Front components of hybrid symbols not displaying correctly in VW2024 section viewport

[Tom W.]

Anyone else noticed this?

 

This is how my kitchen cabinet symbols look in VW2023 + all previous versions:

The drawer fronts display with a solid fill as intended (ignore the big extrude behind).

 

But the same viewports in VW2024 look like this:

 

 

The drawer fronts appear transparent + the cabinet that sits behind them can be seen.

 

I have filed a bug, just wondered if was happening to anyone else...

 

In a standard Front view VP (in VW2024) the 2D component displays correctly. It's only if I use a section VP that I get the transparent thing happening.

 

 

Will be sticking with VW2023 for time being!

 

 

 

[Tom W.]

This perhaps illustrates it better:

 

How section VP is meant to look (in VW2023):

 

 

And how the same VP looks in VW2024:

 

 

You can see the shelves/carcasses through the doors + drawer fronts.

 

 

 

[line-weight]

I don't currently use these 2d components but have been meaning to test it out a bit so took this opportunity to do so.

 

I've made a 3d symbol with a "front" 2d component drawn manually by me.

 

In VW2024 (update 2) I am not seeing the same as you - I think.

 

The geometry you are seeing through your "transparent" component is geometry that's within the symbol itself, is that right?

 

In my test this doesn't seem to happen. But like I say I am new to these components so might be misunderstanding. File attached in case it's of any use.

 

2dcomp.vwx

[Tom W.]

Thank you @line-weight the difference in my case is that I have geometry representing the doors/drawer fronts which sits over the top of the geometry representing the carcass behind. The geometry in front is not obscuring the geometry behind. This is not an issue in VW2023 or any earlier version.

 

So modifying your symbol, this is in the component edit mode:

 

This is a standard HL front view VP:

 

Yet this is what you see in a section VP:

 

If you have time try exporting the file back to VW2023 + update the section VP + see if it displays as per the other images.

 

2dcomp_TW.vwx

2dcomp_TW.vwx

[line-weight]

Yes, can confirm I see different behaviour 2023 vs 2024.

 

I'm curious why you draw the geometry for the carcass behind, into the 2d component, when it will never be seen? Or is it sometimes shown without the doors, via class visibilities or something like that?

 

It seems that it's not just that it's failing to give the 2d objects any fill, because if I give them coloured fills these show up, and occlude each other as expected. It's lines that show up when they aren't supposed to.

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by line-weight

[Tom W.]

1 hour ago, line-weight said:

I'm curious why you draw the geometry for the carcass behind, into the 2d component, when it will never be seen? Or is it sometimes shown without the doors, via class visibilities or something like that?

 

Yes because I do setting-out drawings just showing the carcasses:

 

 

You can of course just show the 3D object + not bother with the 2D component of the symbol, just using classes to turn the doors on + off, it's just you have more control over the linework using the 2D components. For example, this is using my custom drawn 2D component:

And this is the same symbol with 'Display 2D Components' disabled:

Which is more lines than I want to see + all they're all the same thickness. Basically it's because of the way these shaker doors are represented that I decided to add front components to the symbols to make things a bit cleaner.

 

Thanks for checking it out at your end. I'll see what comes of the bug report. I would really like to start using VW2024!

[line-weight]

28 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

 

You can of course just show the 3D object + not bother with the 2D component of the symbol, just using classes to turn the doors on + off,

That was going to be my next question.

 

But yes there are some cases where you want more control, and what VW automatically gives you has too many lines, or similar .... which is why it was on my to-do list to check out using 2d components in sections/elevations.

 

(A bit of a road-block for me is that it seems to be all or nothing with 2d components, and I don't like what happens to certain VW plugins like windows when they are displayed with 2d components)

[Tom W.]

The engineers are looking at the problem...

[Tom W.]

20 hours ago, line-weight said:

That was going to be my next question.

 

But yes there are some cases where you want more control, and what VW automatically gives you has too many lines, or similar .... which is why it was on my to-do list to check out using 2d components in sections/elevations.

 

(A bit of a road-block for me is that it seems to be all or nothing with 2d components, and I don't like what happens to certain VW plugins like windows when they are displayed with 2d components)

 

The other thing that can sometimes be a pain is that in order for the front component to display (in a section VP) the section line needs to be 100% square to the object/s. A lot of the time this happens by default but in a model of an old existing building where things are all slightly off-square you have to take care to draw the section line carefully. Or rather what happens is you create the VP + notice that the objects aren't displaying properly then wonder what the hell's going on there then realise that the section line is half a degree off square to those objects.

 

Other times I swear that despite the fact the section line IS 100% square to the symbol the front component stubbornly refuses to display. No idea why.

[zoomer]

4 hours ago, Tom W. said:

A lot of the time this happens by default but in a model of an old existing building where things are all slightly off-square you have to take care to draw the section line carefully. Or rather what happens is you create the VP + notice that the objects aren't displaying properly then wonder what the hell's going on there then realise that the section line is half a degree off square to those objects.

 

When I read this my first thought was  ..... ohohoh, will this work ...

 

 

4 hours ago, Tom W. said:

Other times I swear that despite the fact the section line IS 100% square to the symbol the front component stubbornly refuses to display. No idea why.

 

I would think it is a general computer accuracy problem.

The more "only slightly off" the angle the worse ?

I would assume 30° or 45° would be much less error prone.

Edited November 25, 2023 by zoomer

[Tom W.]

1 hour ago, zoomer said:

6 hours ago, Tom W. said:

Other times I swear that despite the fact the section line IS 100% square to the symbol the front component stubbornly refuses to display. No idea why.

 

I would think it is a general computer accuracy problem.

The more "only slightly off" the angle the worse ?

I would assume 30° or 45° would be much less error prone.

Edited 1 hour ago by zoomer

 

As a guide I will draw a Rectangle in the VP in Three Point Rotated Mode, aligning one edge with the symbol in question + then aligning the Section Line with the other edge, so unless the Rectangle itself is not square the Section Line must be square to the objects, but even so the Front component of the symbol will not (on occasion) display.

[zoomer]

I would not argue that your Section Line has not the exact same angle.

But could imagine that the Section Engine, when estimating the parallel-ness

of the Symbol for sharp angles, may potentially find a little difference in 12th+

digit that it assume it is not square to Section and decides to reject the 2D

addon and start the Symbol appearance calculation from the Symbols 3D

part instead (?)

 

So like the Photomatch Tool that gets crazy when your photo is nearly

from a 1 point perspective (?)

Edited November 25, 2023 by zoomer

[zoomer]

6 hours ago, Tom W. said:

where things are all slightly off-square

 

BTW,

I would prohibit that.

 

I am an idealist, not pragmatic or result orientated.

I am not interested to see the mediocre reality but the initial idea.

When I would get a such point cloud or site measurement, in my other CAD,

I would use Face Detection and let it create Walls and Slabs from it .... but

immediately after I would start Optimize Command Suite - with a 15° and 2 cm

Tolerance and let flatten it to the way it was meant to be build.

 

I mean, even Egyptians were able to level their pyramid sites exactly and for

their Obelisks, even those made of rough stones, you can feel that they used

a lead line and the overall appearance is absolutely straight.

 

So if that idealism does not fit the build reality and ideal planning results in

problems fitting things in I would advice the customer to use a Milling Machine

to bring that back to order.

 

😅