Integrating i-Model composer with AECOSIM

Robert,

You shouldn't need to integrate i-Model Composer with AECOsim.  You should publish your i-Models directly from AECOsim Building Designer using the workspace from which the model was created.  This ensures that the proper data schema and resymbolization data is available.  If you have Building Designer licenses the main reasons you use i-Model Composer would be to combine multiple i-Models of different origins into a single composition model (or to prepare Optimized i-Models for iPads), or you can leverage the Data Transformation option to strip out unwanted data or rename data catalogs or properties.  

If you wanted to publish your native ABD models to i-Model using i-Model Composer you would need to modify C:\Program Files (x86)\Bentley\imodelComposer V8i\imodelComposer\config\appl\AECOsimBuildingDesigner.cfg to switch BUILDINGDESIGNER = 1 and modify the various config vars contained with to reflect your workspace.

HTH,

Travis

Thanks Travis,

I'm doing the i-pad thing, very cool little app which our clients are very excited about.

Your last sentence about dat transformation answers another question - so I should be stripping out attributes in composer? It occurred to me that it would be great to be able to blanket omit all empty attribute fields to avoid images like that attached. We put a lot of data into our models, but at design stage there are many that are empty.

Any thoughts?

Rob

Robert,

To me, a model that is prepped for the purpose it is intended to serve is more valuable than a massive data dump.  This can be because it is not filled with meaningless (to the reviewer) data, or as you mention empty data fields.  Also design data can often times be quite cryptic to a non-designer so the ability to rename certain properties to something that a client would be more familiar with makes it easier for them to consume.  

It can take time to setup these transformations, but the nice thing is that they can be saved and reused for future i-models to be published.

-Travis

I completely agree, I just need to get my head around the process and how to achieve repetition.

I am finding it really interesting how the time one spends doing things changes. In many instances a smaller amount of time modelling, and a greater amount tagging and checking attributes. As you say getting a quality i-model output is necessarily a process that demands time.

I'll keep you posted on our progress.

Unknown said:

. As you say getting a quality i-model output is necessarily a process that demands time.

Don't think of this as additional work to what you normally would, consider it a substitute.  If you think of this as your communication channel to the client (2D Construction Drawings are communication to contractor) then the time can be easily justified as a substitute for all the prep that goes into a milestone deliverable in 2D workflow.  Most of the effort in a 2D workflow towards an interim milestone is spent on making things 'look nice' and most of that is discarded after the client reviews it and makes comments.  If we bypass that and spend it on preparing a clear model for the client to review and we are able to save the settings to recreate the updated model for future deliverables you are saving time and effort.  The reality is that very few clients can read 2D construction drawings and get a complete sense of the spaces, especially when each discipline is documented in separate sections of the set.  A navigable 3D model is much easier for the client to comprehend and respond to in a meaningful way much earlier in the design process (when design changes are much cheaper).  This should result in owner sign-off on items sooner in the design process and offer them a more predictable vision of the project than they would have with just 2D drawings. 

-Travis