Infrastructure Parts Editor 2024 - Tee Refuses to Accept Nominal Diameter Size

[Cadguru42]

Against all reason I'm trying to create a pressure catalog that has AWWA C110 ductile iron fittings and have a problem with creating a tee. 

I'm using the OOTB CPTS_MJMJMJ template.

On the Part Editing tab I'm trying to change the nominal diameter (1), nominal diameter (2) and nominal diameter (3) values. These are the sizes for each port with 1 and 2 being the main size and the tee being 3. When setting the initial sizes IPE does not create multiple entries for each size so those have to be manually created. I.e., IPE only creates a single 3" row that I edited to be 3"X2" and the user must create or edit additional rows to have a 3"X3" tee. This worked at first, but when I began editing the initially created 6" row to be 4"X2" the Nominal Diameter (1), Nominal Diameter (2) and Nominal Diameter (3) does not accept any value other than the initial 6. 

Is there some kind of hard-coded value that IPE is overriding the user or is this yet another defect with IPE that'll never be fixed?

[Cadguru42]

I clicked on the Export to Excel button to see if editing the value in Excel would work. I changed the values for nominal diameter 1, nominal diameter 2, and nominal diameter 3 in Excel, saved, then clicked the Import from Excel button in IPE. The columns shown are now different than what IPE originally had before I exported to Excel.

There are no more Nominal Diameter (1), Nominal Diameter (2), nor Nominal Diameter (3) columns. In fact, none of the ports are listed anymore and only the S1 port info is shown.

It looks like when the Excel file was imported back into IPE it automatically turned on the All ports have the same properties flag even though I never touched anything related to that within Excel. In fact, the only edited I did in Excel was to change the Nominal Diameter (1), (2), and (3) to be 3, 3, and 2 and 4, 4, 2. 

What's going on? If I uncheck that again to go back to having different ports the table of columns still only shows the single port info that affects all of them equally. Why does IPE still feel like it's in beta after all of these years?

[Cadguru42]

It looks like when the "All ports have the same properties" is unchecked but the values of the three ports are the same on any row, IPE automatically switches the entire family to go back to the "All ports have the same properties". So as a workaround I created a second part family that has just the tee reducers.

After filling out the hundreds of rows of data to create a pressure catalog with C110 pipes, elbows, and tees, when I hit Publish and select C3D 2022, the catalog seems to be published, but C3D 2024 cannot recognize any of the parts. There are no errors provided, so I have no idea what's going on. 

Infrastructure Parts Editor is still a beta program and shame on Autodesk for releasing such an incomplete program.

P.S.

On a whim I decided to test out replacing the double quotes in the part size name with IN. I republished one of the part families and then they showed up in C3D. So the part name cannot have double quotes, but by default IPE puts double quotes in the part name. IPE itself does not give an error on the publishing of the catalog, but the publish log file does show that each part failed, but no reason provided.

Autodesk needs to change the default part size name to remove the double quote for inch and provide a warning to the user that using a double quote in the part name will cause the family to fail to be published for C3D use.

[lim.wendy]

Hi @Cadguru42,

I've submitted a case to the Technical Support team on your behalf so that they can take a closer look at this issue. Thanks for providing such detailed information.

[Cadguru42]

---

@lim.wendy wrote:

Hi @Cadguru42,

I've submitted a case to the Technical Support team on your behalf so that they can take a closer look at this issue. Thanks for providing such detailed information.

---

I got an email yesterday that a support request was created related to this. It took a month for the "Technical Support" team to even look into this. That email said they were going to review the forum post (this one) and to "please allow us some time" to review it. One day later (today) I get another email saying that if Autodesk doesn't get a response back from me within two days they'll be forced to put the case on hold. Huh?

That same email also is confusing.

Support Person: "I will be happy to continue helping you if I need more time to work on this."

What does that even mean? How would I know how much time the Autodesk support person needs? The first email said they needed time to review the forum post then the next day I'm told I have to respond to keep the SR going and I'm asked if they need more time to work on this? 

No wonder bugs and issue never seem to get fixed anymore.

[soonhui]

@Cadguru42 , any update on this one?

[Cadguru42]

---

@soonhui wrote:

@Cadguru42 , any update on this one?

---

Nope. Autodesk said they're aware of it. There's no timeline or even guarantee that they'll fix their defective software. 

[soonhui]

@lim.wendy , can you help?

[lim.wendy]

Hi Soon Hui,

Thanks for tagging me!

I've added notes to the development write-up regarding this issue, highlighting that another user is facing the same issue. The more reports we receive, the more weight it adds to our request for a resolution.

I’ve also subscribed to the problem report that @Cadguru42 mentioned. Any significant updates will be shared here as they become available. If you need immediate assistance or an update, please submit a technical support ticket and mention this ID number: CIVIL-52391

Thank you for your patience as we work through this!