Not being able to save a project because "background processing" is running is VERY dumb!
Showing posts with label Save. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Save. Show all posts
Friday, January 23, 2026
Tuesday, June 01, 2021
Local Save Does Not Work - Follow Up
After speaking with an Autodesk developer we now know that our issue is related to past eTransmit use. Revit mistakenly retained a flag it uses to mark that file as such.
If we can successfully use Synchronize with Central and we get that message when we use Save then the correct response to the warning dialog is the top option: "Save this model as a central model in its current location - Revit will remove this message and allow users to create local copies of the model."
Remember, the message is accurate for files that have been created via eTransmit too. In our situation the files were working fine on BIM 360 but they retained the flag that should have been removed when they were added to the cloud.
Info Added 6/4/2021: The warning is triggered ONLY in the following scenario:
The warning is triggered ONLY in the following scenario: The model has been transmitted and then upload to BIM 360 from Revit using the option “Work temporarily”.
To eliminate this warning for future project, please make sure you choose “Save as a central model in its new location” when uploading the models to BIM 360 from Revit.
Wednesday, April 14, 2021
BIM 360 Warning Using Save not Sync
Lately we see this warning message appear, in BIM 360 hosted projects, when clicking the Save button (local) instead of the Synchronize with Central button.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
When Upgrading is a Downgrade
Dan Stine shared this dialog with me this morning. The wording it contains makes one think Revit is attempting to save in an older version, but that isn't possible.
In this case he had Revit 2015 open already and inadvertently double clicked on a Revit 2016 project file. He eventually saw another dialog that confirmed the file could not be saved in an earlier format. He, like me, thought the dialog was mildly amusing and passed it my way.
In this case he had Revit 2015 open already and inadvertently double clicked on a Revit 2016 project file. He eventually saw another dialog that confirmed the file could not be saved in an earlier format. He, like me, thought the dialog was mildly amusing and passed it my way.
Friday, August 28, 2015
Save Icon Diskette
This is just one of those things that runs through my head as I use and teach others to use Revit. We've been using this icon for Save in most if not all of our software for a long time.
When was the last time we really used one? Does your computer even allow for its use now?
If that's so 1980-90's then what icon would be better for Save these days? A life preserver? I know one product that uses it now, a product called Workspace from Union Square. It looks a bit like these.
If the icon was a $ would people use it more?
When was the last time we really used one? Does your computer even allow for its use now?
If that's so 1980-90's then what icon would be better for Save these days? A life preserver? I know one product that uses it now, a product called Workspace from Union Square. It looks a bit like these.
If the icon was a $ would people use it more?
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Dept. of Errors - Can't Write to File
Recently observed a couple users that couldn't create a new local file. What was unique about this situation was that they had shared the same laptop computer in the lab. I chose to have a few different students drive the computer that was connected to the projector so that they would get to do the work, the others could watch and I could get around the fact that I couldn't be part of their network.
Whenever I end up doing this it reminds me of my white glove days in various unionized cities where the local stagehands didn't permit you to do the work yourself, you just directed them to do everything, literally everything! Try doing your job all day long by telling someone else what to do, down to the slightest detail. Move case to here, open lid, remove the first cable, pull it over to the first lighting truss section, connect to the receptacle, coil the excess here in a clockwise rotation. Repeat for the next cable...over and over all day. You find out quickly how well you know your gig.
Back to the problem, when the users attempted to create new local files the next day the computer was still using the same Username for Revit but they were logged in as different computer users. When Revit saw that username was the same but the computer user that created the previous local file was different it balked and refused to save the file. When we changed the Revit username to something else, no problem.
Not very likely that others would encounter this but thought I'd share the oddity just in case.
Whenever I end up doing this it reminds me of my white glove days in various unionized cities where the local stagehands didn't permit you to do the work yourself, you just directed them to do everything, literally everything! Try doing your job all day long by telling someone else what to do, down to the slightest detail. Move case to here, open lid, remove the first cable, pull it over to the first lighting truss section, connect to the receptacle, coil the excess here in a clockwise rotation. Repeat for the next cable...over and over all day. You find out quickly how well you know your gig.
Back to the problem, when the users attempted to create new local files the next day the computer was still using the same Username for Revit but they were logged in as different computer users. When Revit saw that username was the same but the computer user that created the previous local file was different it balked and refused to save the file. When we changed the Revit username to something else, no problem.
Not very likely that others would encounter this but thought I'd share the oddity just in case.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Save Interval - Who Keeps Changing It?
You do! You do so by accident though, with your innocent mouse and scroll wheel.
Here's what happens. Let's imagine you are starting a new floor, or roof or wall, something, and Revit pops up a Save Reminder. It always does when are starting something time consuming doesn't it? You also happen to decide to zoom in or out using the scroll wheel on your mouse.
Timing is everything!!
At the same time you do this, the save reminder shows up. The focus shifts to the Drop Down list of time intervals. Since you are spinning your wheel expecting to zoom you don't notice that you momentarily altered the interval!
Users of Revit MEP have changed their selected pipe or duct for a similar reason. I mentioned this in another POST.
Here's what happens. Let's imagine you are starting a new floor, or roof or wall, something, and Revit pops up a Save Reminder. It always does when are starting something time consuming doesn't it? You also happen to decide to zoom in or out using the scroll wheel on your mouse.
Timing is everything!!
At the same time you do this, the save reminder shows up. The focus shifts to the Drop Down list of time intervals. Since you are spinning your wheel expecting to zoom you don't notice that you momentarily altered the interval!
Users of Revit MEP have changed their selected pipe or duct for a similar reason. I mentioned this in another POST.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Backward Compatibilty (or rather the lack of it)
Revit does not save backward. Said another way, you cannot save from "this" version to a previous version's format. It never has..maybe never will...but never say never?
One common concern or comment is based on working with consultants, "What if my consultant is using the previous version of Revit? What then?"
The only thing preventing a consultant that is currently using 2008 from collaborating with "you" using 2009 is their subscription status (that and a willingness to install it). They can work with you using 2009 even if all their other projects are in 2008 as long as their subscription is in force. Technically all they'd need is a single seat installed for 2009 (for each user) and a valid subscription for that seat, even if they didn't have a valid subscription for their remaining seats.
(I should clarify that I'm not a reseller and you really need to make sure that your firm is in compliance with the Autodesk End User License Agreement(s), EULA for your products. You really don't want a visit from the piracy folks. Please don't make such decisions on the basis of my post alone! Agreed??)
This means for "your" project the consultant would need to renew their subscription for each necessary seat to get the current version up and running apart from the "EyeTee" department exerting some effort. How much cash is required depends on how many people will need to work on the project and how long ago they stopped subscribing.
Note: In effect a Revit firm that abandons subscription is truly deciding NOT to collaborate... Autodesk definitely has us coming and going on this point.
A "team" of firms using Revit really MUST agree WHEN to upgrade to another version. One part of the team arbitrarily deciding to do so will unfairly burden the others with the timing of an upgrade. It is not necessarily a hard thing to do, normally, but it is very likely to be inconvenient depending how soon the next deadline is.
No backward compatibility has been and continues to be motivated by a greater urgency for moving forward than working out the complexity of supporting firms that don't "want" to upgrade. Anyone trying to truly collaborate with all disciplines right now will agree there is MUCH that needs to be done for every discipline to allow greater and tighter integration of our data.
Some might say that Autodesk "likes" or "enjoys" this situation, being necessary to maintain subscription, and perhaps there is some truth in that. The reality is that in order to progress they must be able to focus forward. If we demand that each release must save back to earlier releases then a considerable force must be applied to make that possible.
Consider that features added in 2009 might not be possible to create in earlier releases at all. A Swept Blend did not exist in an earlier release, what shall it become when saved to an earlier release? Just delete it? Recreate it unfaithfully because the geometry can't be represented? Create an ACIS "exported" and then "imported" instance in the model that can't ever be altered? I imagine that whatever elements are affected by such conditions that the resulting form(s) will not have the same fidelity as the original which calls into question the logic of doing so at all.
An enormous amount of effort would be necessary to permit this when the much "easier" (for Autodesk perhaps) solution is for customers to use the same release. Compare the few hundred dollars for a subscription per seat required of the customer as opposed to the kind effort required to make this possible in any fashion and you'll see it isn't a very motivating project for them.
Seth Godin wrote about Love and Annoying the other day. He wrote this:
...The goal is to create a product that people love. If people love it, they'll forgive a lot. They'll talk about it. They'll promote it. They'll come back. They'll be less price sensitive. They'll bring their friends. They'll work with you to make it better.
If you can't do that, though, perhaps you can make your service or product less annoying...
Read more...he goes on to say that Apple makes products people love as an example and that an Airline ought to work hard to make air travel less annoying. Seems to me that this issue and Revit as a product is on that "fence" now. People have been and continue to be passionate about Revit and willing to forgive its quirkiness. Increasingly many users however are more interested in it becoming less annoying.
Seth closes with this:
...Put a sign on your office door, or send a memo to the team. It should say either, "Everything we do needs to make our product less annoying" or "Everything we do should be idiosyncratic and engage people and invite them to fall in love with us. That's not easy, which is why it's worth it." Can't have both. Must do one...
It might seem that I am apologizing for something that Autodesk should just "do". Perhaps. At this time I am much more interested in Autodesk spending time and resources to add functionality so that firms can collaborate better. Every penny spent to support backward motion is "negative equity" and as we know that sort of equity has been contributing to the current state of our economy in a fairly significant way.
One common concern or comment is based on working with consultants, "What if my consultant is using the previous version of Revit? What then?"
The only thing preventing a consultant that is currently using 2008 from collaborating with "you" using 2009 is their subscription status (that and a willingness to install it). They can work with you using 2009 even if all their other projects are in 2008 as long as their subscription is in force. Technically all they'd need is a single seat installed for 2009 (for each user) and a valid subscription for that seat, even if they didn't have a valid subscription for their remaining seats.
(I should clarify that I'm not a reseller and you really need to make sure that your firm is in compliance with the Autodesk End User License Agreement(s), EULA for your products. You really don't want a visit from the piracy folks. Please don't make such decisions on the basis of my post alone! Agreed??)
This means for "your" project the consultant would need to renew their subscription for each necessary seat to get the current version up and running apart from the "EyeTee" department exerting some effort. How much cash is required depends on how many people will need to work on the project and how long ago they stopped subscribing.
Note: In effect a Revit firm that abandons subscription is truly deciding NOT to collaborate... Autodesk definitely has us coming and going on this point.
A "team" of firms using Revit really MUST agree WHEN to upgrade to another version. One part of the team arbitrarily deciding to do so will unfairly burden the others with the timing of an upgrade. It is not necessarily a hard thing to do, normally, but it is very likely to be inconvenient depending how soon the next deadline is.
No backward compatibility has been and continues to be motivated by a greater urgency for moving forward than working out the complexity of supporting firms that don't "want" to upgrade. Anyone trying to truly collaborate with all disciplines right now will agree there is MUCH that needs to be done for every discipline to allow greater and tighter integration of our data.
Some might say that Autodesk "likes" or "enjoys" this situation, being necessary to maintain subscription, and perhaps there is some truth in that. The reality is that in order to progress they must be able to focus forward. If we demand that each release must save back to earlier releases then a considerable force must be applied to make that possible.
Consider that features added in 2009 might not be possible to create in earlier releases at all. A Swept Blend did not exist in an earlier release, what shall it become when saved to an earlier release? Just delete it? Recreate it unfaithfully because the geometry can't be represented? Create an ACIS "exported" and then "imported" instance in the model that can't ever be altered? I imagine that whatever elements are affected by such conditions that the resulting form(s) will not have the same fidelity as the original which calls into question the logic of doing so at all.
An enormous amount of effort would be necessary to permit this when the much "easier" (for Autodesk perhaps) solution is for customers to use the same release. Compare the few hundred dollars for a subscription per seat required of the customer as opposed to the kind effort required to make this possible in any fashion and you'll see it isn't a very motivating project for them.
Seth Godin wrote about Love and Annoying the other day. He wrote this:
...The goal is to create a product that people love. If people love it, they'll forgive a lot. They'll talk about it. They'll promote it. They'll come back. They'll be less price sensitive. They'll bring their friends. They'll work with you to make it better.
If you can't do that, though, perhaps you can make your service or product less annoying...
Read more...he goes on to say that Apple makes products people love as an example and that an Airline ought to work hard to make air travel less annoying. Seems to me that this issue and Revit as a product is on that "fence" now. People have been and continue to be passionate about Revit and willing to forgive its quirkiness. Increasingly many users however are more interested in it becoming less annoying.
Seth closes with this:
...Put a sign on your office door, or send a memo to the team. It should say either, "Everything we do needs to make our product less annoying" or "Everything we do should be idiosyncratic and engage people and invite them to fall in love with us. That's not easy, which is why it's worth it." Can't have both. Must do one...
It might seem that I am apologizing for something that Autodesk should just "do". Perhaps. At this time I am much more interested in Autodesk spending time and resources to add functionality so that firms can collaborate better. Every penny spent to support backward motion is "negative equity" and as we know that sort of equity has been contributing to the current state of our economy in a fairly significant way.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Scroll Wheel and Save Reminders
Caution!! When Revit's little timer goes off and says you need to Save it opens the Save Reminder dialog. If you also happen to decide to use your scroll wheel to zoom in or out you may have noticed that Revit has moved its focus to the dialog and the Save Reminder Interval List Box. Scroll causes the reminder value to change. If you think you have it set to every 15 Minutes but check it and find something else, chances are good that you bumped into this issue.
Beware the save reminder and your scroll wheel!
Beware the save reminder and your scroll wheel!
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Save or Options or Options or Save?
Called me confused...RAC 2009 has changed the Save button location on me and well...everyone. I'm not sure how many times I've opened the Options dialog in the file Save or Save As dialog thinking I was clicking Save. I guess this means that I've been "Pavlov Dogged"?
Here's the RAC2008 dialog: (note the location of the SAVE button)
Here's the RAC 2009 dialog: (note the location of the Options button)
I realize this should be in the Dept. of Subtle but was this REALLY NECESSARY? I'm sure I'll adjust eventually. The new dialog box is also a bit larger than the previous one in that it has a minimum size that is smaller than the minimum size of the older on.
Here's the RAC2008 dialog: (note the location of the SAVE button)
Here's the RAC 2009 dialog: (note the location of the Options button)
I realize this should be in the Dept. of Subtle but was this REALLY NECESSARY? I'm sure I'll adjust eventually. The new dialog box is also a bit larger than the previous one in that it has a minimum size that is smaller than the minimum size of the older on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)