i have checked and this question was previously asked but not entirely sure about the answer
i want to go through the datagroup catalog for specific catalogs such as st.gobain: ensign & timesaver, victaulic and other mpipe types to include all the options for their fittings
my question is
Keep in mind that DataGroup catalogs specify component types; e.g., Elbow, Wye, Tee, etc. organized by the applicable discipline. The manufacturer's catalogs are stored in Access databases (*.mdb) under the dataset's \DataGroupCatalogs\xxx_Lib folders. For example, \Plumbing_Lib, \Fittings_Lib, etc.. They are then tied together using XML mapping files as outlined in this wiki: https://communities.bentley.com/products/building/building_analysis___design/w/building_analysis_and_design__wiki/10910/creating-a-custom-manufacturer-s-catalog-for-plumbing-components
This sounds like the manufacturers component is not fully incorporated into Aecosim... The object placed would be generated by Aecosim and be tagged with the manufacturer's business info only.
Say you have a catalog of plumbing equipment like pipes and elbows from a particular manufacturer. Let's say that manufacturer has 45 deg elbows that are actually bent to 46 degs. Aecosim would still be able to place 45 deg elbows erroneously .
having looked into the catalogs by reviewing them using excel, the information looked quite extensive. in reality the plumbing package does not place fittings from the same catalog as the pipe. Trying to edit the pipe fitting to find the catalog doesn't work either, as it will not accept a like catalog.
having come to the conclusion that Bentleys fittings don't join together catalog to catalog, trying to create catalogs using an access database & XML mapping files seems pointless.
I have placed a service request at the end of last year over this and not had any satisfactory replies. When i went back to review the request it had disappeared, it seems like all trace of my request has been deleted.
I am in the process of creating a catalog of fittings graphically as a workaround but this is going to take a long time
Accuracy is very important and it looks like the only way to get that it to assume all the pipe fittings in bentleys 'catalogs' are only an interpretation of the actual fittings.
As BIM expects more from the model and the claims from the software vendors get ever more ahead of the reality the only way to meet clients expectations it to try and take ownership of the problem by creation libraries if pipe fittings and manually placing them into the model. (also ductwork and electrical fittings)
MEP 3D coordination & BIM Technician
the catalog instance of say a victaulic bend or tee when created using a join tool is not dimensionally accurate and also does not match the catalog of the pipes
if you try to edit the fitting in the data instance dialog it will not let you change the dimensions
fir that reason it’s looking like it’s necessary to create an entire library of fittings and place them manually into the model. For some reason there is no couplers in the fitting catalog so using manufacturers cells looks the only way forward on that. Problem there is unlike the pipes and fitting they won’t display correctly in the 2d drawings
Yea... I think that the Mech tools were written well before this level of BIM fidelity was 'standard'.
The ducting, piping tools geometry behaviour are probably coded to emulate a certain set of generic rules which do not account for or look at what the individual components charateristics are. As mentioned, I think Aecosim sort of fakes the incorporation of manufacturer's components by retaining its inbuilt geometry/objects... and just attaches a non-graphic reference to the manufacturer's components.... so that the downstream consumers of the BIM model can 'pretend' all the info is correct.
Probably falls short of BS 1192 LOD requirements, as parameters like bend angles would have serious knock on impacts on the connecting pipe's slope, length etc. Unreliable quantity take offs and clashes? Aecosim seems to have a pretty complacent attitude towards LOD at the moment. But, I can see manufacturers starting to driving what is LOD 100/200/300 etc in future... for both the design and analytical side of any BIM app.
Worth checking if the bend or tee objects have .paz files. If so, it might be possible to import your manufacturer's components via .rfa (Revit).
Might also be worth asking in the OpenPlant forum whether OpenPlant has the same problem. Process plant piping tools tend to be much more spec / manufacturer's component aware / driven.
Sounds like a good Wagnerian topic for a future SIG.