Unwanted Levels in Seed Files

My reason is for ABD.  And After that I don't know.  Starting with a small group of lines too but trying to make all my  sections/plans smart - self generating.

When I create a CMU Wall - the Plan Section is different than the Wall Section.  (Horiz vs Vert)

There are other materials like pans that a Same.

I can only apply one Centerline Style - and as noted it is only ONE level.

When I carete the line style I can provide two deferent Point Centerlines  for a better description.

One cell is the Plan one is the Section

The Plan is Green and The Section is Red as they take the symbology of the cell

I'd like the level to be the symbol level also.  But this is not allowed.

If I could do both I could ccut one level off in hte Section and One when I BV the Plan

Then I can make a part show differently in a section than a plan.

Keeping things open to future possibilities.

Unknown said:

Centerlines need their own level and fill does too.  Forward, reflected, etc. all need their own level.

Parts needs some tweeking for sure.  Centerlines need their own level and fill does too.  Forward, reflected, etc. all need their own level.  What a level cannot be created when used is beyond me.  We take a rocket to the moon with less than an 8088 chip so why not just add levels as the item is placed.

Linesstyles need levels to so a line symbol can have more than one level.  I know that gets tricky but that would be considered a different type of linestyle.  (Centerline - two levels - one for plan section  - one for wall section.  Same Part)

Reviving this thread because Marc referred me to it in An empty Workspace?.

"]

The parts and family system can define different levels for forwarded, cut, reflected and centerline graphics. Since the Drawing Extraction Manager created new elements in a separate file, this was not a problem. However, Dynamic Views do not create new elements or create separate files, as the same data is just displayed in a different presentation. The problem is that these alternate presentations cannot be created on levels that do not already exist. Therefore, as a workaround, the dataset is scanned for undefined levels, which are then added to the DGN-file. As a result, users may have levels in their DGN-files that they believe they have not used. 

This scan is performed by default to support Dynamic Views. However, if the configuration variable BB_DVDATASETELEMENTS in C:\Program Files\Bentley\MicroStation V8i\Triforma\config\atflocal.cfg is commented out this scan and the creation of undefined levels is disabled. However, this is likely to lead to problems in Dynamic Views!

If the Section, F&R view, and Center line levels are identical to the model levels there is no need to scan the part files and to add undefined levels.

I have long wondered why it's thought necessary to place forward, cut, reflected and centerline graphics each on a separate (variant) level for each Part. Why shouldn't "Section, F&R view, and Center line levels [be] identical to the model levels"? How would having these on separate levels be useful?

This is described "as a workaround". What might a mature, non-workaround process look like?

What if I decide to not use Levels like this, as a way of making visible or invisible, all the instances of each individual Part? What if I prefer instead to use Levels for some other purpose e.g. as a way of making invisible or invisible, whole chunks of the building, so I can e.g. switch perimeter chunk(s) off and can then see the interior of the building? Doesn't the Datasets' assumption that levels should be used in one way, lock out other possible ways of using Levels?

The question is serious (to me), because using Levels is the only workable way I have found, to view and work on the building's interior. Seems MS is sorely deficient in quick ways to do this - buggy (now you see it now you don't) non-recallable Clip Volume hopeless IMHO; Peter F in Accessing 3D model's interior :

fostertom:

 found Display depth, Clip volume and Clip mask quite baffling. Is that how I should make part of the model invisible, so I can see inside? If not, what are these for?

If switching Levels on and off is a good method, should I be organising them into Filter/groups?

1. Clips and various things around them  (Dynamic Views, markers, etc) are the way to go. The whole idea with these tools/methods is designed with drawing extractions in mind (DEM style - acronym used since the Triforma days) therefore are very poor as true design aids in 3d work. But ... there's no other way. 

2. If you want to understand why the "poor" comments of mine....find a friend who's expert with Siemens NX/Catia and ask him a demo tour.

I did just that, and NX (also Spaceclaim) are streets ahead of MS at on-the-fly hiding (and/or transparenting). E.g. you can pick a placed element, and 'closer' elements 'in front' of it (as you rotate the model) can go progressively transparent, shading to invisible.

This is actually part of a bigger discussion.

 PARTS and CATALOGS

Without great detail or discussion - I feel that there needs to be a greatter discussion of where parts and catalags fit and how they will evolve.  Also greater thought and then input from the users.

I am constantly told that NO direction is given to how to use BA as it must remain flexible.  However it is obvious that the  users see otherwise as the first thing syou see in the support groups is the request for datasets.

Therefore a methodology for using BA is important.  And if you look at BA's competitor it is usable out of the box.  This being said and to keep industry compatability.

This being said we need a complete group or organized parts and a complete Group of Organized Assemblies

Use Masterformat for Parts and Uniformat for Assemblies