We have groups that use different Bentley products to build parts of large interdisciplinary projects. The groups that use TriForma based products such as Bentley Architecture or Bentley Structural have their files locked down to only being able to be manipulated by TriForma or Architecture/Structural. You can't manipulate any objects within their files with basic Microstation. You get a message in the Message Center that says: TriForma has intentianally restricted changes to this element.
Is this a setting that we can disable? Once a building is modeled with Bentley Architecture, and handed off to the project team, we need to be able to move/rotate/reposition/etc... with basic Microstation. Right now, we're having to go back to the originating group and ask them to make simple modifications for us because they're the ones with the TriForma products.
Thanks...
Yes, it's a pity that Bentley's agreement with AD did not cover Revit's RVT format. It would have bought a bit more time.
RVT compatibility is very different to the old DWG translation problems. I think the parametric / design intelligence / round tripping stuff will make reverse engineering much harder, and drive more firms into the AD camp.
Not having a Bldg Design vertical will also open up a flank on Bentley's other verticals like structures, where it is stronger. Pretty soon, AD will be able to highlight that its structural apps are more integrated and Bentleys will always lag with incorporating the latest and greatest changes in each Revit release. Hey, your architects are already using Revit, right ? Look at how much you will save in interoperability, training costs.
Will BA need to follow OpenPlant and become an 'IFC schema' editor.. Yikes! ProjectWise, ModelServer overheads?
I would have differ with your opinion.
Our office has made the transition from a 2d enviroment to a Bim Enviroment
pretty seemlessly. All new projects are started with Bentley Architecture and utilize
Doors, Walls, Casework, and Spaces.
Completely in 3d with associated datagroup information.
The users actually pick up drawing in a 3d enviroment rather quickly.
So I must disagree that the Bentley Architecture is not user friendly.
We have found quite the opposite.
dwy.seah@gmail.com wrote the following post at 2010-10-10 1:41 PM: Yes, it's a pity that Bentley's agreement with AD did not cover Revit's RVT format. It would have bought a bit more time. Dominic may have point there.
Dominic may have point there.
regards / Thomas Voghera
Hi tdanner001,
I guess you are luckier than Danny Cooley or me...
I don't want to turn this into another rant about BA's shortcomings. Bentley has already announced that development has begun on a more radical version of BA.
I just hope that they take a Jobsian view of things and get some killer 'next level' functionality in.
Usability: ?? What's your fav feature compared to Revit or ADT ?
Dominic,
My comment was not directed at a comparision of one program
vs. another or particually at any of your comments.
It was in reference to comments that Revit is more "User Friendly"
than Bentley and companies moving from Microstation to a Bim
platform will choose Revit because of this observation.
I was just highlighting our office experience in the transition from
2d based drawing to Bentley Architecture wasn't that difficult.
And our users have picked up the concepts fairly quickly.
Just my two cents worth.
Tom