As a long time user and big fan of DEM, I get a little peeved when Bentley Support keep repeating the mantra that DEM is old technology and will be phased out and I quote:
'Drawing Views will replace Drawing Extractions at some point in the future'
'I’m not sure if Development still working on Drawing Extractions or how much time they are dedicating to it'
If I'm going to be forced down a path I don't want to go, can we at least have some time line as to when DEM will be phased out?
Thanks,
I would recommend trying the DVs and you'll notice it's a big improvement to DEM. DEM requires you to recalculate your drawings yourself, so you always have to make sure you don't look at outdated info. Also the possibility to edit elements directly in the DV which automatically updates your 3D model is great to use, compared to DEM (go back to your 3D model to adjust something, recalculate the drawing, return to the calculated drawing,...).
Once you get the concept it's pretty much the same, only more flexible.
Windows 10 pro
OpenBuildings Designer Connect Edition Update 10.10.01.151
Sorry Stefan, but having drawings auto-update is no good to me. Part of the reason I stay with DEM.
We'll see Eric :-)
Hi Bear,
DEM can't cope past a certain project size. We find that we have to go with DV's to get any output at all.
Worse if you are using DEM + ProjectWise with caching servers.
Hopefully a lot of these issues will be addressed with the 64bit port... whenever that happens.
Auto-update: you can use CVE's if you do not want to have automatic udpates. Might even work with Design History.
Dominic
I have to opposite feeling > BV fails where DEM works.
And if you say CVE - DEM is easier to manage.
regards / Thomas Voghera
My feeling as well Thomas. Each time I delve into DV it just feels lacking to me.
DV's have their issues, but it is the way forward i think. I can't see Bentley porting or continuing to support / debug 64bit DEM.
It would be good to list the shortcomings so that they can be addressed?
One of my biggest gripes vis a vis DEM is the fact the extracted DV's are not coincident to the 3d model. This means that you can't reference the 2d extraction back into the 3d model without using the backref tool.
Dominic: when you place a SV in a drawing, you can select 'coincident' in a popup normally. Which is kind of coincident, no?
"Sorry Stefan, but having drawings auto-update is no good to me. Part of the reason I stay with DEM."
Sean,
You could define the DV in your 3D model, but keep the reference from automatically updating in your drawing. That way you have to update them yourself (same as when you would re-generate them using DEM).
Michael,
Doesn't work. Mstn re-centres and rotates the cut to be orthogonal to the sheet model.
Make a 3d cube to represent a building positioned within a cadastre coordinate system. Make DV cut. Reference the DV 2d cut drawing model back into the 3d model.
They don't align.
Dominic,
yeah I know what you mean, but isn't the 'display sheet annotations' (aka hyper-model button) made for this purpose (when you hover over the 'callout markers' ?
Short question: did you use the 'coincident world' option when referencing?
I must say though that I've also had some problems, especially when the clip volume of a DV is changed, then the saved view on an existing drawing gets moved, and the 'coincident-button' doesn't seem to hold its promise...
Sure, but not all drawings that you have to deal with are going to be produced using the Callout marker tool. It seems like a minor (well intentioned) decision by the programmer that has disproportionate consequences.
Used all the options.... couldn't get it to work like DEM. Would be great to have an option to mimic the DEM behaviour.