Curved Slab

Hello Kumar, this is an example of using the reply posted by StefanC. Basically creating a half profile of the desired component and using the Solids by Rotation tool with the Family and Part set to Structural:Slab.

Tools used: Place Smart Line, Mirror (with Copy), Place Arc, Element Selection, Move, Trim to Instersection,  Move Parallel (with Copy), Delete, Create Complex Chain, Solid by Revolution.

Modeling aids used: AccuSnap, AccuDraw, Family & Part.

It does take some upfront thought and planning as I would say goes into any type of modeling you do.

Please let me know if this answers your original post question. Thanks

Mjang,

I like to read your posts specially when you show how revit is used, and how ABD could evolve. But for this particular case, I don't really understand how is revit better. This modelling workflow that Paul shows seems very straightforward and I don't really see how it can be improved. Does revit allow you to have parameters to control the slab geometry? Is it in anyway more automatic applying materials or info than with ABD?

What I don't understand in this case is why the microstation tool is not adequate. Just because it is a MS tool and not and ABD tool doesn't satisfy me as an answer. If I get the geometry and the info in a quick way, I don't care what software is in the base.

If you tell me that it's possible to create a revit family for that specific shape, and the next time I have to model it, it will be quicker, than I agree with you. But you also need to measure how many components with that specific geometry are you going to model in the future and if its worth investing in that. Also, if you don't use all the components you have created regularly, you will lose the advantages of the automated process "re-understanding" the family you created. Using MS tools to build complex geometry is a completely different "learning" process. Its about being proficient in the use of the tools and you ll be able to tackle any geometry you may have in your way.

There are a lot of things to improve with ABD. I agree when you say that the MS tools aren't BIM, for the simple reason that it's not possible yet (I hope it will change in the near future) to obtain quantities through the datagroup. Even the quantify tool is limited to volumes. Personally, I don't care about the volumes being tied to the datagroup since I never want to know the quantities by system, but by material. I guess my point is... MS tool is just fine. It seems to me that your claim that it should be an ABD tool is just complicating when there is no need. If MS Connect works properly and its well integrated with ABD it should resolve a lot of the issues ABD currently has.

Hi Mjang Ag

I hope next ABD CONNECT version makes a big step forward. Perhaps we are indeed expecting too much.
In the mean time thanks for the Revit videos. They are very useful to compare softwares.

On the other hand I don't think is wrong modeling with MS tools as long as you can create in easy way a BIM element.
By now is the only way to model objects. In my opinion form tools are not very friendly. Of course we need a lot of improves in the BIM tools too.

Regards
Borja

ABD and a whole range of Bentley applications in plant/process, rail, road and other sectors are all based on the MicroStation platform.
MicroStation is a geometry modelling platform that is extensible to meet discipline specific needs in these diverse sectors.
ABD adds building specific functions and a system for storing the metadata needed for BIM processes.
MicroStation tools are not separate from ABD tools, they are an integral part of ABD, we only add ABD tools to do the things MicroStation cannot.

Unknown said:

MicroStation tools are not separate from ABD tools, they are an integral part of ABD, we only add ABD tools to do the things MicroStation cannot.

but when forced to resort to MS, the results are crippled as far as use in ABD. MS Solids cannot be promoted to ABD-capable solids, and an ABD solid which has to be dropped to Smartsolid just to perform some quite basic modification, is lost forever to ABD.

Other BIM makes no distinction between solids created in the platform software and the BIM module - in fact the BIM module has no such facility and doesn't need it, as the platform solids behave as fully featured for BIM purposes.

We're hoping that ABD Connect will effectively do the same; if so it will join the super-capable BIM top two as far as geometry creation and modification; if not then the opportunity will have been missed for what - another 21yrs?

Unless you are nothing but a draftsman and everything is PERFECT in it's first conception.
This solution is static. It does not pay attention to anything in its surrounding nor does it work with it's surrounding.
It is not parametric but is only a dumb static shape that had to be rebuilt every time there is a change.
Yes we can build it but that does not make it a good fit into a real workflow

Unless you are nothing but a draftsman and everything is PERFECT in it's first conception.
This solution is static. It does not pay attention to anything in its surrounding nor does it work with it's surrounding.
It is not parametric but is only a dumb static shape that had to be rebuilt every time there is a change.
Yes we can build it but that does not make it a good fit into a real workflow