We, Bentley, have been working on compiling an ABD dataset compatible with Uniclass 2015 for some time. The recent changes to the tables has provided an opportunity to carry out a sanity check and ask you users of ABD etc. for your opinion about this standard and how you would want to see it implemented within ABD.
We are particularly interested in your views about how to set up a layering system, what information you would expect to see predefined in the dataset and what you would expect to set your self. Please remember we also have to consider the relevant standards for CAD levels, object naming etc.
Here is a link to the NBS website that has information about the Uniclass Standard.
If possible we would like you feedback as soon as possible, including examples and reasoning.
Many Thanks
Brenden
New Uniclass tables were published at end 2018 and beginnning of 2019.
Does Bentley plan to update the ABD CE dataset?
AECOsim SS6 + CONNECT U4, Windows 7 Pro, 64Bit, Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5 @ 3.6GHz, 32GB RAM, NVIDIA Quadro P1000
JoeyJM this is being worked upon.but can’t say when it will be ready.
Brenden Roche
Applications Engineer
Bentley Systems, Manchester UK
Brenden Roche said:this is being worked upon.but can’t say when it will be ready.
in another 3 years... maybe, at the rate we are going at.
In the meantime, it would be good if Bentley could provide some support to its big anchor infrastructure clients who have produced their own bespoke tables and AD4's for what they want but are often ignorant about how to write the .xsd definition files for Aecosim.
The typical situation: architect sub-consultant punts the question/task to the engineer lead consultant, who punts the task to the client body because these definition files need to be consistent across the line / network.
And the client BIM team thinks that this should be out of the box like R*vit...!
If Bentley think they can / should charge for this, they are seriously misreading the situation...
Is IT OF ANY VALUE? Few Architects are even close to BIM in AECOSIM. The dataset shoudl be secondary to the foundation that we don't have yet
Ustn since 1988SS4 - i7-3.45Ghz-16 Gb-250/1Tb/1Tb-Win8.1-64bEric D. MilbergerArchitect + Master Planner + BIMSenior Master Planner NASA - Marshall Space Flight CenterThe Milberger Architectural Group, llc
Eric Milberger said:Is IT OF ANY VALUE? Few Architects are even close to BIM in AECOSIM. The dataset shoudl be secondary to the foundation that we don't have yet
1. Yes, it is.
2. We are required to deliver information as part of our deliverables. This is becoming the standard for large infrastructure projects in the UK. The devil in is the BEP contractual requirements that are now included in the contracts. Given the hype around BIM and 'Digital Transformation' and 'Digital Twins', it will always be hard to exclude the 'intelligence' in your BIM model as a deliverable.
It sounds like your projects don't need to deal with this. So I don't think you realise the costs of having to (re)do the information tagging because no-one can make up their minds on the formating or what is reasonable to provide at the time... often times after the team has been demobilised which only makes it more costly and leads to other problems due to duplication etc.
Eric Milberger said:Right now the system to create drawings for a guy to hold on site and build the product is what matters.I
I can only agree... but things are a-changing. I guess that you (and me!) will be critised as being old-timers that are part of the construction industry that has stagnated productivity-wise over the last fifty years :-)
I think your longstanding bugbear about the lack of 'workflow' and the abundance of 'workarounds' in ABD will continue to resonate, but the reality is that the tipping point for BIM deliverables has been past. We need to be able to deliver information first, drawings a close second and as a reliable facet of the former.
That doesn't mean Bentley can just neglect the old tools, it just means that there are other many other holes in the ***.
In the UK, Crossrail is drawing to a (belated) close, but is held up justifiably as a groundbreaking BIM tour-de-force. But, in terms of BIM intelligence, this was an after-the-fact process undertaken after the design teams were done modeling, using bespoke tools. Not very clever by today's standards, but there were many valid reasons for this, I imagine.
This BIM info as an 'after-thought' approach hindered the use of the BIM model to do all kinds of analytical, quantification and automation tasks that would have sped up and improved the design. The expectation these days is for more and more information to be built-in as the model is developed, so that the information can be exchanged and used by others.
A very simple example would be the use of the Spaces tool to track and generate area schedules. Area/volume information is used by so many parties, including the MEP, fire etc engineers, cost estimators and is a fundamental part of reporting to the client. The Spaces 'model' will also form the backbone of any FM deliverable. It should be everyone's interest to agree a reasonable list of information to be included at each stage/data drop... upfront.