Building views / visibility settings

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.

I am definitely with Andreas - materials are for rendering.

And if I understand correctly this is an old issue.

And transparency from element, level or reference should not influence what is included in a BV.
A test is glass in windows - they should be transparent in renderings, 3d-pdfs etc - but NOT in facades.

Some properties of a Building Views is set in chosen Display Style. And if you select FORWARD DRAWING there is a property TRANSPARENCY TRESHOLD - I think it should be OFF in BVs!

I am definitely with Andreas - materials are for rendering.

And if I understand correctly this is an old issue.

And transparency from element, level or reference should not influence what is included in a BV.
A test is glass in windows - they should be transparent in renderings, 3d-pdfs etc - but NOT in facades.

Some properties of a Building Views is set in chosen Display Style. And if you select FORWARD DRAWING there is a property TRANSPARENCY TRESHOLD - I think it should be OFF in BVs!

But when I put glass in front of a hallway - I would draw what is behind very lightly in some cases. That is not rendering any longer.
It is drafting,

As Eric mentioned there are cases where one may want "transparency" in Drawings, which is what the default system provides.

But as Thomas mentions this can be controlled via the Transparency Threshold slider per Display Style. So for something like Forward-Drawing perhaps that threshold slider can be increased or turned off (as I know Thomas prefers :-)).

That's ok, but what I thought was that the transparency threshold was referring to the level (or object) transparency, not the material transparency.

I believe this is because the Family + Part system by default overrides base MicroStation functionality in this case, using the Part material assignment's opacity value against the Transparency Threshold slider value to determine whether an element will display as transparent (and to what degree). If an element has no Part or material assigned, the Transparency Threshold value should only compare against the element's "native" transparency value since there is nothing else to control it.

It was a while since I dealt with this.

But DEM>FORWARD and! REFLECTED tabs has ENABLE TRANSLUCENT MATERIALS which looks at assigned material (by part only or perhaps also by level etc?) and allows you to show contours behind a glass rail, and even override the contours symbology.

So you could assign different material to glass in windows in a facade than in a railing. A high, and well balanced, level of control if you ask me.

But BVs looks at element+level+ref transparency - and I think that is bad as you apply transparency that way of very different reasons than how it will look in a cut. At least I only use those transparency controls to see better in 3d-mode, 3d-pdfs etc.

My assumption is that those who constructed Dynamic Views never cared to study DEM, or understood it, before they raced away with DVs - and here we are.