Shared Views

[frosty1_4me]

Hi,

I was exploring the Shared Views option for demonstrating models to others without the need for IWs to be installed.  It seems like a great option to do so for conceptual design viewing however the models colors that are generated are not nearly as vibrant as the model in IWs.  The Shared Views are much more mono chrome.   I've looked in the environment settings within the Shared Views but nothing seems to improve that, am I missing something?

thanks

[renr]

Yes, I also can find there are a little difference in visual . currently, I can not find any configuration of shared view could control it,
briefly, I think that the difference is accptable. infraworks have a client executable application. shared view just base on the web enginee, I guess it would be the balance between he quality and the speed.

Additional, below link would be helpful for you. https://forge.autodesk.com/blog/viewer-release-notes-v401 .

[Jennifer.Miedema · Accepted solution]

>> "I think that the difference is acceptable."

I disagree. I would be embarrassed to share my "Shared View" with a client due to this issue.

Here's what my model looks like when I'm in the Infraworks program in Concept View:

And here's what my model looks like in the Shared View with the default environment:

Even though there's a way to change the environment in the Shared View it needs to be changed every time the view is opened by each person that opens the model, and even then the lighter environments then look washed out and the water has no texture/animation. Oh, and that's getting all these people to learn that they can change the environment and how to in the first place. The base environment should be something that is controlled by the model creator in the Infraworks program.

In Infraworks 2018 (and earlier) the web sharing option (which has since been disabled and forced me to upgrade to 2019) worked quite well. The one render I did create had vivid colours and a proper sky. I'm not a programmer so I don't know why that code wasn't used in this Shared Views "upgrade" but Autodesk should have fixed this months ago.

[frosty1_4me]

YES!!   Jennifer articulated my point exactly; no need for me to expand on her reply it describes the issues perfectly.

thanks!!

[lippola]

Hey there, thx for the feedback and totally agree. This is helpful for getting an own or better fitting environment for the viewer version of our IW models. Since we need to request this from the viewer team and cannot build it by ourselves - customer feedback helps here a lot 🙂 

So we did talk to them already and an item is logged on their end. 

[roskirko]

I created a voluntary poll for some students using the AIW Viewer through BIM 360 for the first time two days ago.

So far, I have only two written responses (  will ask that all 20 to complete their evaluation when I see them again next Wednesday night). So far, here is what I have recieved back from two days ago:

What is your opinion of the BIM 360 Viewer used for Infraworks

1. Graphically it is not sufficient -  the BIM 360 Viewer lacks graphics quality 

2. Hard to use, Very touchy, you can barley navigate where you want to go exactly, feels like you are jumping around without any control of where you are going, could be made smoother and more user friendly. 

I too agree with the above responses. I would never share these views with professional clients.

I attended an ESRI users conference on Monday, four days ago, wiht 250+ attendees. A demonstration was given of the interoperabilty between AIW and ESRI using the viewer. The model demonstrated came from Revit, which I believe was a group using this viewer before invoked by the Infraworks team. For infrastructure and sub-surface geologic viewing, it is very poor. 

As well, the Augmented Reality aspects of Infraworks with the IPad has been removed from use. People I showed this to at the time were amazed and loved it. This method of viewing models has to be re-invoked. It was too good to shelve.

[Anonymous]

I'm a big fan of those VR/AR technologies too. But I have already discovered [url=https://servreality.com/computer-vision-cv/]Computer Vision Software Development[/url]. It's just unreal how developers make computers understand visual information and implement methods for acquiring, handling, analyzing, and imitating programmed sketches, and the removal of details from reality in order to present symbolic info.

[frosty1_4me]

That post sure sounds like a sales pitch.

[cwr001]

Well, I was really looking forward to this feature but I'm not using it because I want my design proposals to whet the appetite for more and not get my customers into a "graveyard" mood...

I also think that the shading of the triangulation is really bad in the web browser - even if the surface is really smooth, the reflection of the triangles is too strong, resulting in an uneven, clumsy look.

I'm astonished by the fact that it looked much better in older versions. If you take a look at one of the older videos of Jeff Bartels, you'll see that the brightness is more or less just as in Infraworks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdwuBLsDYvs

Apart from this issue the capabilites of the sharded views are great and it's a shame we can't really use them.

[Anonymous]

How is this marked "solved"? This is NOT solved. The shared views look terrible. I can't use this functionality at all. It is particularly difficult to share with technology skeptics. How is it the company that created the industry standard softwares used to produce masterpieces like Avatar and Harry Potter is pushing something this horrible. Visual is what Autodesk does.

[ggaeke]

Big mistake in this post to mark it as Resolved and point to Jennifer's reply when she is saying the Viewer is NOT acceptable and showing how bad the Viewer actually looks.