Changing Global Origin in models effects??

Good question...   The obvious result is that the Z elevation coordinates for those 30 models should read 300mm greater than they are now.  However, I've never personally looked at how that interacts with the FloorMaster file.  I would try backing up that file, then also changing the GO in the working copy to match up.

Of course, if anyone has first-hand experience in doing this that would be best.   :)

I forwarded this on to a colleague that was just looking at a similar situation a couple weeks ago to get his thoughts on it.  That experience would make him the one that has "first-hand experience".  I think he is on-site this week, but I am hoping he might have an opportunity to chime in.

-travis

Damon,

Do you have a copy of the AEC (UK) BIM Standard for Bentley (Sept 2011)? It's very good.

Section 7.4.1 - "Setting the Coordinate System" describes how and why you might do this.

I have fiddled with GO= and I can report it is not something you should do lightly because you have probably been relying on "Coincident" referencing for so long that the change will generate confusion. I think you would still need to re-reference in the files for the 300mm change to be effected anyway.

I would suggest moving the elements in the model. In fact there is a school of thought that your model should be in a fixed location near the world origin, orthogonal to the world axes and only be translated/rotated to the actual location when required via a master reference. (Or visa-versa: the site is rotated/moved to match the model).

Bruce

"... In fact there is a school of thought that your model should be in a fixed location near the world origin..."

Yes, this is true.  Remaining near the center of the MicroStation design cube provides the best solids modeling accuracy.  Using Geo-referencing or even GO= to set the desired coordinates allows the best of both worlds.

Hello all

Damon, ..... I sympathise, ........ for me this relates to previous discussions about ACSs and the Floor Manager. The GO ....... should be irrelevant (as in reality it is, ...... for designing buildings)

When elements (floor slabs) are created they should be associated with a given FFL or SSL (structural slab level). This would be part of the 'Project Settings' (in your Floor Manager/Coordinate System Utility), so if you wanted to change all those slabs by 300 mm, you would make that change in the 'Floor Manager' and everything using those 'Floors' would move up/down accordingly.

Whilst I'm here, ....... surely by now we should have phased out this whole GO thing ( the centre of a 'file' ??????)

We are not dealing with a 'file', ....... it's a plot of land/building site.

The GO should be totally invisible to the users (and even CAD Managers), ..... we simply do not need this.

For the life of me why, if you are working on a project in the UK, when you open a 'file', at the start of a project, you should be looking at a OS (Ordnance Survey) Map (with a grid) of the UK. The you select the actual coordinates (OS Coordinates) where you're site is located, you would then automatically zoom to that location. The GO (for any file in that project) should then be relocated to the location of that site. What's happening on the other side of the 'design file world',  ( ...... infinite plane ???????? why do we need a design plane bigger than planet Earth?) is of no relevance.

When you go to get 'Info' about an object, you do not want, or need to know anything about where it's vertices' are relevant to the GO. Everything is relevant to the building plot in question, and then the main structural grid, then various 'building elements' (slabs, roof, front doors, stairs, .....)

I'm assuming you're all familiar with Google Earth ........ There is no Global Origin on Planet Earth! (it's a sphere). You just type in the Post Code/Zip Code, or the name of the city, river, town, ..... and then you 'zoom' to that location. If that's the location of your building plot, then you should just be able to fix that there (effectively anchoring the 'file' GO for that project at that location)

C'mon folks, ...... can we move on from this GO of the file thing, ....... it's a left over from the early days of CAD and the digital drawing board/graph paper approach

That's my 2p for today

Damon, for the record, I would agree with one or 2 of the other posts, ..... bit of a drag, but just moving the models manually would be a far safer/better option that moving the GO (what happens when other people later on create new files ...... and use the wrong seed file?)

All the best