I have a kazillion Parts now how do I make DGWalls

I have a Kazillion Parts

I cane create any building I want with Forms and Assemblies and don't need the BIM smarts.

It shoudl be easy to impliment but I need a step by step guide as I don't have a week to pull things together and figure them out.

How do I create my OWN DG Wall Catalog in my Dataset Directory (NOT the Aecsom Dataset)

How do I add One Wall - Step by Step (DG Wall)

How do I add One Assembly to become a Compound Wall  (DG Assembly)

AND A QUESTION VERY LOUDLY:

If I have created a part, a good wall or assembly -
with good naming of that part
And a good naming for that assembly

WHY can I not push a button that ASKS FOR A NAME AND CREATES A CATALOG.

WHY can I not just push a button - and it ask what catalog - and it take my part and with the name already given it now just open a wall with the part name (which by the way matches the masterformat standards - AND matches specification Standards - And Marches Kenoting Standards)

WHY can I not just push a button  - and it ask what ctalog - and it make my Compound Wall (DG WALL ASSEMBLY).

You can establish seed walls and assemblies for the catalogs.

Note that the Name and Description of the part - and the definitions within the part and the part itself will fill in much of hte catalog informaiton and hten wait for you to finish.

What is the reason this is not made simplier.   

Parents
  • Eric,

    Are you actually asking a question here or just complaining that the software does not behave the way you think it should?  If I sift through all of the rhetoric I think your question is 'how do I create a DG Wall that is linked to your Parts & Compound Parts that you have created?'.  

    1. To create a DataGroup Catalog Item in your own dataset directory, I suggest you search for the "Creating DataGroup Catalog Items" section in the ABD Help menu.

    2. With Walls the only thing you will need to do differently from the Help section referenced above is that the Property "Part Definition" will be used to link the geometry (Family::Part) to the data (DG Catalog Item) rather than the ParaDef properties discussed in the Help section.  

    2a.  If you are trying to link a Compound Part to the DG Catalog Item, then you need to make sure that the property Compound Wall Assembly is TRUE (checked ON), while single layer Parts Compound Wall Assembly should be FALSE.

    Optional: You could create a MY_OWN_Wall Template Wall that is stored in your dataset directory that for creating future walls you simply open the Place Wall tool, select the template wall and choose the Save As option at the top of the dialog to give it a name.  

    The reality is that there are many things that go into why it doesn't work the way you (or me, or Kevin, or Jane, or Frank, or...) want it to work.  Complaining on this forum is not the way to get that changed.  If you feel passionately about it, I would suggest that you submit a Change Request through the Service Ticket Manager.  

    -travis



  • Unknown said:
    The reality is that there are many things that go into why it doesn't work the way you (or me, or Kevin, or Jane, or Frank, or...) want it to work.  Complaining on this forum is not the way to get that changed.  If you feel passionately about it, I would suggest that you submit a Change Request through the Service Ticket Manager.

    Travis,

    Actually, the reality is the UI will always be a major driver or impediment for productivity... and this has financial consequences for Bentley clients. It's not some 'personal choice' thing.

    Change Requests? Sure, but I think publishing the issues in the forum is a good first step. As your reply illustrates; its a great place to learn and have many 'eyes' look at something... for a balanced view or share workarounds. I have never really learned much from the Service Ticket Manager.

    Are you worried about 'bad publicity'? Don't worry... have a look at Revit, BRICSYS BIM, ArchiCAD etc... plenty of complaints.

    Back to DG:FP definition. I would say that it could be a lot better. Have a look at how BRICS BIM, for exmaple.  Although I would say even their approach to compound elements is not particularly great either. Same Triforma roots...? http://www.bricsys.com/common/applications/application.jsp?app=70

    But the one thing they did get right, here, was allowing the user to create objects like walls etc from one place / dailog box.... using a layered and cascading approach to managing all that FP, DGS quants etc data underneath.

Reply
  • Unknown said:
    The reality is that there are many things that go into why it doesn't work the way you (or me, or Kevin, or Jane, or Frank, or...) want it to work.  Complaining on this forum is not the way to get that changed.  If you feel passionately about it, I would suggest that you submit a Change Request through the Service Ticket Manager.

    Travis,

    Actually, the reality is the UI will always be a major driver or impediment for productivity... and this has financial consequences for Bentley clients. It's not some 'personal choice' thing.

    Change Requests? Sure, but I think publishing the issues in the forum is a good first step. As your reply illustrates; its a great place to learn and have many 'eyes' look at something... for a balanced view or share workarounds. I have never really learned much from the Service Ticket Manager.

    Are you worried about 'bad publicity'? Don't worry... have a look at Revit, BRICSYS BIM, ArchiCAD etc... plenty of complaints.

    Back to DG:FP definition. I would say that it could be a lot better. Have a look at how BRICS BIM, for exmaple.  Although I would say even their approach to compound elements is not particularly great either. Same Triforma roots...? http://www.bricsys.com/common/applications/application.jsp?app=70

    But the one thing they did get right, here, was allowing the user to create objects like walls etc from one place / dailog box.... using a layered and cascading approach to managing all that FP, DGS quants etc data underneath.

Children
  • Unknown said:
    publishing the issues in the forum is a good first step. As your reply illustrates; its a great place to learn and have many 'eyes' look at something... for a balanced view or share workarounds

    Say that loud and clear - otherwise just look at the dangers of Forum u/s

    Mind you, it would help if participants in the discussion would write less sketchily, less jargon, spell out acronyms at least once, not skip over steps, with actual wish and intention to be widely understood. Am I alone, after a year in the AECOsim world, in still mostly not understanding what you old hands are on about? Well, maybe I am indeed the only newby in the whole Bentley world.

    I am entitled to say this, because I see every day the benefit of taking the trouble to write inclusively, on e.g. http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk where, as one of the old hands, many of us use our top-level debates and discussions as a teaching tool for the many newbys on there. This not only helps bring them along, but also immensely clarifies what we're trying to say, to ourselves as well.

    The result can be seen - GBF is incredibly lively, stimulating, good humoured and challenging, a 'university of the air', while this forum is a closed shop for old hands, with an insufferably heavy feel to it. If there was any alternative, like the excellent http://www.cadtutor.net/forum/forum.php for Acad (and many others but not Bentley), then I'd certainly be there, not here.

  • Travis - yes to both questions.  It is a complaint as it should not be so difficult.

    I read your explination - the problem is it made me more confused.  If I knew how to do it it would be easy.

    My Job is an Architect, not a programmer and not a draftsman.  I design with this tool.

    I understood I have to create a catalog - well how - step by step -  as the last time I tried the instructions did not spell out each step.  Peices were missing or did not work as in the example.

    Also the last time I did things were buggy so I had to give up.

    Realize I can draw an entire project with just parts and form NO DG required.

    So if creating the DGwall from a part takes an hour and I have 100 parts to change over - well I just lost all my profit.

    I tried again last month to create wall and after two days had to stop and go back to work.  I am better on some things than some and a beginner on others.  so it is not a lack of wanting but the lack of time.

    So the Question is.

    Where can I find a step by step to creating walls and then wall assemblies.

    By the way the change order was requested when BA first became available.

    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:
    Are you worried about 'bad publicity'? Don't worry... have a look at Revit, BRICSYS BIM, ArchiCAD etc... plenty of complaints.

    No, I am not worried about bad publicity and I probably share a lot of the same thoughts as many of you about how things could be made more intuitive, but I also know there are many intricacies behind the scenes that make it difficult.  I am in Bentley Professional Services, not Bentley Software so I can not do anything about changing the software; that is not my call to make.  I simply feel that all these posts that have a question buried in a rant about how this or that should function loses the effectiveness of this forum as an forum for sharing knowledge and providing help to those who need it.  

    If you want to rant, start a different thread.  Do not ask for help and then bash things in the same post.  I personally am not obligated to participate on this forum, I do it on my own time and out of my desire to make our users more effective and profitable.  I really do not want to take the time to help those people that insist on ranting after they ask for help.  I would rather help those users that post questions without the backhanded comments embedded.  In addition to this, I feel that if 50% of these threads turn into a rant then this forum's effectiveness as a knowledgebase of solutions is lost because you have to hunt and peck for the solution to user questions buried in the jibber jabber.  

    The developers and product managers are probably more likely to respond to requests for change if you bring them up in a constructive manner.  I know I would much rather read someones thoughts on how a particular tool could be improved without someone throwing rhetoric in ALL CAPS.  To be honest with you, the development team has done an amazing amount of work with a limited amount of resources over the last couple years, but most people only know of a small percentage of what has been done because they don't take update training or read the Help or the release notes.  

    You all are welcome to post to this forum as you wish, but I know that I will not be offering help those that spend more time complaining than seeking solutions.  I am an architect first and a BIM technologist second.  As such I have always looked to provide the best solutions & workflows to getting the job done as an architect or an engineer with the tools that are available to me rather than trying to make the software something that it is not.

    Can't we all just get along?

    -Travis



  • Not to be a rant and do appreciate all the help - it is appreciated but it is frustrating at times especially when you are dealing with multiple issues.

    Just trying to find something that explains how to do something.  That is a challenge in itself.

    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