Revit Family Import

Unless I'm missing something, its interesting to see that Bentley is completely silent on this issue, while serious operational concerns are being addressed in this thread. Perhaps we should be attaching extracts of this thread when the next Select subscription invoice arrives!

Everyone, 

I have been informed by Bentley there is an avenue to request manufacturer data. I was unaware of it prior to posting. If you go to http://www.bentley.com/en-US/Corporate/Bentley+Partner+Program/Content+Partners/Infrastructure+Partners.htm , there is a form which allows you to request Bentley contact manufacturers about producing content.

It is very good to see that Bentley is being proactive in this regard. 

Thanks,

Jordan

dwy.seah@gmail.com:

As AD starts adding intelligence to DWG, such as Dynamic blocks (ACAD2006) and constraints modeling (2010) and other vertical app objects, it will be interesting to see if Benltey can develop its own 'design intelligence' model while accommodating (or in the worst case, reverse engineering) AutoDesk's model.

 

Dynamic Blocks in AutoCAD:  Dimension Driven Design cells have been around forever (at least since MicroStation 4.0), You don't use them or maybe not know about them?  Granted, they aren't the easiest to use (read: interace needs help), but the functionality has been there for, oh, 15 years or so.

Constraints Modeling in AutoCAD:  Feature Modeling has been imbedded in MicroStation since the folding of the Modeler MDLs into the platform ( at leat 6-7 years ago?).  Again, the challenge here is interface.

The  biggest challenge (are you listening or even reading this thread, Bentley?) is to make these powerful tools EASY TO USE and make TUTORIALS or SEMINARS on the subject, not force people to take a training course.

Gosh, I miss Technical Product Marketing that was dedicated at this process of seminars and things of that nature.  

Shawn,

You should have a quick look at ACAD constraints and Dynamic blocks. I suspect you haven't, looking at your comments.

DB functionality and completeness are far in advance of Mstn's DDD, especially in ACAD 2010. And Mstn's feature modeling does not have much or anything in the way of constraints modeling. I don't think you can compare them at all.

Emphasizing tutorials and training misses the point completely. What is needed is up to date technology. Why spend time learning obselete and in your words 6-15 year old technology ? It only gives those expensive CAD support guys an easy life :-)

Bentley's development speed was never the fastest and seems to be getting slower. Look at how long GC has been in development, and its still a bit half baked. At the same time, everyone else is moving speedily ahead. At this rate, Bentley will eventually be so far behind as far as design intelligence and parametrics than it won't be able to interoperate with the rest of the CAD world ?

Can't read Revit components. Can't read ACAD constraints. Can't read Dynamic blocks. Rumour is that ACAD 2011 will have feature surfaces. D#, AutoDesk's version of GC is also in the works. Pretty soon clients will be insisting on AD software because they don't want to lose the parametric advantages.

 

Dominic:  (pardon my writing style below, but I went a little ADD and down some tangents, but I hope you and the group follow me)

Actually, it's the other way around:  have you fully explored the capabilities of DDD and Feature Modeling?  I suspect maybe you haven't fully looked. 

I have looked at both Dynamic Blocks and Constraint Modeling.  I personally believe that DDD and DB's functionality are very similar, and Feature Modeling has more than you may know (once you get into the variable creation).  DB and CM has a very easy interface and the ease of use is very high, where DDD and FM is very "programmetric" and the ease of use is very low.  If you have done a full competitive analysis of both technologies (specificallly DDD vs. Dynamic Blocks and Feature Modeling vs. Constraints modeling), I would be very interested in seeing it.    I don't believe FM is never going to be Inventor level or Pro-E type modeling...if that's the argument/need/want you are asking for, that's a whole different discussion.

I agree that more useful and up-to-date technology is needed, but I think you've missed my point completely: most haven't exhausted  the capabilities in the current technology, and without the ease of use interface that is sorely needed or the readily available tutorials or "how to" tools (manuals, seminars, videos, etc.) most may never get into it.  Looking at it from an Operations and cost standpoint (which is the side of the road I stand on), before I go down a different road of any technology, I want to fully exhaust the capabilities of current. (be it word processing, CAD/BIM, printing, networks, MP3 player, whatever).   Having Bentley get the word out on how these tools work and how they work in our AEC environment vs. made up examples is imperative to pushing the technology forward (as you and I both want.) 

From an Operations standpoint, why would Bentley development put more into a technology like constraints when 95% of the Bentley user based doesn't use the current constraints technology.  Or is it cheaper to dump what they have and start from scratch?  Either way, without a communication method of what those new (or existing tools) are (i.e. excpetional marketing), the point is moot.  You can have the best cheese grater in the world, but if it's too complicated to use, and there's no good documentation to learn how to use it, it will sit on the shelf.

I agree that GC better get its act together and make it easier rather than harder to use....IMHO, two main challenges with GC are 1) that it's marketed as a super geometry tool only used for the most complicated of situations, when the technology and workflow can be applied to so many "normal" situations, and 2) the interface must be updated and less "Scripted" (funny that RhinoParametrics is coming out as I say this)

I'm unsure if what you say is true on the ACAD constraints and restraints, it depends on if the ACAD software is putting the constraints and restraints on the geometry or is the DWG file format holding that that information intrinsically.  If the DWG/DGN libraries are being shared directly from the vendors, then those constraints and restraints should be readable in V8i SS1, correct? (as that version has the  Autodesk provided libraries vs. the Open Design Alliance?)  If you've already tried it, again, I would like to see your results.

D# is supposedly only in AutoCAD, but we'll see.

Don't expect anyone to be able to read Revit components except Revit. (BTW, ArchiCAD can't read Revit components, as no one can read GDL.)   History says that won't happen, and the word was that the Autodesk/Bentley agreement supposedly was very specific about what could be done with Revit RVT file formats (i.e. within the constraints of the developer network vs the direct libraries for ACAD/MS.)   As it is, Autodesk had to create their own ADSK format to talk between their own solutions, so I don't think IFC will solve anything.    I hope  AutoCAD 2011 will have surfaces (maybe to make it more compatible with DGN,  per chance...or maybe other tools in their own area)

 

Clients already insist on certain software, which is why being adept at multiple softwares becomes more crucial if you don't want to put all your eggs in one client basket.  

Anyway, a good discussion is always healthy on this topic.  Too bad no one from Bentley Management has stepped in to give the philosophy or add to the discussion.

 

Hi Shawn,

Firstly, I would respectfully question the following notions: -

1. I think your stance is essentially one of 'wait and see'. If the users don't ask for it or can't use it, we don't need it... yet.

2. Something looks similar on the surface, so the underlying technology is the same and we can carry on as before. 

3. If it is hard to use, its really because someone hasn't told us how to use it properly. Nothing to do with whether the underlying technology is sound or not.

4. Assume that since we are not in the MCAD world, we should expect not to have effective history based feature modeling. I guess if we wait long enough that item 1 would kick in and Presto! problem solved.

5. Technology is like using toothpaste. You have to use the existing tube up to the fullest before going on or else there will be big trouble..

 

I would be sort of amazed if you really subscribe to the above....

1. ACAD 2010 CM vs DDD: Are you kidding ? Maybe you should email Colin Larkin and ask him.

2. DB and DD: Once again, I am amazed you think they are similar. Have you really looked into DB? DB is based on the old Atrix / Visio technology. It allows the user to specify actions and parameters to be stored with the DB. To aid useability, it allows the user to define grips so that the user can manipulate or flex the slaved CAD elements based on the previously defined parameters. It also allows the user to control visibility of the CAD elements. Its got a block editor so that the block can be edited in place. None of this drop and redefine origin, name, description malarky that DDD forces you to do. ACAD 2010 adds constraints to the mix and allows some cross block propagation. None of this is provided by DDD. 

3. FM vs CM: This is not a like for like comparison. Constraints modeling is a bigger animal. See "PowerCivils Directions" eseminar section on the upcoming associative geometry for an idea of what CM is. See also Vectorworks 2010's use of the D-Cubed DCM. Feature modeling in Mstn is specific to solids and can not build relationships with other types of elements including 2d and surfaces. I don't think it can even build a relationship with another solid if they are not connected (no multi bodies) or build assemblies. CM is traditionally used in MCAD to provide inter part 'mates' and intelligent 2d profile sketches for extrusions / sweeps / revolves. ACAD 2010 CM is a more general tool that works with 2d elements (although no support for splines at the moment) and as such is somewhat more relevant to AEC. ACAD 2010 also has better inferencing than DDD and allows individual constraints to be suppressed. It also does not force the user to make construction lines first and slave the actual graphic elements to them. This makes constraints so much easier to use in ACAD 2010. 

RhinoParametrics: FX has a few things missing in his remix IMHO, but actually RP does a lot of the things that FM should. And this has been done by a small crew.

SS1 and RealDWG: Constraints won't be translated in SS1, and there is no time frame for this, apparently . I think you are missing my original point if you think the translation side of things is the issue. How a particular element in particular file is constrained would be stored with the file, I stongly suspect. All Mstn needs to know is what type of constraint and the what the linked elements are. What is needed is the infrastructure to replicate the functionality in Mstn so that the design intelligence built up in ACAD won't be lost. So, if a valve is constrained to a pipe, then this behaviour would be preserved after translation and we are not left with broken zombie elements.

D# will be ACAD based. Are you hoping that AD will port it to Mstn? Not sure what your point is.

Revit, GDL, ASDK format: You are probably right but you as an 'operations' guy should know that there is a huge overhead associated with supporting multiple CAD platfroms, especially if they can't talk to each other properly. No one wins, except perhaps the market leader.

HTH

 

Dominic:  we should take this to another place, as unfortunately, it's gone off the original track of Revit Family Import.

Be happy to debate this off line, as I respectfully disagree (and agree) with some of your things.   I think we are going to agree to disagree on a few things, but that's fine.

Oh, and as I'm an Ops guy now, I have been a user for many years as well, and continue to be so, I just have the added job as ops as well.

 (and my point to D# was there was rumours at AU it would possibly go beyond ACAD, but I don't seee it happening)

 

HTH,

Shawn

Dominic:  we should take this to another place, as unfortunately, it's gone off the original track of Revit Family Import.

Be happy to debate this off line, as I respectfully disagree (and agree) with some of your things.   I think we are going to agree to disagree on a few things, but that's fine.

Oh, and as I'm an Ops guy now, I have been a user for many years as well, and continue to be so, I just have the added job as ops as well.

 (and my point to D# was there was rumours at AU it would possibly go beyond ACAD, but I don't seee it happening)

 

HTH,

Shawn