cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Make Version property available for mapping

Make Version property available for mapping

To make the version property visible in the Inventor or AutoCAD titelblock it should be possible to map the Version property to an Inventor iproperty and AutoCAD attribute\draing property. Now it is only possible to make it visible in the Revision Table. 

9 Comments
ihayesjr
Community Manager

Are you referring to the version of the Revision being mapped to a iProperty?  Can you explain why it is important for you to have the version number over the Revision?

jpossen
Contributor

Hello Irvin,

 

Yes its the version of the revision. I got this question from 2 customers recently. The reason is that in de the R&D stage they cummunicate a lot with suppliers with drawings. In this R&D stage they don't want to make different revisions yet but to make differences visible to this suppliers they also want to display the version in the titleblock.

 

I also had another wish from this customers. Maybe I should post it as a new item on idea station ?

They want to use Windows (active directory) accounts to login Vault. But in the drawing titleblock they want to display a different name, not the active directory with domain name etc.. In the Global Settings you define a User Name (login name) and a first name and last name, one of the last two could be used as name to display in the titelblock. These first and last name however are not shown as properties and cannot be mapped to Inventor and Autocad.

 

Greetings,

John 

YounesYammouri
Community Manager
Status changed to: Under Review
 
AttilaFarkas
Advocate

Hi,

 

Our customer wants to see the following informations in the title block of the AutoCAD or Inventor drawing:

 

- Last version of the drawing/model

- Last date of the modification

- Who modified the document last time?

 

This is important in their daily work to follow the changes during the design process and I think it should be a basic function.

 

The other way should be to reference Vault properties directly from title block.

 

Regards,

 

Attila Farkas

 

Vault Property Mapping 3.jpg

 

Vault Property Mapping 1.jpgVault Property Mapping 2.jpg

ihayesjr
Community Manager

@jpossen

Instead of bumping the Primary revision, have you thought of bumping the secondary number in the revision during these check states with the suppliers? This way you are not releasing the file to get different primary revisions but you get a unique number of what was sent to the supplier.  This should get you the same thing you are looking for. 

 

As far as the Windows Account name in the title block, you should be able to get the name in the Titleblock based on the Inventor Application Options on the General tab update the Username field and put that in the title block.

If that isn't what you are looking for, you can vote on the following idea.

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/vault-ideas/different-display-name-for-windows-users/idi-p/3502222

 

jpossen
Contributor

Hello Irvin,

 

The secondary revision could be an option but the problem is that most customers with just a few engineers (which is also the case here) want a simple as possible workflow in their engineering process, so without extra secondary revisions steps.

 

Greetings,

John

saainsworth
Advocate

I am setting up an Inventor 3d PDF template.  Since these are published from a model file as a snap shot it would be highly desirable to display the vault version of the part/assy on the PDF (we don't currently use life cycles and revisions in vault). 

 

It would be desirable to verify that the PDF is current.

Frodl
Advocate

Hi @ihayesjr ,

What about this idea? Will it ever be implemented? This idea would be very helpful for a current project. It's a shame it hasn't been implemented in the 2025 version yet.

 

Greetings Stephan

ihayesjr
Community Manager
Status changed to: Future Consideration

Future Consideration: While we’re generally a fan of these ideas, the timing isn’t quite right for development consideration. As such, they are being put on the back burner to be re-visited at a later date. Please continue to comment and add your support.  

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

Submit Idea