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
Thematic Mapping from Space Planner works, but as RobK says, you have to change your Display Settings to Wireframe (or anything but Smooth or Transparent) as the TFPart Material settings interfere with the resymbolization...but it does work quite nicely on walls et al.
Thanks,
Shawn
------------
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
Thematic mapping is nice, but what happens when you need to export the info to dwg or even dgn for those vanilla Mstn users?
At some point, we need to be able to get DV/BV to re-symbolise to different levels ala DEM.....
Mine was not intended as a long-term solution, merely a current workaround until the ability to scale and resymbolize with more specificity is put into the product.
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.
If you apply a "No Display" Rule to the existing members, I believe it should then process items 'hidden' beyond the existing member.
Unknown said: If you apply a "No Display" Rule to the existing members, I believe it should then process items 'hidden' beyond the existing member.
Are you saying that it is possible to create a 'rule' in a BV that tells all elements with phasing set to "existing to demolish" NOT to participate in the cut AND be displayed dashed and blue in cut and not displayed at all in front and rear?
Unknown said:Are you saying that it is possible to create a 'rule' in a BV that tells all elements with phasing set to "existing to demolish" NOT to participate in the cut AND be displayed dashed and blue in cut and not displayed at all in front and rear?
Not for architectural elements. For Structural elements you can apply a rule to a specific Part(s) for demolition (but not by elements with phasing set to "existing to demolish") that controls the symbology and/or display. For Mechanical elements you could use the criteria option "Results of Saved Query" to find all mechanical components with the phasing property set to "existing to demolish" and apply a rule to display ON/OFF and control the symbology.
In structural we have also used the Status field in the member information, but this has been more at a model level rather than in any drawings. Don't see why this field couldn't have it's use extended in AECOsim.
What are the chances of getting some common AECOsim fileds?