Bentleys Content Options

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

  • Tags weren’t that bad….

     

     

  • Next i need to figure out tagging Compound Cells......

    HJM

  • 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.

     

    HJM

  • 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

  • HJM

    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.

    regards / Thomas Voghera