I have a filled shape in a nested reference (ref. 1.1) that hide linework in another nested reference (ref 1.2) (1 level of nesting).
I have tried changing element and level priority but still the fill shows above the lines. The reference priority cannot be changed because of nesting.
I have also tried changing the update sequence in the file attaching directly the references (ref 1) and it does not seem to have changed a thing.
Has anyone else had this issue? What should I try next?
MicroStation CE Update 14 10.14.02.01 in a 2D design model
It would be appreciated if you could provide details of the software and version you're currently using.
MicroStation Forum best practices
It would also be of interest to know whether the design file you're working in is 2D or 3D? This can make a difference with the Draw Order or Priority of your elements in any references or shape files.
Changing Element Display Order
RegardsAndrew BellTechnical SupportBentley Systems
as Andrew wrote: Without further details, the discussion is quite hypothetical and no clear advice can be provided.
It's recommended in best practices to always specify the used product and it's exact version and any other information, that can help. To use tags is not good idea, experience shows that they are often not noticed or ignored. To use standardized subject, as recommended in e.g. Programming forum, is better way. Alternatively, the product and version can be mentioned in a question itself. But, to use "CONNECT Edition" is not version specification, because there have been 20 versions of MicroStation CE released so far.
There are (I guess) 3 main settings that affect references order:
As you mentioned already, the settings can be changed for the direct references only, not for nested.
Alexandre de Massy said:Has anyone else had this issue?
There are many situations, especially when combinations like 2D / 3D, DGN + DWG or WMS (all together at the best case) are used, when the results can look incorrect and it's not easy (or even not possible) to achieve what is required, but in general, both order and priorities work fine.
Alexandre de Massy said:What should I try next?
In my opinion you should create and share simple test case to demonstrate the problem, because there are too many settings and dependencies. The test case can be just 4 DGN files, with only one or two elements in nested files.
Bentley Accredited Developer: iTwin Platform - AssociateLabyrinth Technology | dev.notes() | cad.point
Alexandre de Massy said:I have a filled shape in a nested reference (ref. 1.1) that hide linework in another nested reference (ref 1.2) (1 level of nesting)
The quickest solution turn off the ref in the nest for the filled shape exref.. then attach the filled shape exref as a single xref ontop now in the ref manager sequence set it to the first xref ie slot 1 at the top of the list .. then everything else after it so it gets painted first then everything else is painted on top.. as the way the printer would need to lay it down.. on paper.. not the most inutitive tool but when you think of it as printing order its a bit easier.. other drafter use transparencey but then it mucks up the way colours look and you can't make the legend look the same becaue stuff shines thru change the colours like air photos .. so I put 2d filled shape exrefs underneath all the other exrefs and I dont put it a nest as its hard to control later.. or rebuild your nest so filled shapes is first .. still may not work in all situations...
Now Retired 25 Nov 2022
But was long time user V8iss10 (8.11.09.919) dabbler CE update 16 (10.16.00.80)
MicroStation user since 1990 Melbourne Australia.click link to PM me
Lorys said:The quickest solution
Sorry, but it's not solution (and for sure not the quickest), but a workaround only in situation, when probably standard settings should work.
ok its a workaround .. when the settings are clearly not working for the user.. and its pretty quick rather than having to make a new nest .. so what ? a solution is an answer to a problem that give the desired outcome.. I think your being too pedantic about terminology ..
The guy has an issue to make drgs work and has a dead line for sure ..( yep an assumption there I said it !)
And when the conventional method is not doing what it is the expected outcome.. so a " work around" gets the job done... later he should investigate why the conventional method isnt working .. trying to get things to work as they should and waiting for a proper solution means that you miss the deadline then its not really helping .. is it?