Windows are not showing as transparent

Hi Danny,

Thanks for letting us know about this. 

I tried to place different kind of windows in my model using OBD U10.1 and the transparency is working fine at my end. 

Can you please try to repair your OBD by following the wiki link below and do let us know if the issue gets resolved or not? 

HTH!

Regards,
Sayan

Hi Danny,

Thanks for letting us know about this. 

I tried to place different kind of windows in my model using OBD U10.1 and the transparency is working fine at my end. 

Can you please try to repair your OBD by following the wiki link below and do let us know if the issue gets resolved or not? 

HTH!

Regards,
Sayan

Hello

I've tried this but it hasn't done anything

Some of the windows are fine. But others not

Could you try the window 'x_Fixed with Frame' for example

Regards

Hi Danny,

NM dataset, right?  If so, I seem to be getting the same results. 

It seems to be the part assigned to the windows that is causing the issue.  I changed a window's glazing part (Glass 6mm) to one used by a door (Glass-Float 6mm) and that seemed to work. The part(s) in question use the material "Grey glass no refract" which appears to be missing from the palette Glass&Plastic palette. So I changed Glass 6mm's material to "Grey glass refract" instead and the windows using that part now had transparent glazing. 

Can create a new Case with support so we can get this into the system?

Regards,
Steve Cocchi

Hello there

Yes, it's the NM Dataset

Yes, ... I figured that the Part assignment had something to do with it.

Did also see that 'Grey Glass no refract' was missing from the Glass and Plastic material palette (which makes one wonder how that assignment was made in the first place. Possibly left over from a previous version of the software, and then the palette got updated separately).

What has also been puzzling, is that I tried changing the material assignment to 'Clear Glass', which worked on some of the other windows.

I then have some windows that I changed to 'Glass 6mm' which do indeed work!

Anyway, I'll create a Service Ticket so this can be examined properly

Must say though ......

I've been testing out/trying out Update 10 over the last few weeks now.

SORRY, ... BUT I HAVE TO COMPLAIN ...... there are numerous such issues.

Basically things that just haven't been checked .... at all seemingly ...... Datagroup Types that don't have some definition correctly set/associated, Levels that get stuck ON or OFF (the Level Display Dialog can't turn them OFF!), .... Compound Walls that don't behave correctly, Schedules just disappearing, conflicts between, Casework not re-sizing properly, Previews sometimes missing in the 'Place Window/Door/Item/ .....' tool, conflicts between the DrawingSeed.dgnlib and the seed file that is used in the Windows Open Dialog Box, Drawing Rules not working ... Umpteen problems with the 'Drawing Production' workflow ....

In this instance ....... there are something like 40 window types available.

Well, .... someone creates a wall, then places those 40 or so windows and checks that they 'work' correctly!

That really isn't too much to ask!

This has been one of the main problems ....... for many years. What ever system Bentley has in place for checking/testing the software BEFORE it's released, I'm sorry to say, ...... but it has to be said, simply isn't up to it.

I've got a long list of issue here, and that is just predominantly with Architecture. I haven't even started (properly) yet, on the Structural, MEP ..... Energy Analysis, GC, Visualisation, Lumen RT, iTwin (a few issues there I've come across already) ..... and there's plenty of tools/features in the Architecture that I haven't delved in to yet: Named Presentations, Item Types, Components Centre, Constraints Modelling, Surfaces, Meshes, Named Boundaries .... 

Seemingly half to tools/features I haven't even really looked at yet, and I've already got a long list of issues (that's before I get to Structural, then MEP)_

Just how many days (yes days and days, .... which can turn in to a few weeks) do Bentley Systems expect us to spend pickin gout all these 'issues'? 

These are not related to some very advanced, never been done before workflow ..... nesting Level 6 with some obscure file formats, linked to some analysis, feeding to some spreadsheet, which then feeds back to the modelling software, ... ect ..

This is brand new, straight out of the box, bog standard (fairly simple and straightforward) BASIC BIM modelling, with only native Bentley objects/components and files ...... 

We are now on version 10 (yes 10) of the Dynamic Views workflow and the results and still unacceptable and unreliable.

In anything approaching real world use, the so called 'automated production' of drawings soon breaks down and there will be constant (yes contant) need for 'manual intervention', often involving having to open the Saved View, then the Drawing Model, then the Sheet, ...... 3, 4, ...5 times before it looks (more or less) like it' supposed to.

Bentley, ...... we are all tired of this (many of them got beyond tired of this many years ago ...... and went over to some 'other software' ..... not mentioning any names for now).

I must be blunt (time is of the essence here), if they seriously want to regain some ground in the Buildings Sector, then this whole quality control/checking/testing needs to be seriously overhauled and improved ......

Rant over for now (but rest assured ....... I'll be back)

Meantime, I will log a ticket

Regards

Hi Danny,

Sorry for (yet another) delayed response.  I would suggest filing support Cases for whichever issues you feel are most critical. That way we can test against our latest internal builds.  We're not that far off from the next release so it's questionable what can be fixed in time, but step one is to test and get some defects filed where applicable. 

Regards,
Steve Cocchi

danny-cooley said:

'automated production' of drawings

Yea... I cringe when listening to the new 'research' into using AI to automate drawing production, announced at this year's YII 2023.

Looking at the way OBD / Aecosim / Triforma has been struggling with basic drawing production over the last two decades, you wonder if Bentley high command have a clue about how to run a software company.

Not sure what AI brings to the table when the basic 'infrastructure' or enabling tech has eluded Bentley for years.

1. Text and annotation will need to avoid other elements to ensure readability.
2. There needs to be a means to persistently link the annotations, dimensions to the elements in external files.
3. There needs to basic coordinate system conversions to get the right datum levels etc.
4. There needs to be some kind of version, propagation controls to enable incremental updates, not whole sale reprocessing everytime.
5. The manual 'overrides' or annotation moves that the user will inevitably need will need to be 'respected'.
6. No fills in forward view.
7. Drawing Rules so slow that the recomendation is to turm AutoAnnotation off
8. Sheet Index that doesn't work.
9. iModels Refs that have no or poor symbology controls, missing views.
10. etc etc etc

These requirements are known problems and have only been partially or not resolved at all. Bentley's products have been struggling with this 'CAD' code for decades. Not sure how throwing 'AI' code at this will help, but hey... maybe it will spur and fund the deep changes in the 'CAD' code that has been neglected for so many years.

Alternatively, Bentley should enhance iTwins to allow others like Swapp.net or Graebert or even Revit to automate drawing production and synch the results back for Mstn or OBD users to print stuff off.