Working off a networked Workspace for one specific client (we do outsourcing), our current setup is through the mslocal.cfg pointing to the shared workspace.
However in future each new Client is highly likely to have their own Workspace with own standards and Datasets etc.
Editing the mslocal.cfg for each Client Workspace does not seem very practical although for the moment I cannot find any other way....Any suggestions out there?
We do it by setting the Windows variable _USTN_WORKSPACEROOT to the networked workspace.
This is the only thing which is done on the client, the rest is configured on the server.
No need to do anything when a new Microstation is installed on the client either.
I mean i want each user to have the choice of workspace - choose between 4 or 5 diferent workspaces typically...
What do you mean by "Windows" variable anyway?
Good stuff Paul, thanks for that.
Chris, hope this screenshot makes it clear, even if it is from a norwegian Windows 7 system.
Edit Control Panel - System - Advanced - Environmental Variables - System Variable - New - USTN_WORKSPACEROOT
'So in the end multiple mslocals , multiple workspaces and multiple shortcuts do the job. Simple and pretty much bullet-proof.'
Except when it comes to versioning your builds based on new product releases. This has been covered in other threads, but it's worth avoiding the use\editing of any delivered cfg files.
One cfg for each client is all you would need and a boot/start for each build is required for each client here as well. Larger systems can be managed through a similar build and a hta file. I'll post an example when I get a chance.
Basically this runs in a similar fashion to what you have now, but uses independant cfg files.
Thanks for the screenshot Andreas, understand. Interesting way to do, first time I come across that one.
Bear, understand. Hadn't thought about versioning - just simply haven't needed it but can understand your point. It's just that we are also - and primarily one would hope - architects (in my case) and although I like to have a good understanding of the technology I have to draw the line at some point - otherwise I could easily end up spending more time configuring and deciphering Bentley's endless list of variables than designing ;-)
Chris,
I appreciate where you're coming from, it's pretty much how I got into the admin side of CAD coming from a structural design background.
The effort\knowledge difference between the 2 isn't that different, I suppose I'm coming more from which I would call good practise.