Inventor 2017 with NO A360

[tahdesign1]

I work in an environment where there can be no outside connections from our CAD Stations.

In developing my install deployments I have been un-selecting everything that has anything to do with cloud use.

Also hacking the ini files to remove any calls for Adsync, etc.

Even with doing all of that there are many pieces that get installed anyway that I then must go back and un-install.

One of these pieces is Inventor Connected Desktop for A360.

Even though this has been un-installed when you first launch IV the little icon for it still shows up in the IV Window.

If you select it you will get an error because the program has been un-installed.

You can make it not be visible from the View menu.

I need this to not be there for the users to see without their interaction to turn it off..

[ChrisMitchell01 · Accepted solution]

If you create a deployment image there are additional options for disabling the various cloud options over/above the options available in an interactive installation. There are options there to achieve exactly what you request for the Design Share add-in.

Thanks

Chris

[tahdesign1]

Excellent

I will be developing deployments but like you surmised I am installing manually on my machine at the moment to develop my upgrade.

Thank You

[tahdesign1]

So now that I have gone down the path of developing my deployments I do not see anywhere that I can turn this off as was stated.

Since I have a couple of flavors of suites, I make up screen shots of my settings to refer to.

I have attached the screen shot for the IV part of the deployment and I do not see any setting that allow for disabling the cloud hooks.

As a matter of fact there is a component that does not allow me to un select it that I have to uninstall after deployments.

Also once installed IV has a menu I need to get rid of:

IN the AutoCAD based product I was able to make a CUI to make this menu not appear but I do not see how to make that happen in IV.

[Mark.Lancaster]

@tahdesign1

I think you have posted a couple of times about this.. Perhaps it was someone else..

As far as I know (but @ChrisMitchell01 will show you if its there) you can't control that and it has to be done afterwords..  But I could be wrong..

Now the reason I'm replying to you..  If you are in a isolated arena and none of that's going to work..  Why spend "X" numbers of hours trying to make the Inventor interface idiot proof.   You tell the users it may be part of the installation and you going to see it..  But it doesn't work and if they do something to jeopardize your company's security than they should be held accountable.   When I use to be a CAD manager I had a manager asking me to do something in CAD/Vault so the users couldn't go around the system/workflow..  I asked why?  I was simply told so they couldn't..  I said why don't your properly train your employees and hold them accountable if they are not going to follow company standards/workflows.  Yes it didn't go over well but that's how it was..  Meaning I wouldn't spent hours and hours on something that is really a training issue.  That's how I see this and I know you have your reasons but just looking at it from a different perspective...  Okay my 2 cents are up.

[mcgyvr]

@Mark.Lancaster wrote:

Why spend "X" numbers of hours trying to make the Inventor interface idiot proof.   You tell the users it may be part of the installation and you going to see it..  But it doesn't work and if they do something to jeopardize your company's security than they should be held accountable.   When I use to be a CAD manager I had a manager asking me to do something in CAD/Vault so the users couldn't go around the system/workflow..  I asked why?  I was simply told so they couldn't..  I said why don't your properly train your employees and hold them accountable if they are not going to follow company standards/workflows.  Yes it didn't go over well but that's how it was..  Meaning I wouldn't spent hours and hours on something that is really a training issue.  That's how I see this and I know you have your reasons but just looking at it from a different perspective...  Okay my 2 cents are up.

---

@Mark.Lancaster We had exactly that same thing happen a few days ago at my company.. (well.. kind of a daily occurrence  )

And the same "why don't you properly train your employees" and "why do we cater to stupid" and many other similar comments..

This was over a scale and a sticker was put over the calibration button (that NO ONE but the calibration service we contract with should be touching and rules/instructions on scale use for employees are printed right on the wall right above the scale)..

I spend a good part of my time "idiot proofing" stuff... Somehow at many companies one must "idiot proof" vs actually firing or properly training the idiots..

Sad world we live in.. 

And of course..

http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/obitcs.htm

[Mark.Lancaster]

@tahdesign1

In the end I view what you are doing as a non-value added..   Its not worth the time and effort..  You most likely have other items to resolve that would be beneficial to your organization.   Years ago when I learned Lean Manufacturing you realize real quick that you focus on the non-value stuff, the items that you can clearly see but the root cause is lying below the water line..  The stuff that matters.  Its funny when you look at this non-value stuff that its impact is so small and doesn't really change anything    Yes its my opinion and you can take it or not..

@mcgyvr   Funny thing is..  2 weeks later I found out this manager was actually telling his employees to go around the system...  

Also @tahdesign1  I do apologize for taking your requirements off on a different direction..  It wasn't my intention...

[Curtis_Waguespack]

---

@Mark.Lancaster wrote:

  Okay my 2 cents are up.

---

my turn

If a company must adhere to government Export Control protocols, then things such as the A360 tab might be problematic. It is not a matter of training or telling folks "don't use that", it's a matter of complying with protocols that limit the exposure a company has of secure design information getting transmitted by unauthorized methods. If you don't have to deal with these things, then it seems trivial, if you do, then it can be far from it. In some cases that would mean not being awarded a contract, etc. So the hardship could be very real. I don't deal with these issues these days, so I can't say for certain that the A360 tools pose such an issue, but I suspect they might.

[ChrisMitchell01]

@tahdesign

Unfortunately, to my knowledge there is no way to completely remove those aspects from the ribbon; the only option is to switch off the Web, Access & Configurator 360 panels, (right click on the gray area on that Autodesk 360 panel). Then go to Customize user Commands & export to an xml file.

That xml file can then be included in your deployment package so that initial install configuration is that there are switched off.  This obviously won't prevent anyone from subsequently browsing around & turning them back on though.

Hope this helps,
Chris

[Mark.Lancaster]

---

@Curtis_Waguespack wrote:

---

@Mark.Lancaster wrote:

  Okay my 2 cents are up.

---

my turn

If a company must adhere to government Export Control protocols, then things such as the A360 tab might be problematic.

---

I fully understand that and yes it should be a consideration..   But if the OP is in a isolated area with no link to the outside world..   Having those features there is not going to make any difference because it needs a link to the outside world and thus its not going to work anyways..   That's my other 2 cents..

[Curtis_Waguespack]

---

@Mark.Lancaster wrote:

---

  Having those features there is not going to make any difference ...

---

Yeah, you're likely right. But it very well could make all the difference when an auditor notices "cloud" connection features on design stations, and the contract explicitly prohibits these things.

The words 'auditor' and 'contract' should tell us that my hypothetical is in the realm of "legal sense" and not "common sense". I have no idea what 'sense' the OP must deal with, but I think it's reasonable that Autodesk would consider giving the CAD System Admin a bit more control concerning all things "cloud".

There is a list of things in Inventor (and AutoCAD) that I would like to see made so that they could be set and controlled by a CAD System Admin and pushed out to user profiles at the time of deployment, which would save a great deal of time and frustration for the users and admin both. I think this would be included in that list.

[tahdesign1]

Please understand that I work in a company that has DOD work and is foreign owned with very specific data governance guidelines.

If ADSK keeps insisting on presenting users with cloud based hooks (working or not) that I can not make go away then I will eventually loose the fight to keep using them.

On the product side others are used (Pro, NX, etc) and the push has always been to make the machine designers go that route.