Matt Panzer

Correct. You certainly can name phases however you like as long as you understand that the name has nothing to do with the status of objects.

I recommend updating to 2026 Update 4. I believe this issue was fixed in that version. Please let us know if you see otherwise.

This looks like a bug and we just had one reported on it (VB-219119) and are looking into it.

Component-based objects (walls, roofs, slabs, hardscape, etc.), cannot be reused as an object. These are best dealt with via worksheets that compare the amount of the material of the objects being demolished to new objects using the same material. This will allow you to see if you have enough reused material or if more will be needed. Of course, you'd want to work in some percentage adjustment for material that cannot be reused (damaged or odd shaped pavers, etc.).

Yes. But it needs to added to the workspace. However, because this initial version of Phases is purely data based, no object specific changes have been made for phasing. For example, the site model already has the idea of existing and proposed in the object and won't do anything different with regard to phasing.

I added a comment to the VB to try to bump this up in priority. Note: The "Fix Version" in VBs is to be taken with a grain of salt. Engineers often bulk move current VBs to the next update or major release simply to allow them to focus on current tasks. This means a VB with a Fix Version of 2026 Update 5 may get moved to Update 6 or 2027. Oftentimes, engineers will move many VBs to the next major version and move certain ones back as they can get to them.

Ah. I assumed you knew about those extrudes. 🙂 You're right that it's different than in most other objects. We do want to reevaluate and unify how attributes and detail levels are handled to bring more consistency in the future. A lot of these differences were already in the objects in past versions and some were kept as we moved over to using list browsers because of potential forward translation issues that could occur if we removed them. This does look like a bug to me. Please submit a VB when you have a moment. Please also submit a VB for this if you can. Yeah. This is another area I want to look into improving. The reason the Objects Above, Hidden Objects Above, and Hidden Objects Below have different UI is because more granular control is needed to only shows certain classes of objects. E.g.: The user may only want to show beams or walls above. We do know there are some limitations (some are more technical) with the below attributes and there is room for improvement.

This is the file after I turned off the centerlines in the 2D Attributes pane of the SM style.SM lines-Matt.vwx

OK, I changed all the 2D attributes to visible in the SM style and see this: This is after changing the "centerline" to invisible in 2D attributes of the SM style:

As @Tom W. mentioned, you can control the visibility of it for each detail level in the Detail Level pane of the dialog. When they're set to visible, you can also place them in a class (in the 2D Attributes pane) and control their visibility via class.

I'm not seeing this in the last version of that file you posted. This is with "Display 2D Components" deselected, correct? The viewport with either setting shows the same geometry but the one by class has a different line weight (as expected).

OK, I'm not sure why those lines are showing but they do seem to be coming from the 2D component of the SM in the symbol. One around it was to generate a Top component for the symbol and change the component location to the bottom of the lowest SM object. This will keep the component below the roof. ScreenFlow.mp4

I'm stumped why those lines would be showing! Please do submit a bug for this.

Hey Scott! Yes. No need for additional classes for phasing. DataVis takes care of it all for visibilities and attribute overrides. Give it a whirl and let us know what you think!

I believe all phases will be removed and you'll see all objects from all phases as normal "unphased" objects. As @shorter mentioned, round-tripping files like this is not a recommended.