I have come to the conclusion that despite there being a phasing attribute in AECOSIM there is no scope to leverage this in the application other than as an output.
In the event that we have modelled an existing building it appears the only way to manage the removed and retained elements is to put them in sperate files. Does anyone else have a better way to do this?
Ironically I have tried using named groups to knock out existing to demolish but the space flood tool sees the walls that are in the existing to demolish named group, see image (the green area is a space flood). Annoying really... I know its been said before, but named groups would be great if they were properly integrated with AECOSIM.
I had understood that space floods were going to be improved to flood only on the plane identified, is there a timescale for this to happen - I thought it was meant to have been doen for AECOSIM.
Unknown said:Ironically I have tried using named groups to knock out existing to demolish
How are you doing this? Sounds interesting...
Simply put within the existing model you have element in an existing to be retained group and an existing to be demolished group. When you attach the file as a reference it is possible to attach a named group within a file. Sounds great until you realise that AECOSIM ignores the namedgroups.
R
Rob: when you say Thematic Mapping, do you mean through the Space Plannng tools and using that thematic mapping?
Thanks,
Shawn
------------
I wasnt thinking of the space planning tool, which Rob Klaschka is right about and I should make more use of, but rather something as part of the saved DV settings - similar to the architectural rules. Sort of a saved set of "select-by attributes" turning elements on or off by DataGroup fields, maybe with some linked remapping of parts an families, like there used to be for forward mapping, except now you might have parts that define firerating mapping, or phasing mapping, etc.
This could even be a tool where alterantive Parts and Families libraries could be specified to drive fine/medium/low detail ie. one library that unifies output for 1:100> scale anonther that unifies at 1:50 and one that unifies self similar parts for 1:10<. Scale is just another Theme, just like forward mapping is.
We (a colloquial we) have been asking/discussing about scale-based graphics for a while...unsure where that is on Jeff's radar.
As a workaround, I was thinking using Space Planner's thematic maps as you can load it up in ABD and using all the DG search tools, including Phasing, to accomplish (or attempt to accomplish) the tasks..I have not tested this, sounds like RobK has?
In a 2d worlds this could be achieved using itemsets. (here you can serach by dg property and temporarily resymbolise items)
You might have to experiment by creating a Saved view from a drawing model when the itesets are active. There are complications from the clip volumes and display styles that might prevent you from trying this in a design model
Brenden Roche
Applications Engineer
Bentley Systems, Manchester UK
Hi Thomas,
I create a structural drawing using ABD and change the level of some of the beams to S-DEMO, for example. If I then use the Place Plan Callout tool to create a plan drawing, I turn off the S-DEMO level in that drawing file and/or the generated saved view but the demo beams are still displayed. It puts all of the beam elements on the "S-G2613-M-BeamsSteel-Fwd" level.
John K.
HI John,
have a look at the family and parts for the beams you have placed and look at the settings for foward and rear views. What you are describing is working as designed.
Yes I did find out that this is working as designed but I was just answering as to why I couldn't use levels anymore to distinguish between existing and demo in the same file.
John K
John,
I would recommend creating a Part for Beams to be demolished that get assigned to a different Level than New beams. This could be assigned by a Catalog Item for Beams called Beams-Demolition (or whatever you want to call it). Then you could create a structural rule that is applied to the Steel::Beam-Demolition Part that either doesn't display it or displays it with a different symbology than new beams.
-Travis
Unknown said: John, I would recommend creating a Part for Beams to be demolished that get assigned to a different Level than New beams. This could be assigned by a Catalog Item for Beams called Beams-Demolition (or whatever you want to call it). Then you could create a structural rule that is applied to the Steel::Beam-Demolition Part that either doesn't display it or displays it with a different symbology than new beams. -Travis
Travis
will the rule take that element away from the cut (so things behind it will be visible in front view.)?
regards / Thomas Voghera
I think its also important to make the differentiation between management in design and in drawings.
I'm back in three file world. Existing to Remain, Existing to Demolish and Proposed. Its the only way to sensibly manage things in AECOSIM sadly.
I hope someone at the farm is listening for the next go at things, because most of what has been discussed here is work arounds.
I'm also surprised that there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement from Bentley that it would be a good idea to leverage the attributes in the application. There needs to be a shift away from thinking of AECOSIM as a glorified drafting application.