Floor Manager

Should my walls move when i adjust the floor heighht in floor manager? If so, where do i find this? Thank you!

Parents
  • Matt,

    The walls are not tied to the Floor Manager floors.  This is because of the design decisions/implications that need to be made/considered when such a change is made.  Bentley has consistently committed to not automatically changing your design to something that may violate a code or alter the design of a project without the explicit direction of the design author.  An example would be for exterior walls, where adding 2'-0 to the floor to floor elevation could mean that windows are stretched to be taller, or stay the same, brick or other cladding materials that are not full height would need to know whether to increase 2'-0" or stay the same while other parts of the wall assembly need the same decisions to be made.  Stairs will need to be redistributed, possibly requiring an intermediate landing for code, etc.  Structural walls may need to be made thicker if the floor heights become too great.  

    So above is the why, the how best to account for a design change for this...  Open you model(s) and from a side view use the Stretch tool to grab the wall/structure at the appropriate elevation for your intended design change and stretch the appropriate distance.  Windows or other parametric elements that need their height(s) adjusted can be selected and modified collectively with the Modify Selected Components tool.  

    I hope this helps,

    Travis



  • Unknown said:
     Bentley has consistently committed to not automatically changing your design to something that may violate a code or alter the design of a project without the explicit direction of the design author.

    Travis,

    I am sure you are aware that pretty much every other BIM authoring app on the market already offers this:- Revit, AutoCAD Architecture, ArchiCAD, VectorWorks, AllPlan, EliteCAD, VisualARQ, DigitalProject and Brics BIM. I think MicroGDS is the only other app that doesn't offer 'parametric' storey levels.

    Even Bentley's other BIM app, Speedikon....

    In any case, I don't think it was ever Bentley's BIM strategy to go 'no parametrics'... 'au naturel'...'no fly-by-wire'.

    Not sure what Huw was smoking when he was interviewed... but

    1. Parametric components: sound like the F+P system

    2. Parametric assemblies: sound like PCS

    3. Parametric controls: sound like D++ (rules are mentioned) or maybe GC.

    What is the problem with this picture?

    After nine+ years, I think it is becoming apparent that all three tiers/tools and the objects they create have to play nice with each other to make a difference. What productivity gains differentiate BA V2004 and ABD SS4? ... that would be interesting to debate. Sure, BV's are a big improvement, but on the modeling front? PCS certainly hasn't moved very fast or far. Ditto for PFB. GC seems to be in perpetual beta and seems to think hooking up and supporting ABD is beneath them.

    BA/ABD has never had a unified underlying parametric/constraints management framework for this... GC doesn't understand PCS or DGS... neither understands Feature Solids / DDD... never mind D++... Forms don't understand Solids or SmartSolids or Feature Solids or work with the same tools... etc etc. Too many interfaces with too many quirks and problems as the possible use case combinations multiply... resulting a fragmented 'little tools' UX with separate UI entry points that don't talk to each other because there isn't any common mechanism for them to do so... resulting in users having to grin and bear with it to get the job done. I guess they are trained to do this in the army corp of engineers :-) I hope Bentley aren't polling these guys only for feedback on how well the UX/UI is doing....?

    Back to parametric control of an object's elevation:

    I think a lot of the market/competition have come to the realisation that where you provide the entry point to what kind of parametric control has a big impact on user uptake and adoption. No point leaving it to GC; while there is no doubt GC will provide super-flexibility... most users are not going to be scriptmeisters anytime soon. Most the GC maestros I've met hate getting their hands dirty with construction, anyway. They suddenly find that to make things work as a proper event-based tool, they end up having to be coders and not just scripters.

    Even Revit's MCAD constraints solving families approach can be a problem. I think Brics BIM is a good benchmark/running mate for ABD given their shared roots. They have managed to update 'Triforma' to allow Forms to be 'delimited' by your choice of 'Control Surface' in a persistent/dynamic way.

    That can be defined as part of the Object's presets...

    If Brics can enhance 'Triforma' to do this, then it should be possible for Bentley to do the same but better... right?

    ABD $6k v. Brics BIM $2k? Never mind about Revit ...:-)

Reply
  • Unknown said:
     Bentley has consistently committed to not automatically changing your design to something that may violate a code or alter the design of a project without the explicit direction of the design author.

    Travis,

    I am sure you are aware that pretty much every other BIM authoring app on the market already offers this:- Revit, AutoCAD Architecture, ArchiCAD, VectorWorks, AllPlan, EliteCAD, VisualARQ, DigitalProject and Brics BIM. I think MicroGDS is the only other app that doesn't offer 'parametric' storey levels.

    Even Bentley's other BIM app, Speedikon....

    In any case, I don't think it was ever Bentley's BIM strategy to go 'no parametrics'... 'au naturel'...'no fly-by-wire'.

    Not sure what Huw was smoking when he was interviewed... but

    1. Parametric components: sound like the F+P system

    2. Parametric assemblies: sound like PCS

    3. Parametric controls: sound like D++ (rules are mentioned) or maybe GC.

    What is the problem with this picture?

    After nine+ years, I think it is becoming apparent that all three tiers/tools and the objects they create have to play nice with each other to make a difference. What productivity gains differentiate BA V2004 and ABD SS4? ... that would be interesting to debate. Sure, BV's are a big improvement, but on the modeling front? PCS certainly hasn't moved very fast or far. Ditto for PFB. GC seems to be in perpetual beta and seems to think hooking up and supporting ABD is beneath them.

    BA/ABD has never had a unified underlying parametric/constraints management framework for this... GC doesn't understand PCS or DGS... neither understands Feature Solids / DDD... never mind D++... Forms don't understand Solids or SmartSolids or Feature Solids or work with the same tools... etc etc. Too many interfaces with too many quirks and problems as the possible use case combinations multiply... resulting a fragmented 'little tools' UX with separate UI entry points that don't talk to each other because there isn't any common mechanism for them to do so... resulting in users having to grin and bear with it to get the job done. I guess they are trained to do this in the army corp of engineers :-) I hope Bentley aren't polling these guys only for feedback on how well the UX/UI is doing....?

    Back to parametric control of an object's elevation:

    I think a lot of the market/competition have come to the realisation that where you provide the entry point to what kind of parametric control has a big impact on user uptake and adoption. No point leaving it to GC; while there is no doubt GC will provide super-flexibility... most users are not going to be scriptmeisters anytime soon. Most the GC maestros I've met hate getting their hands dirty with construction, anyway. They suddenly find that to make things work as a proper event-based tool, they end up having to be coders and not just scripters.

    Even Revit's MCAD constraints solving families approach can be a problem. I think Brics BIM is a good benchmark/running mate for ABD given their shared roots. They have managed to update 'Triforma' to allow Forms to be 'delimited' by your choice of 'Control Surface' in a persistent/dynamic way.

    That can be defined as part of the Object's presets...

    If Brics can enhance 'Triforma' to do this, then it should be possible for Bentley to do the same but better... right?

    ABD $6k v. Brics BIM $2k? Never mind about Revit ...:-)

Children
  • Always great clear thought and writing Dominic - I can understand and learn - others please emulate, and find that the benefit is mutual.

  • Both approaches have pros and cons.

    Travis has some good points regarding problems with parametric relationsships. One thing he did not mention was data exchange with foreign offices. While Revit apparently is a good product when you don't have to work together with others (have never tested it by myself), it apparently is not very good when doing projects with other consultants - especially those not working with Revit. Stretching a wall does not automatically stretch structural or HVAC objects.

    We all agree that Bentley has very limited working products that support parametrics. The ones I have come across don't really work (e.g. coping of beams in structural). So there is definitely room for improvements. PCS is a nightmare which we use in our office until the new things in SS5 are delivered. GC is cool but I have not tried it yet.

    One thing I am really missing is parametric unify and subtract - right now this tool is static. That would be a place to start.

  • And note things would not have to always be associated.  You should be able to drop and reattach associations.

    Ustn since 1988
    SS4 - i7-3.45Ghz-16 Gb-250/1Tb/1Tb-Win8.1-64b

    Eric D. Milberger
    Architect + Master Planner + BIM

    Senior  Master Planner NASA - Marshall Space Flight Center

    The Milberger Architectural Group, llc

  • Unknown said:
    the new things in SS5

    Do we have info on that, or just educated guess? Sources, or anyone summarise?

  • Unknown said:
    One thing I am really missing is parametric unify and subtract - right now this tool is static. That would be a place to start.

    I agree! It should be simple and profound as possible... Both Revit and Brics have this concept of 'voids'. They are like 'anti-solids' that you can move around etc that 're-subtract' themselves from what ever they are linked to.

    I suppose the opposite should also be possible. It could something 'simple' like a DE-BOOLEAN or DE-UNITE.... that would allow the freed solid to be manipulated before being re-boolean'd back with something.

    Or, you could upgrade the Workline so that it would be more useful wrt compound walls or extrusions.

    Or, better integrate Feature Solids into the Compound Cell, DGS + F+P system. Maybe FS should be able to manage or be linked to Forms + Slabs.

    Or, allow multiple handles to be manipulated like Rhino5's solid control points.

    Or, enable Driving dimensions that allow solid faces to be driven by dimensions.

    Or, support offsets for TF Joins.

    Or, allow Slabs to join with Forms.

    ...?

    I think most BIM apps allow the parametric control to storey heights /control surfaces because it has the maximum bang for the parametric overhead. It also tends to a relatively short dependency chain.

    PS:

    Revit has a reputation of being not being easy beacause it does not support IFC very well, although I hear that is changing. Even if it supports IFC, IFC does not have a fully-fledged parametric extension. It has a project ongoing for this, which will probably take years to develop.

    In short, I would not argue that we should not have parametrics because it won't translate well. I would say we need parametrics to improve our productivity inside the app, first and foremost. IFC translations are dumb anyway compared to native formats. You will lose a lot of intelligence in translation.