Update 5 issues

Hello Edward,

Have you raised any Service Request for the mentioned issues ?
It will be helpful for us if you could share some specific details elaborating the problems you are facing. 

Regards,
Aditya 

Hi All,

While it is appreciated that BIM is a working progress and a need to keep up with new developments paramount, the way these updates are being handled, at best is disruptive. If these updates are not handled sensitively it would become an ongoing nuisance. Hardly, have we gotten to grips with disruption caused by the change over from 'V8i' to 'Connect edition’ (like materials not recognised) before another update from 'AECOsim' to 'Openbuildings'. This is not a mere name change, there is an engine change with different configuration files, omissions and additions. Back to training rooms with endless jargons while the clock ticks away. Before you know ‘Bentley System’ have lost half its client base, because those who can't keep up with these chaos and confusions have move on to seek stability elsewhere as there are no shortage of easy pickings and other BIM software on offer.

Management need to get their act together and manage the changeover in a professional manner. A major change such as this, should allow the new software to run parallel alongside the existing to allow users time to switch over at their own convenience. This is the level of sensitivity required towards users. If one release stops abruptly to give way to another, then no matter how small the changes, it would be disruptive. Imagine if this happens at the verge of a submission to an impatient client, losing a week or a day to getting use to a new version of software in use would be bad enough to lose the job.

This update caught us all by surprise, requires a new set up, interface changes and missing tools as well as intermittent clashes, all at the click of an update button. It seems messy, although it looks promising but what was the hurry? Surely could do better?

Hi Dominic,

No, the recommendation is that the manual process should be followed.

Well, then the CC should not be allowed to auto-install... Most users would just allow the CC to do its thing.

Tathagata Saha said:

Tathagata

How am I supposed to know, that before an end user hit the update button they must first, seek a ‘Wiki link’ recommendations for manual installation. How fair is that?

Let’s call a spade ‘a spade’ If a new release is not fit for automatic installation it should not be sent as an ‘update’ period. If on the other hand you are suggesting something furtive about the use of ‘Connection Client Update’, point taken and fair play.

Hi Dominic,

You mentioned that GC Building node stopped working, Can you please give me some more details, Since it is working for me.

Awaiting for your response.

Rg,

Sandeep

Hi Dominic,
The issues we get are:

• If a part has a 'fill' cut pattern, elements are lost when plotting. Even if the cached dynamic view looks correct, the plot is not necessarily the same and we lose elements when printing (not WYSIWYG)
• The Grid Labels are not aligned correctly for the view orientation in the drawing model. Our grid labels tend to be looking side on so we only see a line representing the grid label bubble and text
• Unify command does not seem to work correctly all the time, with exterior faces (the solid linework) being lost randomly. Also adjacent interior faces do not always unify correctly; adjusting the unify accuracy settings seems to have no affect on this and the line will persist
• Working in a file with attachments, occasionally the attachment file is checked out. This may be related to cached views needing to be updated? Haven't pinpointed the exact cause, but this may be a necessary feature. It is surprising none the less when a drafter is asked why they have a model checked out when they did not initiate that action, and weren't prompted with a PW dialog box
• Issues in update 5 with drawing symbols (section markers) defined in our workspace being unavailable when placing a section in a new file. Old files that had utilised the symbols previously in prior updates remain unaffected though
• There are some other stability issues that arise when using dynamic views referencing a dwg or ifc model; crashes tend to happen frequently when this is the case

Cheers,

Ed

Edit - Updated the list as the grid issue was resolved by reinstating a missing dgnlib

Hi Dominic,
The issues we get are:

• If a part has a 'fill' cut pattern, elements are lost when plotting. Even if the cached dynamic view looks correct, the plot is not necessarily the same and we lose elements when printing (not WYSIWYG)
• The Grid Labels are not aligned correctly for the view orientation in the drawing model. Our grid labels tend to be looking side on so we only see a line representing the grid label bubble and text
• Unify command does not seem to work correctly all the time, with exterior faces (the solid linework) being lost randomly. Also adjacent interior faces do not always unify correctly; adjusting the unify accuracy settings seems to have no affect on this and the line will persist
• Working in a file with attachments, occasionally the attachment file is checked out. This may be related to cached views needing to be updated? Haven't pinpointed the exact cause, but this may be a necessary feature. It is surprising none the less when a drafter is asked why they have a model checked out when they did not initiate that action, and weren't prompted with a PW dialog box
• Issues in update 5 with drawing symbols (section markers) defined in our workspace being unavailable when placing a section in a new file. Old files that had utilised the symbols previously in prior updates remain unaffected though
• There are some other stability issues that arise when using dynamic views referencing a dwg or ifc model; crashes tend to happen frequently when this is the case

Cheers,

Ed

Edit - Updated the list as the grid issue was resolved by reinstating a missing dgnlib

HI Ed,

Have all of these issues been logged as individual SRs?    If so, can you reply back with those numbers?    I know you only posted to get general feedback but if the SRs are being handled by separate Support analysts it could be beneficial to get everyone on the same page.

Hi Steve,

Stuart Milne reached out to me and we had a good discussion about all the different issues we have observed... I sent him a list of the SR's created as well as the issues not yet reported and I believe he is coordinating these items with the support/development team

Thanks

Hi Edward,

Great, thank you.   I'm sure Stuart will organize everything with support as needed.