Datagroup Annotation bottom height

Hi Peter,

I'm not sure there's any practical way to do that, but I will check.

Hi Peter,

As I suspected there are no tools currently available to label coordinate values as DataGroup annotation.  This is primarily because element coordinates are generated "at placement time" and not stored in the DataGroup System. 

The best options I can suggest would be:

• For a beam, create a Drawing Rule with a Custom label that uses the Bottom Of Steel (BOM) option.  Drawing rules by nature scan the 3D model in order to generate annotation, and for Structural members in particular their section data provides the necessary information to populate both BOS and TOS values.   

  https://communities.bentley.com/products/building/building_analysis___design/w/building_analysis_and_design__wiki/16641/adding-datagroup-properties-to-structural-drawing-rules

• For walls, you could use the Label Coordinate tool in the 3D model and allow that to display in the resulting drawing.  Not necessarily ideal, but about the best I could come up with. FWIW, using this tool in a plan drawing would result in the top coordinate value which is why I suggested the 3D model.   You can also custom this label as outlined here: https://communities.bentley.com/products/building/building_analysis___design/w/building_analysis_and_design__wiki/13606/annotation---openbuildings-label-coordinate-tool   
  The only other potential option would be to create a DataGroup Annotation cell using a custom VBA that itself scans the element's coordinates and populates the respective value.  That concept is briefly outlined here: https://communities.bentley.com/products/building/building_analysis___design/w/building_analysis_and_design__wiki/19745/datagroup-annotation-for-component-coordinate-values 

If this is something you are interested in I would suggest filing an SR so that support can link it to the applicable enhancement.  I know we have a few along these lines so it's a matter of choosing the one that best suits your needs.   The more SRs that are linked, the better. 

Thanks

Steve Cocchi

Hi Steve and thanks for your reply.

This is an example of an annotation of a foundation beams we want to achieve:

We usually model our foundation beams as walls, mostly because the wall tool is more flexible and convenient compare to beam/column.

All respect to structural drawing rules but our users prefer to have to ability and control to annotate element by element.
I played around some with the ”place label”-tool and I could achieve what I wished for, but I find the tool quite buggy and don’t think I will recommend my colleges to use it.
Has there been any updates on the tool lately? We are using OBD U6.

Also being a Revit user and I find Revit much easier, consistent and flexible to extract any kind of object information in the drawing process.
In OBD there are so many types of annotation tools and none are complete.

Hello Peter,

I must say I agree for a big part with your comments. I do think the structural drawing rules are very nice for automation of processes. But as you say it limits the user's control. Also for things like floors and wall elements that tool can't be used.

I did very recently file a new "Idea" on the Microstation Idea portal which is related, maybe you could vote that up and add this functionality in the comments? 

https://microstation.ideas.aha.io/ideas/MSR-I-818 

Hello Peter,

I must say I agree for a big part with your comments. I do think the structural drawing rules are very nice for automation of processes. But as you say it limits the user's control. Also for things like floors and wall elements that tool can't be used.

I did very recently file a new "Idea" on the Microstation Idea portal which is related, maybe you could vote that up and add this functionality in the comments? 

https://microstation.ideas.aha.io/ideas/MSR-I-818