been used in a file? 1 the link shouldn't be there because thats what the library path is for and 2 it doesn't delete the links to texture files that aren't being used anymore. 

 

Color styles using textures from a project library should behave in exactly the same way as those from the application library.

 

Off topic i know but saw your comment and couldn't resist!


Scott Moyse
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.


EESignature


RevOps Strategy Manager at Toolpath. New Zealand based.

Co-founder of the Grumpy Sloth full aluminium billet mechanical keyboard project

Message 14 of 53
bentbrandt
in reply to: scottmoyse

Yep you are right.

But no one from Autodesk have made an effort to "undirty" the processes, and so we (the users) have to battle sticky references and textures in ways that makes the least nusiance in our work processes.

 

  Dragging all this mud into 2012 is the next horrible step we have to overcome Smiley Sad

 

Nothing has been done about these issues for years (well so it feels in the recieving end) , and we still accept the workarounds and the hassle while Autodesk focuses on making new revolutionary features...

 

 The mud creeps along...

 

Peter

Message 15 of 53
scottmoyse
in reply to: Anonymous

I'm pleased to see so many other people are annoyed about this issue and the fact Autodesk appear to have done little to address the issue for years. It's been doing my nut in for the years now as well, whats sad is most people seem to have accepted it as a trait of the software and cease to complain about it. This is not acceptable IMO. So here I go with my ten cents worth.

 

When Vault first came out my design office (it wasn't mine at the time) decided it was inadequate and fortunately for us we had a staff member who could code. As a result he set about writing a standalone application in house to control the transfer of files to and from the network along with the read write access of the files themselves. Files were/are checked out in groups based on a series of project files. When you checked out a project out came all the files that were part of it. Any others that were referenced by the project were copied out as read only. As an example, you could check out a room project but not the furniture projects within it. But because the room project needs the furniture ones, they are copied out in a read only state. The program literally marked them as such via explorer.

 

As a result long before we started using Vault (this March) we have had extensive knowledge of the issue referenced in this post. However, we couldn't really report it to Autodesk since we aren't part of the ADN and would just get told its likely your program is causing the problem. The issue exhibited itself predominantly with persistent saves, you would save the file and then hit close, at which point inventor would ask to save the file again, upon inspection of the save list the only files present are the read only ones apparently requiring the save. 

 

So the most annoying this issue got was having to constantly hit the save button, no big deal.

 

But when it comes to iAssemblies there are similar issues, at some point Inventor decides it needs to write to the factory when one of its members resides in an assembly open within Inventor. Why on earth is Inventor concerned with writing a change to the Factory? Again you can live with this unless you use Vault. At which point it becomes unworkable, if an iAssembly is released (therefore locked) and in a library (definately read only) then Inventor decides it wants to write to the factory. The only way of stopping this from happening continually is to change the state of the iAssembly, its members and children (if there are any). Then open the factory, rebuild all, save then regenerate the members, the more complex the iAssembly the more of a nightmare this is, you have to make sure you rebuild & regen any iParts first and work from the children back up. Then check everything back in, re-release the files. Now you have even more versions, and potentially uneccessary revisions.

 

Now i could repeat everything you guys have posted on here already so I won't. Fortunately there are some work arounds, lets face it though, in most cases work arounds aren't acceptable. The close file work around does allow you to check in the files,  but doesn't fix the 'dirty' file, it in itself is also a bug the Vault dev guys have knowingly left open, thankfully i might add. Its also a pointer to the fact they know something is wrong, and they know its with Inventor and not with Vault.

 

So please Autodesk, get the Inventor dev guys and the vault dev guys to have a serious powwow to resolve this issue! It's interesting to see for a fairly large post count on this thread that no one from Autodesk has weighed in yet.

 

I'm glad i have that off my chest.


Scott Moyse
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.


EESignature


RevOps Strategy Manager at Toolpath. New Zealand based.

Co-founder of the Grumpy Sloth full aluminium billet mechanical keyboard project

Message 16 of 53
scottmoyse
in reply to: bentbrandt

Yup my biggest wish on the wishlist is a consolidation release of Inventor which has no new features, NONE AT ALL. All it focuses on is making a rock solid release, with consistent GUI options and full integration of features across contexts. As an example text styles should be available through all areas of Inventor, derive options should be the same in all derive dialogues, for both parts & assy's including the make components dialogue! There are literally hundreds of them scattered throughout the software.


Scott Moyse
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.


EESignature


RevOps Strategy Manager at Toolpath. New Zealand based.

Co-founder of the Grumpy Sloth full aluminium billet mechanical keyboard project

Message 17 of 53
bentbrandt
in reply to: scottmoyse

I second that!

Not being alone with the problem and getting the load off the chest for some time being is kind of refreshing.

 

 

And hope to be hearing some kind of status on this from Autodesk so we are not left in the dark.

 

Peter

Message 18 of 53
Anonymous
in reply to: bentbrandt

I've had a support request in that is now over 2 months old related to these issues.  (Issues that have been around since Inv10, mind you.)

 

Don't hold your breath.  Could be hazardous.

Message 19 of 53
scottmoyse
in reply to: bentbrandt

What do you guys think to these two blogs posts?

 

http://crackingthevault.typepad.com/crackingthevault/2010/10/changes-have-been-made-to-some-assembly...

 

http://crackingthevault.typepad.com/crackingthevault/2010/10/why-does-my-inventor-assembly-always-ne...

 

I have my opinions but I think I might wait until I have heard some of yours.

 


Scott Moyse
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.


EESignature


RevOps Strategy Manager at Toolpath. New Zealand based.

Co-founder of the Grumpy Sloth full aluminium billet mechanical keyboard project

Message 20 of 53
cmcconnell
in reply to: scottmoyse

Another wrinkle happens when you are using Vault Pro and have released data referenced in your dataset. Inventor invariably wants to save released data, and will clear the read only flag un beknownst to the user if one is not careful.

Mechanix Design Solutions inc.

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report