topic Re: So we are never going to be able to control element visibility with GO? in Documentation

So we are never going to be able to control element visibility with GO?

gavinNZz — Thu, 15 Jun 2023 14:38:33 GMT

So GS just confirmed in their event that they are not interested in developing the Graphic over ride function to control element visibility because they think that it is to hard for AC users to get our heads around. Seriously!!! We are the ones asking for it. Visibility by layers only is old fashioned and ignores the value that properties & classifications embeds in the element.

Re: So we are never going to be able to control element visibility with GO?

hevi — Thu, 15 Jun 2023 18:30:08 GMT

I personally don't think that controlling it through GO is a good end solution as there should be a distinction between what element is visible/active and how it is graphically represented. But the introduction of truly invisible lines/surfaces/fills would be a quick fix with minimum "confusion" for users.

I didn't see the Q&A but if the answer was to be understood as GS sticking with the current layer-based visibility control for the foreseeable future it sure is depressing. Currently visibility control is all over the place and in urgent need of an effort to consolidate/harmonise/centralise. A criteria based approach would enable just that and at the same time making sure that AC is keeping up with the development, enabling truly object oriented workflows.

Re: So we are never going to be able to control element visibility with GO?

Scraptrash — Sun, 18 Jun 2023 02:33:07 GMT

Agree. It is truly depressing GS still thinks layer based visibility control is still the best way for users.

Re: So we are never going to be able to control element visibility with GO?

Mahmoud Qenawi — Sun, 18 Jun 2023 08:12:32 GMT

That's truly happened in second Q&A session, I and others asked if we have design options why we still can't hide element in 2D plan??

The answer was from @Marton Kiss proves that GS is interested in hiding elements by layers and said something about a quiz he had before when he was at school I personally couldn't understand well either this quiz or the logic behind hiding layers not elements cuz they were hurry and speaking fast.

Even I'm surprised why Q&A sessions are not uploaded to the events' videos yet despite the same session in collaborate event is exist!!

Re: So we are never going to be able to control element visibility with GO?

Mahmoud Qenawi — Fri, 21 Jul 2023 02:08:45 GMT

Thanks graphisoft for publishing the Q&A session related to Design Building Together event.

Re: So we are never going to be able to control element visibility with GO?

Erwin Edel — Mon, 24 Jul 2023 08:05:22 GMT

Setting up a GO rule to hide a specific element seems just as convoluted as making a new layer + layer combination to me.

Model View Options and Floor Plan Range usually do the trick and you can set most elements to 'ignore' MVO and use a custom setting for the odd ones out.

Can you give a specific case of what you need to hide based on properties?

Re: So we are never going to be able to control element visibility with GO?

DGSketcher — Mon, 24 Jul 2023 11:15:03 GMT

Hiding elements via GO is achievable, but personally I think it the wrong place if you wish for an on/off status. I have already raised a wish for transparency and fade in GOs, but that is from my view aimed at graphical presentation.

@Erwin Edel comments above are valid in the current AC display arrangement, but I do think controlling on/off by criteria / attributes is a better place for development of such a feature and would be a lot easier to manage than using GOs. I did advocate that such a provision could have taken Design Options to a far more advanced level, but as ever we have a solution with limited usability.

Re: So we are never going to be able to control element visibility with GO?

Eduardo Rolon — Mon, 24 Jul 2023 11:46:19 GMT

Could/Should adding these criteria to Layers instead of GOs be the option?

Having the existing Layer Palette be the Basic Layer Manager and then having a "Expert" Layer Manager were you could have rule based Master Layers might keep AC simple for new users while giving us extra control.

Layers, control Model vs GOs, control Graphics?

and if this works then Pen Settings might be integrated into GO's to be the Basic UI and GO rules go into Expert Mode…?

Re: So we are never going to be able to control element visibility with GO?

DGSketcher — Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:28:49 GMT

I know you know all this @Eduardo Rolon , but for those less familiar... As I have tried to explain in various places, Layers are just another attribute of an Element. The key fact is under a BIM workflow, each Element is assigned multiple attributes. The obvious ones which are common to every Element are...

Layer

Renovation Status

Design Option (new)

Structural Function

Position

IFC Properties...

the less obvious material type Core, Finish & Other

and then we have Classifications which when used to control the displayed elements opens a multitude of possibilities e.g. filtering by your preferred classification system e.g. Uniclass, CAWS etc.

All these attribute are permanently active and we use them to determine the presentation of each Element. Yes we can use GO, but supposing I want to just display or export Elements assigned to an attribute e.g. Load bearing, or just the External Elements or an IFC Type, or more interestingly those assigned to a custom classification such as Phase 3! Within the current scope there is no easy way to filter what is presented without potentially developing long lists of layers, which come with an increased risk of layer assignment error as the lists get ever longer. I can appreciate for many, this approach may appear more complex than just Layers, but for the future and definitely for 3D modelling we need to move beyond the current limitations of Layered presentation and start leveraging the potential of 3D & BIM.

Could/ Should this be achieved by a criteria / rules based display system or a simple Layer type on/off system with sub-folders that lets you add attributes & classifications and save them in combinations? - Personally anything would be better than the piecemeal blinkered approach that has landed with a bang with Design Options.

I think from the manual VW has Classification control, it would be interesting to hear how users are leveraging that workflow?

Re: So we are never going to be able to control element visibility with GO?

Eduardo Rolon — Mon, 24 Jul 2023 18:09:03 GMT

@DGSketcher We are in agreement, just thinking how to organize the "Saved Views" so that it is easy to teach to new users.

My emphasis is trying to keep it as simple as possible

If we add rules to Layers then GS has to integrate them with Properties/Classifications et al. which is a necessary wish

Main Controls: All Project Types
- What is displayed from the model = On/Off (other layer settings) controlled by Layer Rules
- How the model is displayed = Display/Print is controlled by GOs
- Graphic Standards and Scale Sensitivity (LOD?) = Model View Options
- Design Options
Secondary Controls: depends on project type
- Renovation
- Phasing
Layout Set Controls (How Drawings are Defined):
- Scale
- Pen Set
- …

Re: So we are never going to be able to control element visibility with GO?

DGSketcher — Mon, 24 Jul 2023 17:33:16 GMT

If it is to be kept simple then I think the bit that GS missed with Design Options is the potential of Display by Class to make the separate controls for Design Options, Renovation & Material Type (Core, finish etc) redundant. That action alone would make AC easier to use, moving the "I can't see..." options from multiple to a single point.

Classification Manager will host any number of "Systems". You want Phasing, you add a System and you can display one phase, multiple or all phases in any combination you want. The same would apply to Design Options & Renovation. A Material Type class would finally resolve those situations where Morphs fail to respond to Partial Structure Display because they can't be designated as a Finish etc.

And just like GOs that came with an immediate wow factor when introduced, Display by Class could be a simple expandable tool that can be ignored by Beginners, Easy to follow for most Users and extremely powerful in the hands of an Advanced User that needs to collaborate by filtering and exporting 3D models.

Re: So we are never going to be able to control element visibility with GO?

Erwin Edel — Tue, 25 Jul 2023 07:27:49 GMT

I only have experience with the Dutch NL-sfb classification system, but it uses chapters and paragraphs and basically 99% of modelling layers are the chapter numbers. For example chapter 21 is "exterior walls", you draft all exterior walls on that layer ("21 exterior walls") and then you can go in to the paragraphs with the classification system, for example 21.22 "structural cavity wall". With this system layers work extremely well to filter elements for classification.

Maybe this is why I am unfamiliar with these filtering problems.

The only thing I really miss, is being able to set 'finish' or 'other' to elements that only use a single building material as structure.

Re: So we are never going to be able to control element visibility with GO?

DGSketcher — Thu, 27 Jul 2023 09:44:02 GMT

If we went down the fusion of criteria & classification to control visibility, one other attribute that would require consideration is the current Layer Intersection Number. I can see situations where you may want to override the value assigned to a layer. So perhaps like GOs, apart from changing an elements visibility from on/off it would also optionally override intersection numbers.

Re: So we are never going to be able to control element visibility with GO?

Mahmoud Qenawi — Thu, 27 Jul 2023 20:10:37 GMT

@Erwin Edel

"The only thing I really miss, is being able to set 'finish' or 'other' to elements that only use a single building material as structure."

I found @Barry Kelly writing this in another post replying to your request :

I hope that's what you hope for.

Re: So we are never going to be able to control element visibility with GO?

DGSketcher — Thu, 27 Jul 2023 21:58:00 GMT

That post may be being viewed out of context. As @Erwin Edel indicated, any Element that uses a single building material requires a work around to assign the core / finish / other attribute. In many cases you can assign a Composite or Complex Profile, but there are elements like Morphs & Meshes where you can't and the general assignment of using the basic tools such as beams, columns, walls etc and assigning the material status in the tool isn't an option. The Material Status could be assigned in the Building Material definition, then it wouldn't matter if you used a single material, complex profile or a composite, the material definition for Partial Structure Display would be automatic, but to be fair to GS that is going to need a MAJOR program update.

Given the growing dependence on Morphs for complex shapes to get around SEO failures, perhaps there could be a way to assign the Material Status in the tool. I have set up a WISH for this.

Re: So we are never going to be able to control element visibility with GO?

Erwin Edel — Mon, 31 Jul 2023 06:55:01 GMT

Some simple elements shouldn't need a composite for every single thickness or a stretchy complex profile, just because I need them to not be 'core'.