It is really so simple.
Bentley create several Datasets - one for each group
Place under different directories
And One variable to correctly pick the proper Dataset Directory.
And then the responsibility is the true issue. Build the dataset - step by step - from item by item
Mirgrating From Abacus, Slide Rule, Sticks and fingers to:ABD 08.11.09.593-Dell 7010 i5-4Mb-64b-RadeonOther Machine:SS3-08.11.09.225-E8400-8Mb-32bHome Machine: SS4 - i7-3.45Ghz-16 Gb-250/1Tb/1Tb-Win8.1-64bEric D. MilbergerArchitect + PlannerSenior Architect - USAG AfghanistanThe Milberger Architectural Group, LLC
Steve, if I read the Bentley annual report from last year, there clearly is no majority of users using imperial datasets. Just for the records.
On the other hand we are running into problems everywhere.
Just to give you an example about something I found out right now. Microstation is by default using seed.dwg as the seed file for export to dwg. Guess which units this file has set by default. No it's not metric.
Why isn't there any indication that this seed file is intended for imperial units only?
We can't accept that in the long run. There needs to be a fundamental different approach from Bentley to this problem.
Service Ticket number 8001304339 filed.
'the majority of our BA user base was and is in the US, hence Imperial is the default'
I can understand that, that's in itself if fine
'I was actually referring to the GB dataset being created for ABD. It's based on the emerging British Standard BS1192, so includes many changes all around. '
I see, ...... well let's hope they do more than just 'label' things using clauses/categories from BS1192
The previous UK datasets were based on UK standards (Uniclass of CIfsb) ...... but only in name. The actual sizes, dims and styles of the 'building components' was on the whole definitely not metric. On the whole it seemed to be just the imperial dataset, just re-badged with metric 'labels' and names.
This was (and is) a big disappointment and and very off-putting.
BS1192 does NOT give you any information about what sizes things are. It's just a protocol for naming and categorising things. One hopes they realise this and intend to provide actual 'real-world' building components that match the sizes and dims that one would expect to find in a UK context (and one assumes people in Italy, France, Norway, ...... ect would expect likewise)
Anyway, ..... thank you for your comments
Freelance CAD/Architectural Technician & Low Carbon Consultant
Microstation SS2, BA SS1 (+update), Windows 7 Pro, 64 bit, quad core 3Ghz, 8Gb RAM, ATI 6870 1Gb, ect,
I believe there is a thread somewhere - either here on the ABD beta forum - where the topic of metric datasets was discussed. From what I recall, the majority of our BA user base was and is in the US, hence Imperial is the default. However, that doesn't mean it won't or shouldn't change to reflect a more international metric "flavor". In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it does... at least as an option.
I was actually referring to the GB dataset being created for ABD. It's based on the emerging British Standard BS1192, so includes many changes all around.
I support Andreas suggestion.
A big ISO-only button at installation would be fine.
Here's that déjà vu feeling again.
And here are my proposals...again.
No problem .....
From what I can tell the latest UK Uniclass Dataset on the Bentley web site is dated the 02 June 2009 (from about 2 and a half years ago). I already have that one .... which sadly is littered with the issues I've mentioned
.......2 and a half years (actually a few more as the previous Datasets were similarly not appropriate) is way too long to be having to fiddle around 'fixing' your Dataset
This information is not something that is obscure. Bentley could easily find this out by having some discussion with the various professional institutions and professional bodies ......
This was one of the main reasons my interest in BA dropped off.
Hi Danny... point taken.
I've never been all that involved with the regional datasets much myself, primarily because most of the users I've worked with were here in the US. However, AFAIK there is a concerted effort to bring the metric datasets into ABD in more organized and complete fashion. If you have the opportunity, it might be worthwhile checking out the current Uniclass dataset to see how it fares in comparison.
'It suppose it doesn't have any negative effect other than the disconcerting appearance of ft/in (though grayed out) in a metric file. '
Indeed it is 'disconcerting' ...... though fortunately in the case presented by Andreas, it's perhaps not too big a problem. I assume you're using a metric dataset Andreas.
I'd like to chip in there then ...... this is symptomatic of the problems with the Dataset/Datagroup Catalogue for U use at any rate. I've used about 4 or 5 version of the so-called UK metric dataset. Problem is much of it is basically just an imperial Dataset. You get 25.4 mm and all sorts of other sizes that are essentially imperial sizes that have just had the labels changed to metric. This really isn't on. This product (BA) several times now as a 'ready for production use' product, with a 'metric' dataset, which basically is NOT a metric Dataset at all. Sorry guys but this is simply unacceptable. First ever time maybe it was an oversight, but repeatedly ,,,,..... that's just plain negligent and sloppy.
Try demonstrating this 'great new software' to your boss, and things keep popping up that are basically not the standard/expected sizes for general architectural use. Your boss will not be interested in wasting much more of his/her time on this 'demonstration' for much longer.
It's very disappointing that Bentley/BA Team are not picking up on these relatively 'low hanging fruit/easy wins' type things.
In relation to other discussions re other so-called BIM software, we need to get people over the first 2 or 3 hurdles quickly and easily, to get them 'up and running' so to speak with regards from moving on from 2D drafting to modelling>analysis>production information.
Anyway ....(Andreas, apologies for jumping in ...... but really, come on Bentley, please, if we have selected metric, ..... could we actually get 'real-world' metric ....... please!)
Gotcha... Honestly, I'm not sure why that is. It suppose it doesn't have any negative effect other than the disconcerting appearance of ft/in (though grayed out) in a metric file.
Setting up a new file allows me to choose whichever units I like, so I'd use mm.
It's just greyed out when defining a new item in an existing file that the units are greyed out and show US-units.
So it is placing/measuring correctly, it's just when setting up a new file that the grayed out ft/in always makes an appearance, regardless of the source or destination files?
Yes, it does.
Regardless of which xml file I choose, it always shows ft/in. Needless to say we don't use that units in either of the xml files.
For example, if you place it with a width of "1000", does it actually measure 1000mm?
Sorry, I didn't catch that.
What do you mean with "the element place using imperial units"?
Andreas, does the element place using imperial units? The reason I ask is that the units in the New Catalog Item dialog are grayed out, so perhaps it's not actually reading those values. Even when I create a new catalog item written to a new XML file, witth mm/mm chosen at the units, going back and adding a new catalog item to that file (or any other).
I do use an exisiting destination file - "NODE_Structural.xml".
The screenshot below shows both the dialogue box for a new item, and the start of the destination file.
I tried this my end , but I'm seeing proper units while creating a new catalog Item/ Type.
Can you please check by creating a new Destination file ? , since units setting gets enabled when you create a new destination file .
Guess you might be using some existing destination file ...
Why does the datagroup catalog editor show those strange units?