V 23 still wants to save unchanged models every time

[JST]

A the title says.

No matter what, V23 asks to save the model even if there has been no edit. Even if the model has been saved already, just moments before.

Seems (as usual) that it is more common with models that were started in the prior version (V22 in this case).

Pretends to act just like Autocad LT used to.... That ancient program wanted to re-save if the view changed, if you zoomed or panned. I am NOT saying that Alibre is demanding a save for THAT reason, but it does want to save when the model is closed regardless of change status.

This is not good, since it produces doubt about the status of the model, and can lead to unwanted saves.

 

[DavidJ]

There is work ongoing to address this for v24. It actually gets quite complex as there are

Changes that might not need to be saved at all (e.g. zoom, or view orientation).
Changes that need to be saved, but don't affect Design Intent, and hence shouldn't cause dependent drawings to need re-projecting. (e.g. Design Explorer options).
Changes that need to be saved, and do affect Design Intent.

A change of zoom or view will currently prompt for a save, because the Thumbnail image of the file is taken when the file is closed (if it has changed from the last save).

Parallel improvements are planned to give the user more information to help decide if a save is desirable or not.

It's too early to reveal detail for v24, but there should be significant improvements in behaviour. I'm sure there will be more information provided in due course.

 

[JST]

Why be so complex?

Attack it from the front. What NEEDS a save?

IF an edit window is opened, then you need to save. IF a section view is changed, you need to save (that is basically an edit window). If properties are changed, there is a save needed.

Pretty much anything else does NOT need a save. You could refine that by a change flag in each possible edit window, but........

Worrying about re-projecting seems futile. There is no issue UNLESS the save is done, so you get yourself into perhaps too much trouble through "overthinking".

Frankly, it would be good if there were a definition of what changes trigger a save.

It sounds as if nobody really knows... or as if there is doubt, anyhow. There is much trouble through un-necessary saves and save requests.

 

[danwilley]

"There is work ongoing to address this for v24."
+1

 

[bigseb]

Frankly, it would be good if there were a definition of what changes trigger a save.

This

 

[simonb65]

Good to see that this is being worked on, but for me, a save is only required if the part/assembly/2d drawing has been 'modified' by the user and that edit is something that would make the design different to what it was previously (i.e. a difference that has repercussions on signoff/fit and function/need for a review and up revision/engineering notification to manufacturing, etc).

That one statement to me implies 'changing 3D geometry' and/or 'editing 2D drawing sheet'.

Everything else (UI views, pan, etc) does not affect the part/design integrity. If its an older version of file that is opened, I would expect to be asked if it is to be saved as the latest version (a user edit of geometry, etc. would naturally cause this to happen anyway).

But I guess there is lots going on beneath the surface and lots of knock on effects. So, lets wait for v24, and trust things will be better than it is now and we as users can give further feedback at that point. Either way, for me, it's a most welcome area to be currently addressing by dev.

 

[NateLiquidGravity]

FYI addons can also save data to Alibre Design files which may prompt a save requirement too. I use the following settings in AlibreScript and manually save all my scripts to the Alibre Script Library. That way data should only be saved to the part/assembly if specifically done by the script.

 

[JST]

Good to see that this is being worked on, but for me, a save is only required if the part/assembly/2d drawing has been 'modified' by the user and that edit is something that would make the design different to what it was previously (i.e. a difference that has repercussions on signoff/fit and function/need for a review and up revision/engineering notification to manufacturing, etc).

That one statement to me implies 'changing 3D geometry' and/or 'editing 2D drawing sheet'.

.....................

Might not be so simple..... The section views, for instance, are grounds for saving, if only due to the hassle of re-doing them from scratch if they are not saved.

I suppose that might mean deciding whether or not the drawing turns red and demands a "re-project". And then the issue of dimensions that mysteriously get disconnected....

There is a reasonable argument FOR just reprojecting for any sort of change, even to the section view, vs deciding if it is needed or not. And also a decent argument AGAINST, meaning to see if the "reproject flag" is set.

 

[simonb65]

Might not be so simple.....

I totally agree. Not wanting to save just for opening and viewing the model would be a big start for me. As I said, I'm sure whatever changes dev make, it will be a step in the right direction, however big/small it may be.