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.

[bradeneuropeArthur]

Library files need a different approach of checking in.

Use a project ipj for editing but check the files always in with the default vault ipj. Otherwise the library ipj is causing the dirty marks.

[n.schotten]

@AnonymousWhat do you mean?

I have a general project ipj and a library ipj. The general ipj is for normal work and couples vault with the workingfolder. the library ipj is for modifying library files (read-write status).

These 2 ipj's are the only ones i use. with the library ipj only seldom.

Problems arise with Vault/IV marking the lib files as dirty for what ever reason. That reason needs to be addressed. Along with several of the other questionable dirtying reasons.

[bradeneuropeArthur]

Hi,

Always check in the files with the default vault ipj project file after editing. The difference in the project file is a DIRTY maker. So this means the files NEED always to be checked in with the same project ipj file.

Step 1:

Check out and with the Vault ipj active.

Step 2:

edit with the Library ipj.

Step 3:

Close files and reopen with the Vault ipj active.

Step 4:

Check in files with the Vault ipj active.

[Bert_Bimmel]

Hi n.schotten,

what BradenEurope means, is that it is not recommendable to switch between projects when using the vault. The reason is, that Inventor saves the workspace name from the currently active .ipj for each referenced component inside its file reference-list inside each assembly file (or derived part or whatever file has references to other Inventor-files). Thus, when the .ipj - file has changed, it want's to update this file-reference-list.

Here is another link about that topic:

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

[n.schotten]

Bert,

I tried to open the library (i)asm files from the regular vault ipj and rebuild-save-checkin using a master asm containing those (i)asm's. in and on it self that works just fine. BUT when opening regular asm's it became a mess all over again with the lib asm's going dirty again. I retried it having moved the master lib asm to the lib folder. switched to the lib ipj; open-rebuild-save-checkin, switch back to the vault ipj opened a project asm and there was no lib asm dirty issue. So something might have changed since the 2010 release your linked article seems to be about.

But this is by no means full proof. At least until i have more time and more (old and new) projects to work with and see how they react. 1 day of experimenting is not enough. to be sure.

[bradeneuropeArthur]

Hi,

Please check that all settings are the same for the 2 project files. Like the style libraries and all other references.

Also choose rebuild all and create members from the I assemblies an I parts.

Only then the files are generated completely new.

[dan_szymanski]

Accepted idea [778]. Thanks!

[bradeneuropeArthur]

Hi,

Good news that the status has been accepted.

Can you please give us a explanation what this in detail means for the idea/issue?

For example what are you actions in the future regarding the idea/issue?

Thank you in advance.

[Bert_Bimmel]

Yeah, I'm curious too!

[dan_szymanski]

Hello @bradeneuropeArthur, @Bert_Bimmel & all,

We are treating this single Idea internally as an Epic request, due to the numerous areas it impacts.  I have reviewed all of the comments posted here (in addition to the general discussion forum and other inputs) in identifying a set of workflows to go after (ie. to investigate and potentially address).  If you would like to see exactly which ones we target and are able to make progress on, I would encourage you to join our internal Inventor Beta forum (via the Inventor feedback community).  I can send you a link privately if you are interested (it entails signing an electronic nondisclosure agreement).  If you think of any other file:save/prompt for check out annoyances outside of what has already been mentioned within this Idea, I would love to hear what they are.  Unfortunately I am unable to make any comments or commitments regarding any expected timelines (for revenue recognition liabilities).  I expect that might be the next natural question.    Hope this info helps some.  -Dan

[Bert_Bimmel]

"... no commitments regarding timelines ..."??? How about "With the next release", which you're going to urge us to use?

[andrewiv]

Thanks for getting this approved.  I know this will be a huge undertaking, but if we can get this resolved it will save a ton of headaches.

[Anonymous]

This is fantastic news. If I could pick just one thing in Inventor to fix, this would be it! It affects everything.

johnsonshiue is working on a problem directly related to this.  The static stress module discards results because it thinks something has changed when it hasn't.  You may want to connect with him if you haven't already.

Thanks so much for taking on this issue, it's the most important IMO!

Cheers!

[saainsworth]

This is a big undertaking for sure.  I would encourage Autodesk to take the 80-20 approach.  Solve 80% of it by doing 20% of what needs to be done.  It seems that if Inventor understood when a file was not checked out from Vault that it could automatically defer updates on that file, much of the problem may go away.  I could be wrong but its a good place to start.

Thank You Autodesk for hearing us on this issue.  We are looking forward to the improvements.

[dan_szymanski]

@Anonymous, @johnsonshiue and I are on the same team and sit next to one another in our Novi office.  And yes, that is one is on our list.  Thanks.  @Bert_Bimmel, timelines & additional info are shared more openly within the internal Beta forum.   Regards.

[Curtis_Waguespack]

"...timelines & additional info are shared more openly within the internal Beta forum. "

How to join the Beta:

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-forum/inventor-beta-project-how-do-i-get-access/m-p/6010308#...

[dan_szymanski]

We have made some incremental progress on this Big* Idea with Autodesk Inventor 2018.1, however not enough to mark it as fully "Implemented".  Within Autodesk Inventor 2018.1 we have addressed the following (dirty scenario):

• When you close a part or assembly file that you have made no changes to in the Stress Analysis environment, you are no longer asked you if you want to save the changes before closing.
• We have authored a page that we will continually leverage to document save behaviors: Inventor Save and Check out Requirements.  One hope we have with this page is to alleviate potential frustration with technical explanations.

*Big = It encapsulates a large number of workflow scenarios.

Please continue to document any file:save/prompt for check out annoyances, not yet mentioned within this Idea, via the comments below.  Thanks!

[n.schotten]

Will you also be looking into the problems with saving in it self? I do a manual save (ctrl-s) and then close the file. It then shows me a popup wanting to save but all listed files already have NO behind them (duh). It's a pain getting these useless popups. Problem is.. it is not consistent behavior.

[andrewiv]

One of my most annoying scenarios is when using level of detail.  If one of the subassemblies thinks it needs to be saved you cannot check in the top assembly unless you check out the subassembly and save it.

[Anonymous]

I experience both of the above constantly.

This is extra bad in the stress analysis environment since if Inventor thinks something has changed, it discards the FEA results.  So what happens is even when nothing has changed, the next time you open that study it just throws away your results from last time, valid or not.  I hope this gets addressed for sure.