Anyone,
We have a client requesting Bentley BIM, eventually AECOSim and I’m trying to get a handle on the different Bentleys content options. what works with the dataset catalogs and what doesn’t, what is parametric and what isn’t. From what I can tell, Microstation has 6 different file formats for content (PAZ, PAC, CEL, BXC, BXF & TRS), and then there’s also GCI’s. I guess I’m trying to figure out what is the best format for doing what.
I figured I’d start by learning PCS. Based on what I have read, PCS/PAZ seemed most powerful, even though a lot of people complain about it. They all seem to have their advantages and disadvantages though. Cells are obvious, there the legacy format, But If you want them to be parametric, when do you use the others and for what? when do you use a BCF vs. a PAZ? Why would you make a BXC vs. a BXF vs. a PAZ? Is there one format that is better all around?
HJM
It might seem confusing to a newcomer, but some of these different formats are due to the history of the product development. One of Bentley's strong commitments is to not drop support for past formats so that you should always be able to open and modify previous projects. This is a good thing I believe. As for your question about the different formats, here is my understanding as a long term user of Bentley's Architectural products.
Cel - up to version 7 this was a different file format. In V8, a Cel file is just a different extension for a dgn file. It is no different to any other dgn with multiple models. Perhaps the only other factor is the models need to have the toggle for being able to be placed as cells, but the file format is no different to a V8 dgn file.
PAC and PAZ are the same thing exept that the PAZ is a compacted (or Published) version of the PAC file. When you make an object in PC Studio there are often things left in the file that are unnecessary so when you "publish" the PAC file it become a PAZ in name only, but the process strips out any unnecessary elements so the parametric cell is as small as possible - assuming you might use many of these in your model. PCStudio is best used for relatively simple framed parametric objects. The modeling tools are pretty basic. For framed objects it can do some pretty good things, but it can take a lot of time to develop a single cell. I would avoid it for one-off objects as it isn't worth the time - unless you have nothing better to do. If you have parametric objects that you will use multiple times over multiple projects, then it is well worth developing these in PCStudio, especially for things that are not handled by the PFB (see later description of that).
BXC is the format for a Compound cell library. This was developed by the original developers of an external product which Bentley bought and has since been called Triforma and then Bentley Architecture and will become AECOsim as you mentioned. Compound cells are best used for Static non-parametric objects, but can also contain "Frames" from the Parametric Frame builder, although I tend to keep those separate as BXF files. A lot of people like to build standard sized doors with standard solids or forms as compound cells mainly because the are, essentially non-parametric. It just means you need a different cell for each size and can prevent easy modification of the door size once it is in the model - which some people like.
BXF - So this is for "frames" created by the older Parametric Frame Builder (PFB) - a much maligned (wrongly IMO) and misunderstood tool that also came from the original developers pre-Bentley. The BXF file is just a text recipe file which contains the parameters and commands that the PFB reads in order to replicate the object. It can be used for creating Windows and doors along with other objects such as joinery. The key to the PFB is understanding that it uses a settings file to control the default elements sizes, parts, etc. When you understand it, it is far easier and much, much quicker to use for simple doors and windows than PCStudio, though you have to be happy with the simplified construction of those objects as well. I happen to like the PFB, but I have been working with it a long time and understand it's place.
TRS I am not familiar with. Similarly with GC, which I know is parametrics on steriods - and you really need something significantly parametric to make it worth learning. But by all means go for it and have fun if you have the need, the time and/or the inclination.
As well as this you also have basic Parametric (& non parametric) solids as a part of core Microstation.
When you work with these tools long enough you get a feel for how to do things the best way, and this might simply be forgoing any of the framing or parametric tools and just modelling the objects which you can move and stretch as you would other geometry.
But perhaps of most importance, if your client is asking for Bentley BIM, then you probably need to find out what their preference is as far as parametric objects, cells etc., is, and work to that. From an archival and file transfer point of view it might be that the more simple the model, the better.
TRS is a Roof Truss Settings File...old school.
Thanks,
Shawn
------------
Here is an example of the exported content from Revit to DWG then saved to DGN.... i still need to make the 2D symbol lines and make them Compound cells.....
This is an international forum. Not all live on the same place and time zone as you.
PCS is known to be tricky and buggy > very few use it. And my guess is it will not be developed more.
Do some simple tests with changing the geometry and see if it is scheduled by Data Group system before you do to much. Mirroring is not. Not sure about scaling or manipulating with handles.
If "scheduling" is counting you can also use "tags" which outputs to Excel, or just count the cells - there are apps that output a list of all cells in a dgn.
A simple and rude workflow is also to ad a text mark or littera to each cell. Like A1, D2 etc on a special level. You can then select all text marks, make a ctrl-C, move over to Excel and paste them in. Then you can do all counting and linking to specs there.
regards / Thomas Voghera
I would want to use scheduling not only for quantities, but to list manufacturer, model, price, location, etc... correct me if I’m wrong, but if I add the cells to the DataGroup, shouldn’t I be able to do all this by pulling info from the definition properties in a schedule? Or can that kind of stuff not be done with custom content?
Dominic mentioned "Dumb translations"... if that is what I have to do and count them manually, so be it, but this seems counterproductive to the whole “BIM” concept. I would think I should be able to add them to the DataGroup and use definitions to pull the info I need to display it in a schedule.
HJM: a couple of things:
If you create an object, you can always use the 'Add Datagroup' tool to make it a catalog item so you can fill out DG data. You can create a box and make it "think" it's a Door Catalog. Then yes, it's scheduled via DG Explorer.
You can use Components to do pricing and counting if you want via the Quantification tool. Going forward, the DG Explorer will be used, but if you want to, you can use Components to apply pricing (or variable pricing ) , as well as use Quant to count items (set your component to PC for piece instead of a quantity like sq. foot or cu. meters)
Well…. After almost 2 weeks of playing, learning and being taught, here is what I have come up with. It may be a little overkill, and I’m open to any shortcuts, but I’m trying to use my existing content so I don’t have to completely recreate everything. I also need every piece of content to be schedulable. Feel free to comment/markup……
Ahhh, if I could just use only OTB content….
keep it simple. Reference the geometry. Create new when needed. Ad text tags and count them and manage your spec sheets where they are easy to manage which I believe is not inside ustn.
To begin with With next version DGS might do what you want.
HJM,
Thanks for the list. I think it highlights a lot of of the current weaknesses in BA, a lot of which are known, and perhaps are being corrected, as Thomas mentions.
1. Importing Parametric Components:
I think a lot of what you described can be automated. Bentley has been making a lot of noise about interoperability, but haven't really provided much support here. I think we could use a better import or translation utility..... or better yet.... the dwg blocks would be automatically converted and DGS updated properly when the block is copied thru from a Ref in Mstn/BA.
There are other verticals where intelligent cells are more common and better integrated. OpenPlant probably has the most 'cutting edge' aspirations / tech with regards to translating 'foreign' components while preserving as much intelligence as possible.
I don't think 'dumb' translations are a long term solution. Clients and Project Managers will start to insist that the parametric 'intelligence' built up on the non-Bentley side of the fence needs to be maintained; costs money. Why should the client lose this or have to pay for this to be recreated? I think this is an industry wide problem wrt non AD vendors, and maybe we will see a parametric / Revit equivalent to the OpenDWG group. OpenRVT? Nice to see IntelliCAD using LEDAS to translate ACAD constraints.
2. Passive DGS:
BA is not really set up to work as a database. The 'records' are stored in the dgn, and DGS is really a one-way, after the fact, reporting mechanism.... currently. The 'traditional' external DB centric working can be seen in BBES and Speedikon, Bentley's other archie BIM package. With these packages, the real parametric, dependency propagation, error trapping, integrity checks etc, ie intelligence resides the DB and Mstn is just used to 'draw' the results.
One result of the lack of a 'centralised' DB is users not being able to edit multiple components via the DGS, spreadsheet-style. Very un-BIM.
And, if there is no centralised DB, it's no wonder there are a tedious amount of separate xml configuration files that need to be updated for each cell/component. Very error-prone and provisional, and support-intensive way of doing things. Maybe OK for big sites, but a real pain for everyone else. Maybe the BA team needs to borrow a real hard-core DB guy, from the Speedikon or Promis-e or Openplant or XFM teams for a couple of years?
It's also one of the reasons why no one's noticed or corrected the fact that user can place components that are not schedule-able .... I suspect, this kind of data-centric working is not common with BA users or a key feature for its programmers.
You will hear protests about how much better and scalable non-centralised 'federated' file based working is, compared to Revit's bloated central files. But, I still think a better DGS is still required and doable. V9?
Regards
Dominic
Dominic, you nailed it right on the head…… I realize that if I didn’t know any other programs and all I was proficient in was Bentley, some of this might be second nature. But, as my manager tells me regularly, I “have been tainted by Revit”…..
Thomas, I understand where your coming form with keeping it simple, but in keeping it simple why did I buy BA, I should have just stuck with plain Microstation V8i. Wait a min… that didn’t come out right, but I think you know what I mean….. Unfortunately, keeping it simple means keeping it “un”BIM. My users, for better or worse, are accustomed to using (and even the nonusers are accustomed to seeing) full BIM functionality from other products. Bentley can do allot of it (not all, but they’re getting there) it just takes extra work on our (BIM Managers) part to set it up properly so the functionality can be easily used. I realize too that transitioning from one completely different product to another doesn’t help my situation….
I have been thinking of looking into Speedikon, but like my luck with most Bentley stuff I can’t find much info on it, outside of their advertisement page. After being bit by the sales pitch on PCS and Frame Builder being “most powerful of the parametric modeling tools” I’m a little gun shy…..
Attached is a PDF of screen captures from placing a compound cell to making and placing the schedule if anyone is interested.
Next i need to figure out tagging Compound Cells......
Tags weren’t that bad….