Stop telling me I need to save something I haven't changed

[andrewiv]

Inventor shouldn't be prompting for a save on a file that hasen't changed.  I'll give an example.  I insert assembly1 into assembly2 and set it to positional rep1.  I save assembly2 and close it.  Now I re-open assembly2 and it asks me if I want to update.  I say yes and now it asks if I want to check out assembly1.  I say no since I haven't done anything to it.  Now Inventor tells me that I need to save assembly1 and assembly2 even though I just saved them and the only thing I have done is open them.  I think this is wrong and it can create a ton of unneeded versions of the assembly when using vault.

[dan_szymanski]

@n.schotten - Yes our investigations include general save.

@andrewiv - Our investigations also include LOD scenarios.  @Anonymous commented about this within the first reply to this Idea.

Thanks.

[dan_szymanski]

Hello everyone,
Simply a heads up - The occurrence reported by salariua's comment on 02-27-2015 has been fixed within Autodesk Inventor 2018.2. Per @salariua "...in my case it doesn't even give me a heads-up. You change stuff, shutdown NO SAVE, start AIP, it's all changed." With Autodesk Inventor 2018.2 we no longer save the change if you close without saving (within T&P). Likewise we plan to continue to investigate and potentially resolve other save/dirty scenarios mentioned within this lengthy idea.  Thanks in advance for your patience. -Dan

[jeremy.larre]

i had a issue with i-assembly models using sub assemblies (morover if they are I-assemblies)

those i-assemblies seems to be very tricky to use with the Vault

make sure any of them are in the default representation before saving

i you want to save in othe than default you have to make a version again... and save each time again and again

[bradeneuropeArthur]

What is the Status "Autodesk" regarding this topic/idea and the implementation so far?

Regards,

[dan_szymanski]

Hello,

The Inventor team has been reviewing a number of (file dirty / unwanted save) scenarios on a case, by case basis.  Issues have been investigated from this discussion thread, the public forums and within our internal Inventor/Vault Alpha Beta community (here if you would like to join).  A handful of scenarios (some data specific) have been addressed incrementally within updates, some within Autodesk Inventor 2020, while others are a little more difficult to reproduce and investigations are ongoing.  We will be sharing more in this area on our internal forum in the near future, so I would encourage anyone interested to join the discussion within our internal feedback community (link provided above).  Please rest assured this "Accepted" idea is still a priority for us and we feel we are closer than ever towards the goal of marking this idea as "Implemented".  Thanks!

[Eddimeister]

OMG...!! Please lets do somehting about this - we dont even use vault but its relentless - Especially if you use derive methods or frame gen components... I can save the same thing half a dozen times closing off... Considering the cost of subscription, how much accumulative time is being wasted saving the same thing that hasn't changed over and over... Are we able to back charge Autodesk for this atrocious waste of time and inefficiency... Dont get me wrong - I love the program at times... But this has gotta be resolved...!

[Bert_Bimmel]

Hello everybody,

as there are still new posts popping up here, and I found not even a handfull of issues fixed in 2020, Autodesk doesn't seem to put as much efford in solving the issues as one might wish. So I have developed some Diagnostic tool to get along better with all these issues, by enabling me and my workmates to do the following tasks:

- Check for pending updates, Inventor doesn't consider worth informing the user about NOW, but comes up with them later, when the files have been checked in or even released.

-Figure out WHICH components are responsible for incomprehensible update-prompts.

It has served us well over the past few years, cleaning up our vault-database, and increase data-quality.

Unfortunately I can't post any file-attachments here, so everybody who might be interested may contact me by a private mail.

Cheers, Bert

[ust25238]

I would be interest in seeing these tools. Thanks.

[Bert_Bimmel]

Hello David,

sorry, but I even can't send you any files via private Message here, but if you'd like to see a sample output, here's a screenshot (I tried to get a shot showing as much as possible, but the yet 48 output-columns in Excel simply won't fit on my two HD-screens standing next to each other.

[n.schotten]

Dear Inventor & Vault team.

How ****ing hard can it be to include an extra ****ing IF statement to the save/check in checks to see if it is a file in a ****ing library path? 

I'm sitting here white knuckled, heart racing, adrenalin pumping, furstrated out of my mind over Inventor not wanting to properly close my files over these ****ing library files "needing" saving. Just ****ing ignor those library files allready. Or if you need to cover your arse, put up a checkbox that we accept the risks of ignoring saves on library parts.

I'm on the verge off  going home on another burnout over ****ing crap like this with Inventor.

I used to program as a hobby, adding a ****ing IF statement or an and/or statement to an existing IF statement isn't that ****ing hard!!!

Do we need to sue over the costs of people going home with depressions over these kinds of problems with Inventor before something gets done about it?

Frustratedly yours,

Niels Schotten

[Bert_Bimmel]

-> You Are Fined 1 Credit For A Violation Of The Verbal Morality Statute!  😄

[n.schotten]

@Bert_Bimmel

Howmany credits can i fine Autodek for for causing me to have a burnout?

[DanSingleton]

He's not wrong. It's not really even that funny anymore. This issue's been ongoing for what 6 or 7 years now? The lost hours spent by Autodesk customers trying to resolve issues related to Inventor trying to force saves on "dirty" Read Only, Released, or Library files must be into the hundreds of thousands communally now. They need to gut the save code, or start from scratch, and get it fixed once and for all.

[bradeneuropeArthur]

How long will this remain a topic for us?

Is there any forecast (regarding a solution) from Autodesk regarding this?

Is working Autodesk on this problem, to find a solution, and what is the status?

Hope for a quick solution in the near future too!

[n.schotten]

As I understand things... At Autodesk they fused the Inventor and Vault teams into 1 team. Hoping to get better interaction beween the two on a software level too.

But if they will ever get on this and get things fixed... ???

I'm currently experimenting with getting library parts checked out to a 'library user', locking things out for other users. I had problems with this in the past. But minimal preliminary testing looks promising.

[DanSingleton]

That's interesting. Hadn't heard they combined the teams. Seems like they need to meet a few more times a week. 😉

Problem with using checked out parts is they're not Released. Depending on your Vault settings you can't release parent Assemblies unless all children parts or assemblies are also released?

[n.schotten]

I'm using Vault basic. so no issues with releasing them. It works fine with non-checked out files.

[Gabriel_Watson]

If they polled Vault users/admins on whether they preferred this single issue solved, or updates on the software for the next 2 years, I bet most would vote for just this one to be cracked.
That means, they could literally stop all Vault development for 2 years, and only work on one single issue, still pleasing the end-customers in the end.

I reckon it is not an easy issue though. This stuff is buried deep into their code. They have no clue about the full scope of situations where it happens, so they are working in reverse by first identifying the cases, and trying to scrub the background updates processes... feel free to join Vault beta to check this out and add more info on it.
Honestly though, it shouldn't take too much investment to send someone from ADESK to any company like mine, and have them sit down for a week trying to work with us. There is a wealth of problems and feedback here.

[n.schotten]

I think they have an "observation station" in SF. But honestly i think that visiting users at their place of work is far superior. Especialy when visiting all types of users. From single seat-no vault upto multi region colaborative users sharing Vault to several offices (globaly) and every thing in between...

You get to see their setup, their methods etc. Hook in a screen recorder, add some webcams to capture their desktop (hand movements) and general work area (recording the person front and rear).
Sadly their own sreeen recorder invluences how IV (and Vault) operate. Otherwise i might keep it running the whole work-day, for days on end...

[Gabriel_Watson]

I feel like suggesting a "Safe Mode" for Inventor/Vault, where you activate ScreenCast and have it save only the last 2 minutes of constant recording or similar...