DEM vs DV - Replacement Timeline

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 DEM requires you to recalculate your drawings yourself, so you always have to make sure you don't look at outdated info.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.

Sorry Stefan, but having drawings auto-update is no good to me. Part of the reason I stay with DEM.

Michael,

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.

You could also work in hte Drawing View with the reference active and avoid the DWM calcs.

Would you not - BY DEFAULT - want to place everythign coincident?  everthing is relational to begin with and should start that way.  For Model references or section/plans in a drawing view I would assume coincident.

Now when placing on a sheet I would always place by saved view.

Hello

yes, generally speaking, you would want to be placing things coincident.

I have to go through some overly complex halfway house, where I place the DV/Saved View, in a blank 3D model, the rotate it back to it's 'real-world position' (i.e. coincident), to then create a 2D plane at that location, so I can then add the 2D embellishments (as there are a lot of graphic symbolisation and 2D 'effects', that neither the DVs nor the dreaded Parts/Families approach don't properly represent). That 2D plane can then be referenced in to the original 3 model/

Common problem, to properly align the 3D DV and the 2D, you really need more than 1 reference of the grid. This then creates problems as often if a ref file has in it a file that is already referenced in, then Microstation by default, turns it off. This seems quite buggy and often, even though you have manually turned it ON, it will keep turning itself OFF, or worse still, the parent ref file with 'disappear'.

Must admit, I'm struggling on with DVs (was never keen on DEM and thought it was a bit 'crude').

Big obstacle also, is linking the 2D back referencing to the 'Drawing Title'. This shows a lack of awareness as to how Drawing Sheets are set up (a whole load of drawings will never have a Drawing Title in the Sheet)

I can only suggest for those that need to not have their drawings update all the time, this could be achieved by re-assessing the design models set up. Essentially you would have a set of design models (called Final or something) and only update those when you want the drawings updated, all the designing or 'working out' is done in some WIP (Work In Progress) models, you can then produce drawings from those, which are used to review the design, exchange info with consultants and so on.

Hope that makes sense

I find I like the DV's but the problem is not wiht the idea but the reality.  VERY VERY SLOW to make changes function and make it always see what you need.  Not so much the DV itself but things like the deliverable doors and windows and compound wall are way to simplistic for a typical buildng.

If DV's were intended to go all the way to a section is still something way to vague here.  

And that decision needs to be made - is a DV schematic in nature or Detail in Nature  (Speaking of section depth (3/4") not detail depth ( 1" to real)

IF that decision would be made by Bentley  - then tools need to be inproved for that scale as the tools for the elements are lacking.

Examples

1. Weak Window
2. Poor Doors
3. Lack of a real library of windows and doors
4. Poor compound wall tool - very minimal flat walls only, don't allow overlapping of materials  (support has seen this and verified)
5. Need tools to work vertically with greater ease (for things like facia and soffits
6. Need framing forms,  (A stud wall that shows studs in the wall or form)
7. Carving tools (cut by line things into the face of a wall like joints.)
8. Need tools to trim out windows and doors.  I can do a lot with a better compound cell but the ability to trim out the brick return on the outside or the gyp bd. return on the inside only works through a Ccell (However the materials in a Ccell do not unify so the detail is weak.

If Schematic is the goal for a model then ignore this and give us better tools to 2d stuff.  We still have not even a single 2d tool created for Detailing.   (the 2d task for detailing.  It could be just a simple group of real good libraries (with cells that have date attributes attached) and a menu for quick selection of these tools, the annotation tools, labeling tools ( even better to use the data IN a cell),, placement tools and a more polished sheet tool. 

PS: We seem to be talking about BV's and not DV's. I suppose this makes sense when comparing with DEM.

You mentioned a lot about content. I assume that the bugbear is the 2d detail info that would be produced via re-symbolisation of Compound Cells or Drawing Symbols.

Jeff mentioned that this would be looked at 'in the next development cycle' back in 2012. Not sure, maybe after the 64bit port and 'UI<>TF decoupling' stuff?

It would be good to consolidate tools across all the BBD disciplines and maybe even with OpenPlant / Prostructures. Sort of a Drawing Rules Powerplatform would be good.