Building views / visibility settings

About a year ago I filed SR 7000192083 regarding problems where objects were visibile through slabs. I didn't really understand in the first run, why this happened, so I filed the SR.

As Bentley is clearing its backlog of SR's, we're getting back on that issue now.

Anyway - as the issue develops, it's apparent that Aecosim uses material settings for forward views and not level settings, regarding transparency (which controls if you see through an object or not).

Didn't fully understand the reply from support, but it seems that they think this behaviour is intentional.

Quit sure that this deviates from the behaviour when using drawing extractions.

Any opinions on that one?

Parents
  • Materials should control as this is more like dealing with a real building in Space. Levels and sometimes symbology by levels is only a drafting approach. Objects would only be visible through the material if it is glass or some transparent aluminum (Star Trek)
    Or if you needed to modify the material to be transparent for a need to show things beyond for a drafting need.

    The representation is more real.
  • Material definitions for rendering is usually not what building engineers are out after. Drawing extractions didn't do that job either.
  • I am wondering why as I have beautiful high scale sections created. with a few exceptions It is what I would draw by hand.
    If the centerline issues would be resolved I'd fix half of those issues. And if we furthered the development of smarter linestyles - definition driven - then I'd fix the other half.

    I don't use ABD to create the walls sections and plans for only very high scale sketches - but for my details too. I stop when it gets to windows details and such, but I get Fantastic Plans and very good Sections.

    My issues usually or are crashing with high detail stuff or the tools to place some of that stuff. (roofs, things like facia, coves, etc.)
    We don't have a common goal for production so development has not really gone forward. I like much of what is in the EAP for Mstation as it is more (Construction Document driven) ABD seems to be more 3d model driven and does not focus enough on the paper drawings we sell.
Reply
  • I am wondering why as I have beautiful high scale sections created. with a few exceptions It is what I would draw by hand.
    If the centerline issues would be resolved I'd fix half of those issues. And if we furthered the development of smarter linestyles - definition driven - then I'd fix the other half.

    I don't use ABD to create the walls sections and plans for only very high scale sketches - but for my details too. I stop when it gets to windows details and such, but I get Fantastic Plans and very good Sections.

    My issues usually or are crashing with high detail stuff or the tools to place some of that stuff. (roofs, things like facia, coves, etc.)
    We don't have a common goal for production so development has not really gone forward. I like much of what is in the EAP for Mstation as it is more (Construction Document driven) ABD seems to be more 3d model driven and does not focus enough on the paper drawings we sell.
Children
No Data