Isogen seem to refuse certain angles of piping

[hean117]

Hi,

I am trying to generate an isometric drawing out of the piping shown in the picture. I know that in this case I probably should create an ortho view instead, but the customer wants isos... What to do...

The green part is generated fine when I try to pinpoint the problem using quick iso. The red part is impossible. The error log is completely clogged up with this message: "WARNING - The count of created skew entities is not correct." So, I guess it's a problem with the angle? When I use "offset angle" before I create the iso it generates. But I have to put in 30 (or so) degrees...

Got any ideas? I can understand that isogen can have difficulties with certain angles but this is ridiculous. By the way, I'm using Plant 3D 2016...

[h_eger]

Can you please upload the PCF file.
Or the 3D drawing and details which project configuration Metric or Imperial.

[hean117]

PCF file is attached. 

As a sidenote I can say that it works like a charm in Plant 2017 with the exact same settings (just migrated the project). The customer wants it in 2016 though...

[ryan.bales]

I ran the PCF you attached in both 2016 and 2017 and they look identical.

[hean117 · Accepted solution]

Something was wrong in the isoconfig file and I couldn't figure out what. I took a fresh file with the basic Plant settings in it and it worked. Then I had all the fuss with configuring everything again the way I wanted it. Now it works fine!

This is what sucks the hardest with this program. Just put all the controls in the GUI and this won't happen. 

[ryan.bales]

I agree with you there. It would certainly make configuring the ISO settings far simpler.

[Dadspackard]

Hi

"Just put all the controls in the GUI and this won't happen"

If not already maybe this is something you can add to the Idea Station

Tom

[Anonymous]

I don't agree with "put everything on GUI",at least not now.

You see, what make isoconfig.xml so unfriendly is  WHER IS THE FXXXXXX MANUAL?? (look at AVEVA PDMS,the manual is too many to see them all)

As my opinion , using xml has its advantage now - very flexible to modify your iso,sometimes even looks like take advantage of programming bug.

If using GUI environment,what we can do is all determined by ADSK programmer. Then we take a look at P3D...well,from 2011 to 2017 ,still need to improve some very basic functions (even thought PDS, PDMS..etc. have already show them what abilities a plant design software should have.)

P3D make me feel like "We sell program first, then using then money to improve it step by step",but if a user can do all the thing on PDMS or other software,WHY SHOULD I CHANGE TO P3D? ( well....I know,I know ,because the owner force us to :[  )

[h_eger]

We can talk about your indifference! But we can not talk about your language skills in the forum. We are not here to have to read this! So moderate your spelling otherwise we will take initiatives against drolle grasped !!!

[Anonymous]

I apologize for the inappropriate words I used.

[AHepker_HOB]

I find that digging into any software is the best way to make it work the way you want it to. Instead of focusing on the GUI, try digging into the xml. Every change I personally make is through the xml. Learned everything I know buy simply making a change in the GUI and comparing the original xml to the new one. It can be a labyrinth at times, but now that I'm familiar with it, customization comes quite easily. Ain't or changing filters, layer styles, dimension behaviors, etc. All very easy when you've spent time digging into the deep, dark depths of the Isoconfig.xml. How my two cents were helpful.

[AHepker_HOB]

My phone typing skills are not up to part tonight. Sorry for the typos.

[Anonymous]

I agree with you.Testing isoconfig.xml make me so crazy to said the crazy word. But xml also give us a lot of freedom and possibility of modifying iso than Isogen (which PDMS,PDS use). Here I apologize to ADSK again. You do a good work!

[AHepker_HOB]

I agree that the people over at Alias and Intergraph are doing a great job with Isogen, but I wouldn't say it's any easier. Their interface is robust to say the least, sometimes too much so. Plant is very simple to use and is still a young software with lots of room to grow. That coupled with the cost difference of the software and this excellent community that Autodesk has put together definitely pushes me towards Plant.