Dear Kestutis Mitkus,
The problem originates when I try to connect a server (which I create in SQL server) with projectwise administrator, since the connection fails and it does not allow me to create a datasource. Without said datasource I cannot enter projectwise explorer. It is important to mention that I only want to work on my computer and do not want to connect to other computers on this server, also my computer has regional settings other than English, specifically Peru.
Because of this, I am wondering if there is a way to work with Bentley Facilities Space Planner and OpenBuildings but without Projectwise Explorer?
And if it is not possible, I would be grateful if you could provide me with information on the steps to be able to create a server correctly so that it connects with ProjectWise Administrator and be able to generate a datasource to use ProjectWise Explorer with Bentley Facilities Space Planner?
Thanks in advance.
Hello Dennis,
Unfortunately, but Facilities Space Planner can't work without ProjectWise and OBD or Mstn.
How to create PW datasource with steps how to register new Server is in this link:docs.bentley.com/.../GUID-0A86D606-E051-D19D-39D7-78357783D9DD.html
Short instruction is:
on Server machine
BFSP has a default Office data model configuration, which can help while creating and prepearing your own model.
In order to import this model, you should have installed all Facilities Adminitrator tools, in which you will find Setup and Validation tool. This tool will alow in prepearing datasoure for BFSP and will help to import standard Office space model configuration. You can find information about this tool in below link:
communities.bentley.com/.../where-is-the-setup-and-validation-tool-in-connect-edition
We can help you out with whole this procedure of prepearing BFSP environment. Just create a service request. We can arrange live meeting and then we can do all this together. This way we can show you more then how to set it up.
Best Regards,Kestutis Mitkus
Application Engineer, Building, Structural & Plant
Hi Kestutis
Can you use ProjectWise 365 instead?
I imagine PW would be too expensive for most OBD users just to get access to the spaceplanning tools.
Hi Dominic,
It depends what exactly your OBD users would like to do.
We have several posibilities here.
And then after any work done, you can always synchronize your models to iTwinHub and share whole design with required parties where they can check it using Internet Browser.
Hi Kestutis.
Thanks for this. I am trying to understand what functionality we would be left with with your Option 2 using the incoming OBD9 spaceplanning tools.
I think Option 3 is the current 'architecture' for Bentley Facilities, which is quite sophisticated being web-based quite early on and fully integrated with PW which is used to transaction manage dgn files that are checked-in/out with the spaceplanning attribute info, providing support for formating that nongraphic 'BIM' info in a structured manner using classes and relationships.
The problem is that this is all quite expensive if you have a lot of designers using OBD. I imagine its OK for facilities managers who do not have to design very much and only occasionally need the CAD feedback and optioneering. Even that is probably changing as the competition will inevitable offer a CAD interface as standard... using cheap ACAD clones?
Option 1 is an interesting half-way house, but I think you would only save some Spaceplanner, PW Explorer licenses? What would be cost of PW server + one explorer + BF? Would this be competitive with dRofus or CodeBook? It would be good to have a discounted price as the users would not really be using PW's file management services. They are forced to use it because BF uses PW's datasource (MySQL?) modelserver functionality to add the nongraphic info to the dgn files... like OpenPlant?
Option 2 sounds like you would be losing a lot of the functionality that BF would offer. This would not be acceptable for your FM clients. I suspect it would also not be good enough for large infrastructure operators who would have large CAD teams. But, they probably already have PW as a semi-fixed cost.
It would be good to understand the limitations of using Item Types versus Items which I presume BF uses.
1. Generating new Classes: Looking at BF's class editing tools which include tools that I don't see in the Item Types toolset.
2. Generating active relationships, links between Class info to CAD components / Cells:
3. Generating assigning Symbology, Labeling styles to the CAD components / Cells. Some of this could be done using Mstn Element Templates (OpenPlant, OpenRoads, Bentley Map-style) but there is currently no specific interface, tool for this in OBD... yet?
This is very much 'database' type work and I think we will need similar level of tools, without the need for full-fat PW.
OBD is pretty un-database-like and almost nothing is linked to anything else (No R*vit-style 'bi-directional' change engine). While this has some benefits, when it comes to handling BIM and FM info, it's definitely a handicap.
You mentioned synchronising to iTwinHub. I wonder if that could replace PW in future as the repository for FM database? I understand that OpenPlant Data Manager is also moving to iTwins as its repository?
Kestutis Mitkus said:It depends what exactly your OBD users would like to do.
Yes, I think that this is the key question. BF is aimed at facilities management workflows. OBD user workflows are to do with an earlier phase of the lifecycle.
Yes, in current BIM parlance BF is centred on 6D, and one of the big drivers of BIM deliverables, especially on large projects, but also probably increasing important for small and medium projects in the UK, post Grenfell. See digital thread discussions.
So, why or how would OBD / BIM users benefit from having better FM tools? Especially, when setting up the FM database is usually done by others. Contractors on site really just want your standard 2d drawings and spec, schedules.
For large infrastructure operators, you would be working within an FM system so something like BF would make a lot of sense. Although I have to say I haven't seen BF used any of the big infra operators here in the UK. I wonder why?
Displaying Assets
"Assets are not stored in DGNs, but are stored in the database (along with location and attribute information) and then temporarily drawn in the DGNs on request."
I can see this being the norm for owners, who have to track all the equipment, fittings, people and associated processes within each room. This will be a lot more info that what your highest LOD BIM model would have, given the amount of junk and history that owner has to deal with. I suppose it also forces a data-centric means of approaching BIM.
Generating this amount of info forces a hierachial approach to modeling, where everything has to be tagged, named ie 'classified' in a structured manner complete with hierarchial 'parent-child' or spatial 'inside, part of' or 'belongs to' etc relationships. This is usually completely missing in CAD models.
I think that this dual world where an asset say a chair could exist in both a database without geometry and a CAD model as geometry with attached nongraphic data opens a lot of doors. Mstn has always been based around federated models, but has been held back by not having a central database to organise and manage. OBD does not hold the project data centrally, but in the separate dgn files. If you need to schedule all the doors in a project you would need to know which models to Ref attach. Sure, you could try to use a designate imodel but that is read only. Yes, you could roll your own database link... I think Speedikon, AB_DATE's Visionplan does a better job here with info management. BF would help plug a gap here.
I like the controlled decoupling between a space or element and its geometry. Useful even for designers.
1. LOD. Why load a huge file with all those chairs when you can load just the Spaces? Even if with Shared Cells, each of the Cells would have Item info stored in the dgn. You could just have the all the Cell insertion points / transforms stored in the database. Proxy labelling left in the model instead? Select a Space and populate the Space with the geometry / Cells on demand. Don't need the furniture for all the other rooms.
2. Lots of fast configurators for smart frontend design coming onto the market: Testfit, Hypar, Spacemaker.AI, Finch3d, Higharc etc. These tools are based on sophisticated topological / hierachial / rules processing. The chairs and furniture would be 'self-deploying' and automatically 'decorate' the room. The CAD geometry comes last only for display to the human at the end of the process. This will require extensive classification of all the objects and requirements. Something that BF's FM brief is well placed to support. Probably seeing some of this kind of 'parametric' detailing with rebar and piping design already?
3. Parametric costing. The type of BOMA, DIN 276/7 areas x unit rate guestimate is pretty old school. Lucky if you get +-15% accuracy. A lot of clients are asking for more detailed takeoffs before full design. Just need number of chairs, light bulbs etc, you can place them correctly in the model later. Actually, I am going to outsource that bit later so don't bother
4. Item Types at the moment do not support building relationships very well. Especially, cross element or model relationships. This limits their utility, R*vitness?
5. More classification and spatial relationships mean easier and more productive selection for when you need to modify things when designing.
6. Groundwork for automatic code checking, iTwins design validation, Solibri-type workflows.
7. Containers are also very useful. Their 'data-centric' roots make a lot of the non-CAD tasks that are part of designing much more robust. We CAD users tend to see things in terms of spatial relationships. The problem is most of these relationships are intuitive and not defined in a 'machine readable' way. They also tend to be simple 'self evident' relationships that do not address a lot of problems, never mind nongraphic relationships.
Designing is not just about the objects that are placed in the model, but also about the relationships between them. The relationship side of designing is primarily down to manual checking and pretty error-prone and limited. To automate this, we need be able to classify and 'design' relationships in parallel to 'designing' those objects. OBD's Datagroup System and F&P were never designed for this.
8. I understand that OBD9 will have a Programme tool that will include tools to check / validate area quantities against a target requirement. It would be great to link those room 'classes' to Containers that list the fittings and equipment required in the room. This a common frontend and laborious task for designers. As they say, the schematic design decisions dictate the bulk of the cost and end result. As mentioned, validating by area alone is old school. Most area requirements are minimum 'recommendations' and subject to usability validation which requires a detailed layout with all the contents. And a lot of rooms have NO area recommendations at all as the client doesn't know (yea, even big ones). Makes validation by area alone very unreliable for such an important task.
In many ways, what building designers need is what software developers have been forced to do for a long time. As you design, you need to build in 'validation' checks and verify as you build / develop the model. Some will be simple scalar checks (like areas) but a lot will require some spatial relationship checks. Solibri is a pioneer here, but Bentley's PlantWise has a lot of the same roots. I think iTwins validation were also looking into this. R*vit's generative design tools has also started including spatial query/checking tools. BIM's clash detection is of course an example of a spatial check, but its only one type of check and of marginal use for schematic design.
Adjacency checking is a basic and fundamental part of spaceplanning. It would be good to provide this relationship check as early as possible. Something the Mstn / OBD dev team is better placed to provide? Should be an easy-peasey copy and paste geometric constraints dynamic graph type problem?
Programming 'spaces' is also a key design concern these days where we are all trying to minimise carbon emissions. OBD is already hooked up to Energy Simulator.
Also, these kind of checks will extend beyond the early design stages.. so investing in flexible and user programmable tools will be good. PlantWise's KBE tools would be good to tap into?
9. More long term, I think that Mstn is starting to embed Items and entity classification at platform level. iTwins is building on top of that and being more open and in vogue will see a lot of new functionality. There is a lot of duplication here where old verticals like OBD, Prostructures, Speedikon etc have their own systems while mature... can't be sustainable given their lack of market share. BF on the other hand seems to be built on EC Frameworks from the ground up going back 10-15 years(?) so also mature, and has been dealing with a lot more complex requirements, and has been CDE-based early on.
Looking at the more data-centric verticals like OpenPlant, Bentley Map, OpenRoads etc, they all have a Class Editor that has been around for a while. OBD's Datagroup Editor is last-gen flat file dumb no active links everything manual in comparison. BF's Facilties Manager toolset would be a good building design oriented 'class editor' or 'data manager' siting on top of DGS and F&P while they transitioning to Item Types and Element Templates? Eventually, all of Bentley's 'open' apps will be truly open because they use the same underlying data management system. Using read-only imodel neutral formats is really an unsatisfactory half-way house.