Hierarchical viewing of objects

[wezelboy]

It seems like I have been using groups more and more to define the functional elements of my drawings. However, this sometimes can get a little confusing during editing (Which group am I in? What other groups are in this group? Is this group in front of that group? etc?)

It would be nice to have a way to view and manipulate the object hierarchy- sorta like list views in the Finder with those cool expand/collapse triangles. The top level would be layers, and you could expand each one to reveal the objects on the layer. Things like groups, viewport annotations/crops, and 3D solids would also be expandable to reveal their component objects.

You could use this hierarchical viewer to select objects or change their position in the hierarchy (pull an object out of a group, send forward or backward, etc.)

[P Retondo]

Out of curiosity, what is driving you to use groups more?

[wezelboy]

I'm having to do a lot of masking in section viewports because of the line weight bug. This has been driving me to use groups more so I don't inadverently select a mask.

I don't know. I've always used groups and symbols liberally. I usually find that any collection of lines that I might duplicate and resize is a good candidate for a group.

[Guest]

Which line weight bug are you referring to?

[wezelboy]

I guess it isn't really a line weight bug per se, but rather the fact that assigning a class line style to objects beyond the section plane doesn't work.

Fixing this bug would be awesome, but it would in no way diminish my desire for a hierarchical view. :-)

[Guest]

I wouldn't call this a bug, but a limitation of the current system.

A "bug" implies something that is supposed to work is not working.

In this case, this is a feature not available, thus not a bug - just not available or a limitation.

[wezelboy]

There is a whole portion of the advanced preferences dialog box of section viewports dedicated to assigning objects beyond the section plane specific class attributes. Why put this in the dialog box if it doesn't work? The corresponding feature for objects cut by the section plane works just fine.

This is a serious "limitation" BTW. Section viewports are nearly worthless as it stands.

Edit:

I should also point out that polygonal rendering does not appear to have this "limitation". Hidden line rendering has this "limitation".

Edited August 23, 2007 by wezelboy

[Guest]

In "Objects Beyond Section Plane" you can choose a class to put objects beyond the section plane. Then, using class overrides, you could set a thinner pen weight (or whatever look you are wanting)

Are you suggesting this is not working as expected?

Hidden line rendering, without the Dashed Hidden Line Rendering, is not going to draw objects behind another object.

That's a pretty standard operating procedure.

There is dashed hidden line, which will dash lines beyond the front-most stacked objects.

A polygonal rendering works similarly to Hidden line rendering, only it colors the surface with various shades of the base object attributes. Lines beyond the front-most object are not visible.

I'm not quite sure why we are comparing rendering engines to a section viewport, though.

Perhaps you can post a file or picture illustrating the "problem" and perhaps even what you'd like to see.

[Dieter @ DWorks]

A polygonal rendering works similarly to Hidden line rendering, only it colors the surface with various shades of the base object attributes. Lines beyond the front-most object are not visible.

If you use the command 'zet om naar polygonen' (Change into polygons?) and choose the option for hidden lines, VW draws all existing triangulated polygons. So what's not seen is there too! and all faces are triangulated into more then one polygon!

Is this meant to be this way? Because when it is, this command is useless. The only way I want to convert a 3D look into polygons is because I want to change the thing.

[wezelboy]

Here is a simple example:

My wall classes have thick lines. My Section Style class has even thicker lines. My Section-Beyond class has a thin line. The viewport is supposed to use the Section-Beyond class for objects beyond the cut. (See viewportdialog.tif)

If you look at Badviewport.tif, you can see thicker line weights corresponding to the wall classes around the door and in the jamb of the door that the section is cutting through, even though they should be drawing at the thinner Section-Beyond line weight.

In Goodviewport.tif the viewport has been converted to a group, the lines have been selected, and then assigned to the Section-Beyond class. This is how it should render.

Interestingly, when you convert a section viewport to a group, the class assignment of the orignal object is retained in the rendered lines.

[Guest]

I can't duplicate the problem - the lines beyond the section line are using the class attributes of a class called "beyond section" which I've set to have a thin pen weight and light gray color.

I also set the "line att" to use this beyond section class.

Do you have your class set to use class attributes, and/or is the class visible in the section viewport?

[Guest]

ooh that came out faint -- let me try a higher DPI

NOTE - all the door lines do display in the regular JPG when viewed - i think the one not showing is due to a compression thing

[wezelboy]

Yep, I have the class set to use class attributes and the class is visible in the section viewport.

[Guest]

Can you send the file to me?

[Guest]

I'm sorry - can you resend the file, please?

I saw the email briefly this morning, but now when I check my mail, the email is nowhere to be found. I have no idea what happened.

Thanks.

[wezelboy]

I'll have to redo it. I'll try to have it for you today.

[P Retondo]

Wezel, assigning a special class to background objects in Section VPs works for me. The one problem I've encountered is that walls in the background still show up as their regular lineweight and color, with the line you want to see superimposed over it. This has been logged as a bug and is with the engineers.

[RubenH]

Katie, this from another thread!!

I hope this explain the mention of the possibly bug.