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

[gavinNZz]

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. 

[DGSketcher]

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.

[Erwin Edel]

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.

[DGSketcher]

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.

[Mahmoud Qenawi]

@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.

[DGSketcher]

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.

[Erwin Edel]

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'.