Next peeve of the day... solid parts are transparent in view

[JST]

The oic shows all you need to know.....

Obviously the curved surface should NOT be transparent.

Playing with the display coarseness did NOT fix it, and it hardly ever does, although I see it recommended. Nothing else I have tried fixes it either (except not having a sectional view), and of course I wanted the sectional view for an illustration. OBVIOUSLY I cannot use it if it shows solid parts of the model as transparent, so I have the delightful option of re-creating the model, and hoping the section view turns out better that time....

This just needs to be FIXED.

 

[bigseb]

If its an imported files then that can happen.

If its a native file then that can happen too, mainly cos Alibre is buggy that way. A major peeve of mine too.

 

[jhiker]

If its an imported files then that can happen.

If its a native file then that can happen too, mainly cos Alibre is buggy that way. A major peeve of mine too.

Yep - and mine...
I mainly see this with imported files but I have had it happen with native files too...

 

[DavidJ]

QA have a nice simple example of this issue in a native file that is being investigated. If you have examples you can share please consider submitting to support.

Simple geometry that suffers this issue is probably better than very complex designs - partly less detail to trawl through, and partly less temptation to debate the modelling approach as a possible factor.

 

[JST]

This is a native file, although there are screws that are an import in the assembly, but they are not affected.

BUT it ONLY shows the behavior as an assembly, when a section view is acive. Quite reliable, then, I have not been able to get it to go away. I have not tried reversing the section view.... that might have an effect.

"Debate the modeling method?"

Beans.....

The modeling method should not matter, so long as it is a valid set of operations and there is no error message. Same with things that are "resolved" by changing the order of operations. Any method that gets to the same resulting model without triggering errors should also not result in a bad model display.

Now, some operations, specifically "lofts", are notorious for creating problems. Most of those are probably due to actual logic errors on the part of the user, but some cases of transparent parts are just program problems.

In the case of the pictured assembly I posted, BOTH the front surface in the narrow strip (which is a fillet), AND the entire back surface of that portion of the part, are missing/transparent. But only from that view. If I turn the part around to look from the rear, the entire back surface shows up just fine.

 

[bigseb]

Now, some operations, specifically "lofts", are notorious for creating problems.

And helices. And fillets around sharp corners. And boolean operations.

 

[JST]

So......

I first tried reversing the section view. No difference.

Then I removed the three imported screws. No difference immediately, but when the assembly was closed and re-opened, it no longer had the transparent areas.

Then I re-inserted the three screws. STILL no problem.

Next I edited the section to include one screw that is over on the "removed" part of the section. STILL no issue

Finally, I added one screw that the section will split. THAT instantly caused the very same part of the model assembly to become transparent.

Seeing that, I re-edited (after a save) to REMOVE that screw from the list, so it was NO LONGER SECTIONED, and INSTANTLY the transparent part of the model assembly returned to normal solid representation.

However, when I closed and re-opened the file of the assembly, THE TRANSPARENT PORTION WAS BACK.

Taking all screws out of the list to be sectioned did not help.

Taking out all the constraints that affect the screws did not help. They are now not constrained at all, and there is no difference.

Obviously, it is the actual presence of the screws in the assembly that is causing, in some odd way, the UNRELATED (other than by constraints) native part to be made transparent.

Now, the EASY, OBVIOUS thing to blame is the screws.....

However, GMD (I am not using AD 2017 yet, no reason to sweat the logos) accepted the STEP file for the screw, and processed it. No errors. SO I AM STILL BLAMING THE PROGRAM.

If there was some terrible problem with the imported STEP, it should either have not been accepted, OR the problem should have been corrected, possibly even by leaving off improper geometry. Once GMD accepted the file and made its own native file out of it, there should not be any part of the new file that is corrupted in some mysterious way that causes OTHER, UNRELATED geometry to be displayed wrongly.

I have taken enough stuff out of the model that it is no longer covered by my NDA, and the problem is still there, so I am going to see if I can find my way through the very buggy reporting process to enter a ticket on it. I will include the text from this post, if it fits.

 

[JST]

Now, some operations, specifically "lofts", are notorious for creating problems.

And helices. And fillets around sharp corners. And boolean operations.

Darn near ALL fillets are a problem.... Just put fillets on all edges of a cube, but make some a different radius. You will probably find one or more operations will fail persistently.

Never had a helix fail, and I do not do enough booleans to know, all of them that I HAVE done were fine.

 

[bigseb]

LIke I say... buggy. Looks very unprofessional when clients peer over my shoulder...

 

[bigseb]

Now, some operations, specifically "lofts", are notorious for creating problems.

And helices. And fillets around sharp corners. And boolean operations.

I forgot shells!

 

[JST]

Some other programs have had similar issues. SWX for one. But they have moved on to a newer ACIS version, while AD/GMD has not, and many of the issues seem to have gone away.

Probably some of the worst issues would be helped by AD moving to a new ACIS as well.

 

[bigseb]

Some other programs have had similar issues. SWX for one. But they have moved on to a newer ACIS version, while AD/GMD has not, and many of the issues seem to have gone away.

Probably some of the worst issues would be helped by AD moving to a new ACIS as well.

I believe SW uses the parasolid kernel.

 

[JST]

Some other programs have had similar issues. SWX for one. But they have moved on to a newer ACIS version, while AD/GMD has not, and many of the issues seem to have gone away.

Probably some of the worst issues would be helped by AD moving to a new ACIS as well.

I believe SW uses the parasolid kernel.

It would surprise me, since the ACIS folks are part of Dassault.

 

[Ralf]

Some other programs have had similar issues. SWX for one. But they have moved on to a newer ACIS version, while AD/GMD has not, and many of the issues seem to have gone away.

Probably some of the worst issues would be helped by AD moving to a new ACIS as well.

I believe SW uses the parasolid kernel.

It would surprise me, since the ACIS folks are part of Dassault.

Solidworks is based on the Parasolid kernel.
Parasolid was originally developed by Shape Data Limited,
now owned by Siemens PLM Software (formerly UGS Corp.)

 

[JST]

Well, in that case, the Parasolid engine appears to be better than the one GMD/Alibre uses. SWX breezes through stuff that gives poor old GMD/Alibre fits.

At least, nearly every error I see with fillets, shells, lofts, etc is some sort of ACIS error, according to the messages.

 

[bigseb]

Well, in that case, the Parasolid engine appears to be better than the one GMD/Alibre uses. SWX breezes through stuff that gives poor old GMD/Alibre fits.

Parasolid is superior, and more expensive.

Side note: Solidworks and Catia (both Dassault) use different kernels. SW uses Parasolid while Catian uses CGM. SolidEdge (owned by Siemens) now uses the Parasolid kernel but used to use ACIS. SE is another very powerful software; in my opinion because of the kernel.

Will an upgrade to the latest version of ACIS solve our problems? Can't say but I'm sure the Alibre team could.

At least, nearly every error I see with fillets, shells, lofts, etc is some sort of ACIS error, according to the messages.

Agree

 

[Ralf]

Just a short list:
- Alibre Design (Acis)
- Autodesk® Inventor (Acis)
- Autodesk® Inventor Fusion (Acis)
- Autodesk® Revit (Acis)
- Solid Edge (Parasolid)
- Unigraphics (Parasolid)
- SpaceClaim (Acis)
- UGNX (Parasolid)
- SolidWorks (Parasolid)
- CoCreate (Acis)
- ...

 

[bigseb]

Thanks Ralf.

This topic ties in with this one.

 

[JST]

The ones that use ACIS that I have any experience with, all seem to have less problems dealing with shapes than Alibre/GMD seems to have.

Newer version, better interface, better error handling...???? No idea what works better about the others.

Dassault DOES own the ACIS folks (Spatial Corporation), though, so there must be the money behind it to make it work better, of ACIS itself is the issue. I suspect there is a problem with the interface that is behind the issues we have.

 

[JST]

Worked on the same part again..... could NOT get the transparent part to be good, EVEN if I deleted the imported parts.

Turns out that the fillet entirely takes out a surface. If ANY of the surface is left, it does NOT go transparent. I may have to re-design JUST BECAUSE I cannot get it to display right..... Now THAT is stupid.

I need to put in a ticket, but that process was SO broken last time, I don;t even want to try. I have 2 or 3 to put in, and I don't even want to bother.