Apologies for the slightly basic question but I'm completely new to Bentley and Microstation.
I'm a long-term AutoCAD and shorter-term Revit user and am considering a position at a company that exclusively uses Microstation (for architectural work) and I am concerned about the transition to another new software platform. They have told me they work almost 100% in 2D at the moment but have plans to go 3D in the near future. They've said they've purchased Microstation and another Bentley package which is 3D (and/or BIM). I'm not sure that the company in question fully understands what true BIM is.
I've looked around here and YouTube but can't conclusively work out if Microstation (or the Bentley add-on package) is true BIM or whether it is merely 3D solid modelling without the true (Revit-like) BIM capabilities of genuine parametric modelling, single shared 3D model, intelligent tagging, scheduling, detailing callouts, (basic) quantification, clash detection etc etc.
Would greatly appreciate any help and guidance on this.
JuJitsoup,
JuJitsoup said:I'm not sure that the company in question fully understands what true BIM is.
Yea... everyone has a different idea of what BIM is. If you have an hour or so to spare it is worth having a look at this debate between Keith Bentley and Phil Bernstein (ADSK) regarding what they saw BIM as.... back in the day.
We use both R*vit and Aecosim in the office to produce BIM-deliverables for some time now. Both apps have their good and bad points. If you think that Aecosim somehow can not produce BIM deliverables then I think that you have been misinformed.
What is unfortunately true is that some the workflows in Aecosim are far clunkier and more error prone compared to R*vit.
JuJitsoup said:genuine parametric modelling,
R*vit's parametric modeling is pretty slick especially if you deal with orthogonal designs. R*vit has improved quite a bit over the years. I am told that London Underground did a shootout comparing both for Crossrail and R*vit couldn't model even the relatively simple tunnel geometry satisfactorily... back then.
Aecosim's parametric modeling tools have been around forever (25+ years) and suffer from a fragmented patchwork UX as result. On the bright side, this seems to be slowly being corrected with Connect.
Genuine: yea... I think that you are refering to the pervasive use parameters in R*vit's Families. I would certainly agree that Revit still has the advantage here. For example. after decades there is still no way to parametrically assign the z-elevation of objects in the model. OTOH, old skool 'datum' modeling is alive and well, so much so, we do a huge amount of work in Rhino (previously Sketchup) before importing into Revit because 3d modeling complex shapes in Revit is so clunky... Yes, the imported Rhino geometry does slow R*vit down.
Also, check out Mstn CE's new Parametric Solids and Constraints tools. Still a bit clunky but very MCAD-like in approach and I think will be a lot more powerful that the constraints tools in R*vit's Family Editor, in the long run.
JuJitsoup said:single shared 3D model
Ouch! Sounds like you haven't been using R*vit long and been drinking out-of-date ADSK kool-aid. Even for middle sized projects, we find that we need to break up or 'federate' the model. When it comes to breaking things up, the old ACAD Xref / Mstn Hypermodeling technology beats Revit's Model Linking hands down in terms of speed and functionality. Something that even ADSK freely admits these days with Project Quantum / Plasma.
Also, Revit bogs down so much that you have to export to Navis to do coordination. I know Model-Linking Navis files is now possible but it is still missing a lot of functionality.
We also find that we need much more support for our R*vit jobs, requiring a lot more 'Model Managers' to clean up the imports/exports, manufacturer's .rfa's, managing R'vit Server, untangling busted synch-to-centrals etc etc, compared to the old more CAD-like and less 'fly-by-wire' Aecosim/Mstn jobbies.
JuJitsoup said:intelligent tagging
Again, I would say that R*vit is slightly ahead but not by much. Shared parameter files are a huge kludge. Aecosim's xml based Datagorup System is better but is not presented very well to the user. Both can be edited using text editing apps (if you know how). Mstn CE's Item Types have a better interface but is still finding its feet.
JuJitsoup said:scheduling
Again, R*vit is still slight ahead, especially for uncomplicated bog standard formats, but Aecosim has the ability to edit and synch all your parameters from Excel. Something that R*vit requires an add on to do, AFAIK.
JuJitsoup said:detailing callouts
Yea.. R'vit is far ahead here, although Mstn's Dynamic Views and Sheet Indexing has been improving... very slowly. Dynamo's ability to reach into R*vit's database to manipulate this kind of non-geometric info (geometric info is handled by Aecosim's GenerativeComponents) is a big advantage.
JuJitsoup said:quantification
Yep.. R*vit QTO is far ahead here. Aecosim solids (Triforma-based) can report plan, elevation etc areas, but Mstn solids can only report total areas.
JuJitsoup said:clash detection
Yea.. I am told R*vit clash detection is better and easier to use. Can't comment as to whether this is due to poor UI, lack of training or a real gap.
JuJitsoup said:etc etc
We could go on and on... but both apps have their pluses and minuses. Since you are coming from ACAD background (ADT?) I think that you will find transitioning to Aecosim / Mstn in many ways more 'natural'. I would definitely register and have a look at the Bentley LEARN server.
OTOH, it does sound like you have already made up your mind. In which case, I wonder if you would be kind enough to come back in a year or two and let us know how best to coordinate 2d details in Revit. This is dead easy in Mstn using Hypermodeling and slightly less so in ACAD using XRefs. Coordinating this kind of 'CAD' info seems pretty iffy in R*vit.
dominic SEAH said:We also find that we need much more support for our R*vit jobs, requiring a lot more 'Model Managers' to clean up the imports/exports, manufacturer's .rfa's,
As a rule of thumb I tried to always not use manufacturers RFA files, they are usually terrible and often contains exported DWG geometry and all other sort of baggage. Instead I always prefer to model my own version of their product using their 2D DWG's as references. However this leads onto another Revit negative.
The 3D tools available within the family editor are very basic and only really lend themselves to hard-surface modelling. I recall wanting to make my own sanitaryware families and I used an awesome piece of software (which you've likely heard of given your use of Rhino) called MOI (Moment of Inspiration). With that I was able to make fantastic little models of Toilets, Sinks etc... save the file as either 3DM or OBJ for import into Revit's family editor. The problem i discovered, the models imported perfectly, were extremely light in file size and excellent in visual quality however, the family editor would not allow you to assign materials to the imported geometry. Such a frustrating disappointment at the time.
dominic SEAH said:let us know how best to coordinate 2d details in Revit. This is dead easy in Mstn using Hypermodeling and slightly less so in ACAD using XRefs. Coordinating this kind of 'CAD' info seems pretty iffy in R*vit.
Not sure I follow the question exactly, can you expand a little more so I'm clear on what any issues/queries you have on detailing?
BTW how are you finding NR's configuration of PW/ABD on HS2? When I was previously working on Crossrail (and other projects) they hadn't configured it correctly and had many imperial settings where they should've been Metric
Barry Lothian said:Not sure I follow the question exactly, can you expand a little more so I'm clear on what any issues/queries you have on detailing?
In Revit, we have 3d Model views, Drafting views and Sheet views. As per the post in the AUGI forum, you can overlay your 2d drawn information if the 2d 'embellished' geometry is in a live 3d 'cut' view, then you would be able to display the 3d elements in the 2d live drafting view to allow checking and tracing over if required for coordination. OK.
But if you need to overlay geometry from elsewhere (say a Drafting view containing some generic details, or something your engineer has given you) you need to in insert/import the Drafting View into a Sheet view. This is pretty complicated compared to the free-and-easy way Mstn (and to a lesser extent ACAD) allows you to Ref attach any file/view to any other file/view.
The way we model, we constantly need to flip between 2d and 3d models. Think of how a joiner makes a piece of furniture (3d). Some tasks are best done in '3d' without any 2d templates. Measure right on the wood block and cut or machine to size. But equally, a lot of joiners will also 'draw' or project the design in 2d either onto paper or on the wood itself before cutting, drilling etc.. You see them measuring and comparing between the wood piece and the 'blueprints' (2d) all the time.
The same kind of back and forth is needed when developing a design on screen. That is what the Hypermodeling vid above shows very well. You model in 3d, and Ref attach (or jump to it using the Marker menu) to overlay the 3d model in your 2d Drawing model. Everything is snappable and you can synch your 2d elements to align with the 3d model.
Or you can go the other way where you have made a change in the 2d drawing and now need to back-Ref (or Ref) the 2d drawn info into the 3d model and tweak the 3d model to align with the 2d drawing.
The same goes for overlaying to visually inspect and compare the models.
Looking at the penultimate AUGI post...
"Nesting the detail elements in the modeled elements is difficult, but provides a high level of coordination between the detail and the model."
Yup. It is comparatively more difficult in Revit.
"That's kind of the 2 ways you can do things. Revit is great a blocking out basic outlines for where items go. From there I'd say it's up to you to decide if you want your details based on Modeled elements or drafting views. I had one team member that would always draw all the details for the exterior and give them to the team and tell them to match the model to the details."
This is an example of a 2d first-modify 3d to suit approach. It is still the preferred method to develop details for users who are 3d proficient. This would be pretty cumbersome to do in Revit, especially if external CAD info is being used / referenced.
"I have another team member that does the opposite and matches the details to the model. I have a 3rd team member that embeds all the detail information into the modeled elements. "
This is an example of a 3d first-2d to follow on approach. I bet that this is a painful process as well. A lot of 3 and 2d features will require variants, and not having any easy way to overlay geometry will be a pain.
"In the first example, that team member works on building that are usually more simplistic in nature, with limited systems and he'd draw the details based on those systems and offsets from the slab edges. He'd been detailing building exteriors for 35+yrs and just knows where everything needs to go. So the designed would tell him what he wanted and give him the basic concept, he would then tell the designer what he was going to get. Then draw all the typical details for the systems and system transitions, give them to the project team and say make the model match the details."
Hmmm... 2d first sounds like it will only be good for simple designs?
"He'd spend about 2 weeks creating drafting views for the project and then provides assistance for any unique conditions. Details were typical in nature and would generally show offsets from slab edges and dimensions for systems. Those drafting views could then be utilized on other projects by simply importing them."
Yea, but what happens when something changes and you need to check an/or update the 3d or/ 2d information. Using Hypermodeling you would be able to back-Ref the models and visually inspect.
"In the 2nd case, the team member was really good at modeling stuff in Revit. So they modeled what they want and where they wanted it. Cut the section, hide the 3d modeled elements and use detail components in the view to create the detail. When the modeled elements would shift, you would need to go thru the views and turn the modeled stuff back on and adjust all the 2d detail elements."
Yup, this would be similar to what you would do in Mstn. But, again, this depends on the 3d model being correct...
"At the end of the project all you had were modeled families and 2d components. You could copy and paste the 2d stuff from model to model and insert the modeled families, but that was about it. No option to easily transfer details from one project to another.
Yup. Why would you need to do this, right? Everything should be derived from the 3d families, right?
"In the 3rd case, this individual was playing the part of Assistant Designer and Project Architect. They were taking direction from the Designer and developing the model. We started with basic components, modeling all the exterior elements and leaving blanks where we didn't know what we were doing.
These 'blanks' will need to be added and coordinated. Important to remember that this missing information is often information in non-Revit format.
"In many cases we were using in-place sweeps created with profile families to fill the gap at system transitions. As the model developed during CD's we started to create detail components and nest those into the sweep profiles and other modeled families used on the exterior."
Nested details with embedded detail geometry? I don't see how this helps with detailing which will always have multiple profiles etc. Sounds like more trouble and masking than anything else.
"When we were done, you could cut a section anywhere in the building and the section was already detailed."
Yea, this is slightly unrealistic, and bound to lead to misleading sectional information at some point. Much better to just detail the bits you need.
"All you really needed to do was add some annotation and dimensions."
... which do not show up in 3d views, BTW.
"When things needed to be adjusted you adjusted the model and those nested detail components and you were done. Change it once and you're done. Worked great. Just super complicated and required a Revit user that was rather experienced and detail orientated."
... because the user is trying to make R*vit do something that it isn't designed to do.
When the project was complete we had tons of detail families and modeled families that just needed to be tweaked for the next project. We were able to save those into a Warehouse file that we can use going forward to pull system components into the next project.
... where the user needs to wrestle with the same problems, all over again.
Its a bit late to be tackling that wall of text but I'll answer what I can.
Dominic Seah said:you can overlay your 2d drawn information if the 2d 'embellished' geometry is in a live 3d 'cut' view,
That doesn't make sense, could be the phrasing but it sounds like you are a little bit confused.
Dominic Seah said:then you would be able to display the 3d elements in the 2d live drafting view to allow checking and tracing over if required for coordination. OK.
again you are confused, drafting views do not display modelled geometry,
Dominic Seah said:But if you need to overlay geometry from elsewhere (say a Drafting view containing some generic details, or something your engineer has given you) you need to in insert/import the Drafting View into a Sheet view.
You would only insert a Drafting view onto a sheet for eventual printing purposes, not for model coordination as the general theme of your post suggests.
Dominic Seah said:This is pretty complicated compared to the free-and-easy way Mstn (and to a lesser extent ACAD) allows you to Ref attach any file/view to any other file/view.
Whilst I get the gist of what you are trying to do and acknowledge the Mstn ref attach freedom, Revit is obviously a different beast and you can do what I believe you are trying to achieve but the difference is, you don't do it in a 3D view but instead in either a section or plan view.
Dominic Seah said:The way we model, we constantly need to flip between 2d and 3d models. Think of how a joiner makes a piece of furniture (3d). Some tasks are best done in '3d' without any 2d templates. Measure right on the wood block and cut or machine to size. But equally, a lot of joiners will also 'draw' or project the design in 2d either onto paper or on the wood itself before cutting, drilling etc.. You see them measuring and comparing between the wood piece and the 'blueprints' (2d) all the time.
Fair enough if that's the type of workflow you are used to.
Dominic Seah said:The same kind of back and forth is needed when developing a design on screen. That is what the Hypermodeling vid above shows very well. You model in 3d, and Ref attach (or jump to it using the Marker menu) to overlay the 3d model in your 2d Drawing model. Everything is snappable and you can synch your 2d elements to align with the 3d model.
From what I could make out of the video, it really didn't tell me a lot but it does show how clunky and messy that model is with all those markers visible in the 3D view. From my experience in Revit, most of my details are derived live from the model and where possible I model as much detail as I can at a suitable LOD to minimise the amount of Detail Components embellishments and other forms of required annotations. If a model updates, then one simply opens up the detail and modifies the annotations as necessary.
Dominic Seah said:Or you can go the other way where you have made a change in the 2d drawing and now need to back-Ref (or Ref) the 2d drawn info into the 3d model and tweak the 3d model to align with the 2d drawing.
Depends if the drawing is a callout from the model or drafting view. If its the latter, I wouldn't need to align it relative to the model at all, I've always found it quite simple to make changes to a model simply by having the drafting view open its own view. If its the former then the model will always be updated first and then the 2D changes secondly.
Dominic Seah said:"Nesting the detail elements in the modeled elements is difficult, but provides a high level of coordination between the detail and the model." Yup. It is comparatively more difficult in Revit.
I'm afraid you were given bum information there. If you have a standalone detail drawn in a Drafting View, simply create a Detail Group from the annotations and insert that into a plan or section view. This allows you to perform a 2D/3D coordination review. Yes its not done in a 3D view but I've never found that a disadvantage at all. I do use the 3D view when I am visually reviewing models from other parties. e.g. structural engineer's models, steelwork contractors IFC model, Metsec framing IFC model etc...
found some old screenshot examples:
Dominic Seah said:No option to easily transfer details from one project to another. Yup. Why would you need to do this, right? Everything should be derived from the 3d families, right?
No option to easily transfer details from one project to another.
Again it comes down to modelled details vs drafting view details. Standard Drafting View details are typically stored in stand-alone RVT files so that they can be inserted into projects.
Dominic Seah said:"In many cases we were using in-place sweeps created with profile families to fill the gap at system transitions. As the model developed during CD's we started to create detail components and nest those into the sweep profiles and other modeled families used on the exterior." Nested details with embedded detail geometry? I don't see how this helps with detailing which will always have multiple profiles etc. Sounds like more trouble and masking than anything else.
Um, not sure he is going on about because what he is talking about isnt achievable afaik. Sweep profiles are very simple in that they contain no internal voids so its only an exterior profile boundary that is used. The geometry produced is not even comparable to what Mstn's 'Solid by Extrusion Along Path' command can produce. Acceptable use of sweeps are things like string courses. Profile families are also used modelling Parapet flashings etc... but not with the sweep tool. Complex extrusions are displayed using Detail Components embellished onto a detail e.g. Curtain Wall Mullion etc...
Dominic Seah said:"When we were done, you could cut a section anywhere in the building and the section was already detailed." Yea, this is slightly unrealistic, and bound to lead to misleading sectional information at some point. Much better to just detail the bits you need.
Not so. As I say, the profiles used are just the external boundary. The benefit if using them to create modelled geometry is that they are visible in all views. If I don't model that parapet cope flashing then I'm not going to see it in my elevations and I sure as hell am not gonna draw that with filled shapes or lines in the elevation view so there is definitely a realistic useage for these.
Dominic Seah said:"All you really needed to do was add some annotation and dimensions."
They are over-simplifying the process unless their details were super-simple.
Dominic Seah said:... which do not show up in 3d views, BTW.
and thank goodness for that, I wouldn't want that anyway.
Dominic Seah said:"When things needed to be adjusted you adjusted the model and those nested detail components and you were done. Change it once and you're done. Worked great. Just super complicated and required a Revit user that was rather experienced and detail orientated
I have to disagree with his statement, its not super-complicated at all that's just nonsense. A level of competence is required but I would expect that with any software be it Mstn or Revit.
Dominic Seah said:... because the user is trying to make R*vit do something that it isn't designed to do.
Is this your personal opinion or have you got a link to an Autodesk authored article where that statement is verified? I'm not aware of your familiarity with Revit workflows or you are simply trying to apply a Bentley BIM approach instead of embracing how it is actually used.
Dominic Seah said:When the project was complete we had tons of detail families and modeled families that just needed to be tweaked for the next project. We were able to save those into a Warehouse file that we can use going forward to pull system components into the next project. ... where the user needs to wrestle with the same problems, all over again.
You do realise that there are many many firms around the world that have catalogues of standard drafting view details that are simply inserted into a project and each view inserted into sheet(s) without any further modification?
Bottom line is, Revit is a completely different piece of software from ABD/OBD with its own workflows. Just because its designed to be operated differently doesn't make it wrong.
Barry, Thanks for the replies.. I will try to respond incrementally:
Barry Lothian said:again you are confused, drafting views do not display modelled geometry,
Perhaps my terminology is off. By live 3d cut view, I mean the Detail view, where the 2d view is a live cut derived from the 3d model. You then 'embellish' the Detail view by adding 2d geometry in the Detail view.
The modeled geometry is visible in the 2d Detail view as sight and cut lines.
Barry Lothian said:You would only insert a Drafting view onto a sheet for eventual printing purposes, not for model coordination as the general theme of your post suggests.
Really? Why? This sounds like trying to take a lack of functionality in R*vit (which will probably be corrected sometime) and hiding it being what is a narrow curated view of 'best practice'. Of course, in reality we do this all the time. We get details (often in dwg's) from the manufacturers, other consultants an need to overlay to check or copy stuff through all the time. No waiting around for someone in MOI to clean things up first. And when using the Ref attachment functionality, you have a much better less error prone link to the referenced info. Standard Mstn /ACAD stuff.
Barry Lothian said:I believe you are trying to achieve but the difference is, you don't do it in a 3D view but instead in either a section of plan view.
Yes, this is what the AUGI poster meant by having to use a Sheet view to host the 2d Drafting and live 3d cut (Detail view). As mentioned this is a lot of faff compared to what has been long available available in Mstn and even ACAD.
Love to see how R*vit users get on site, when they are inundated with 2d drawings (dwg's) and maybe an unlinked 3d model and have to check the design againts their design. In Mstn, you would simply Ref attach the drawings and overlay for visual inspection. In R*vit you will need someone to clean up the files first. Yes, I know. Export your Sheet out to DWG from and overlay in ACAD is the usual workaround....
Barry Lothian said:Fair enough if that's the type of workflow you are used to.
Yea, I sometimes forget that we architects tend to have a much more messy workflow compared to engineers and drafters/modelers who only see the 'final' design after all the messy stuff is done... and moan when even a small change is required after they are done. :-)
Barry Lothian said:From what I could make out of the video, it really didn't tell me a lot but it does show how clunky and messy that model is with all those makers visible in the 3D view.
I think that you are missing the point. The ability to back-Ref the 2d detail while in the 3d model is very powerful design/coordination tool and has nothing to do with drawing legibility. You deal with that in the Sheet model. In the Revit context, the equivalent would be the ability to display the geometry in your Drafting views in a 3d model (in isometric or perspective) with the right orientation/scaling on demand.
Barry Lothian said:From my experience in Revit, most of my details are derived live from the model and where possible I model as much detail as I can at a suitable LOD to minimise the amount embellishments of Detail Components and other forms of required annotations.
Yes, this is the 3d first approach mentioned by the AUGI poster. Please note that this works for very small or simple models, and structural / mech models where the components tend to parametric and well defined. But for problematic for architectural models where the advice has always been for the last decade to limit the amount of 3d detail.
Barry Lothian said:If a model updates, then one simply opens up the detail and modifies the annotations as necessary.
'Simply'? This is where I don't think it is very simple due to the lack of Ref attachment tools. At the basic level, if you detail changes, its back to Copy+Paste. Model linking at Drafting view level would be a nightmare. And the only way to check / coordinate a dimension in the Drafting view and the corresponding element in the 3d model would be to manually measure both and check.
Barry Lothian said: I wouldn't need to align it relative to the model at all, I've always found it quite simple to make changes to a model simply by having the drafting view open its own view. If its the former then the model will always be updated first and then the 2D changes secondly.
Like this...? Only if you had no other alternatives. This might be acceptable for relatively simple updates, presumably where the user knows the job or gets precise instructions... otherwise very problematic.
dominic SEAH said:Perhaps my terminology is off. By live 3d cut view, I mean the Detail view, where the 2d view is a live cut derived from the 3d model. You then 'embellish' the Detail view by adding 2d geometry in the Detail view. The modeled geometry is visible in the 2d Detail view as sight and cut lines.
Yes that's the process for creating a live detail derived from the model, it has nothing to do with a drafting view whereby your original comment was:
I'm guessing you didn't actually mean to say drafting view (nothing wrong with that, I get confused with OBD/ABD's terminology that is common with Revit but means an entirely different thing). As for the latter part of the statement, yes you could bring in a 2D detail from an outside party and review it in context though I've personally not had to do that once. Typically I would have been dealing with other models as mentioned previously which would be reviewed in 2D & 3D.
dominic SEAH said:Really? Why? This sounds like trying to take a lack of functionality in R*vit (which will probably be corrected sometime) and hiding it being what is a narrow curated view of 'best practice'. Of course, in reality we do this all the time. We get details (often in dwg's) from the manufacturers, other consultants an need to overlay to check or copy stuff through all the time. No waiting around for someone in MOI to clean things up first. And when using the Ref attachment functionality, you have a much better less error prone link to the referenced info. Standard Mstn /ACAD stuff.
It has nothing to do with your own perceived view of what is best practice, its down to the simple fact that you cannot take a sheet view and overlay it in a model view, the function doesn't exist in the software. If the detail is live from the model, you wouldn't need to do any overlaying as its already in place. If the detail is a drafting view then you make a detail group and can therefore overlay that against a temporary model detail/section. I did already explain that in my previous post.
dominic SEAH said:Yes, this is what the AUGI poster meant by having to use a Sheet view to host the 2d Drafting and live 3d cut (Detail view). As mentioned this is a lot of faff compared to what has been long available available in Mstn and even ACAD.
As per above, you do not have to insert a Drafting View onto a sheet to compare against the live model.
dominic SEAH said:Love to see how R*vit users get on site, when they are inundated with 2d drawings (dwg's) and maybe an unlinked 3d model and have to check the design againts their design. In Mstn, you would simply Ref attach the drawings and overlay for visual inspection.
From my experience, I received consultants/sub-contractors models long in advance of works starting on site. Being the architectural lead I always insisted that the Structural Engineer coordinates their model with my own using shared positioning. Sometime they weren't comfortable doing it and were happy for me to set it up for them. The result being any new model I get just links into the correct location every time. If the contractor is using something non-Revit e.g. Metsec uses Tekla Structures, I worked with their Engineers & Technicians who can export an IFC file and it can then be quickly aligned using the project grid. A simple task that takes 1 minute to complete. Same thing with Topo surveys, just link it into the model the same as a Reference File.
dominic SEAH said:In R*vit you will need someone to clean up the files first. Yes, I know. Export your Sheet out to DWG from and overlay in ACAD is the usual workaround....
Do you? Why?
dominic SEAH said:I think that you are missing the point. The ability to back-Ref the 2d detail while in the 3d model is very powerful design/coordination tool and has nothing to do with drawing legibility. You deal with that in the Sheet model. In the Revit context, the equivalent would be the ability to display the geometry in your Drafting views in a 3d model (in isometric or perspective) with the right orientation/scaling on demand.
I'm not missing any point, I perfectly accept that you feel it beneficial to view the 2D detail in a 3D context I personally don't feel it gives me any benefit as I can see the same geometry only from an orthogonal viewpoint. There is also no such thing called a sheet model in Revit so I can't be sure what you mean by that.
dominic SEAH said:Yes, this is the 3d first approach mentioned by the AUGI poster. Please note that this works for very small or simple models, and structural / mech models where the components tend to parametric and well defined. But for problematic for architectural models where the advice has always been for the last decade to limit the amount of 3d detail.
It also works perfectly fine for larger or more complex models just fine as well. It sounds like you are misunderstanding the usage of the what is being said and the complexity (or lack thereof) of the geometry. A rule users should abide by is that you NEVER bloat your model with unnecessary geometry e.g. window head/jamb sill profiles using a DWG from a manufacturer. Instead you model the basic outline to be seen in 3D/Building Sections/Elevations/Plans etc... When it comes to detail, you insert a complex representation of the object as a detail component and hide the simple modelled object if necessary. There is a world of difference between those type of visually complex extrusions that those simple profiles are used to create modelled geometry which is what I and the AUGI poster have been explaining. The geometry created by this process is light-weight.
dominic SEAH said:Barry Lothian said:If a model updates, then one simply opens up the detail and modifies the annotations as necessary. 'Simply'? This is where I don't think it is very simple due to the lack of Ref attachment tools. At the basic level, if you detail changes, its back to Copy+Paste. Model linking at Drafting view level would be a nightmare. And the only way to check / coordinate a dimension in the Drafting view and the corresponding element in the 3d model would be to manually measure both and check.
Again you are misunderstanding what is being said and it has nothing to do with any lack of ref attachment tools nor any copy and paste operation. If an object is modelled using a profile family (using either the sweep/gutter/fascia tools) and a change is required, the user simply edits the profile family and the modelled extrusion automatically updates and so does what you see in the detail and all the other views. Nothing difficult about that at all.
dominic SEAH said:I wouldn't need to align it relative to the model at all, I've always found it quite simple to make changes to a model simply by having the drafting view open its own view. If its the former then the model will always be updated first and then the 2D changes secondly. Like this...? Only if you had no other alternatives. This might be acceptable for relatively simple updates, presumably where the user knows the job or gets precise instructions... otherwise very problematic.
I wouldn't need to align it relative to the model at all, I've always found it quite simple to make changes to a model simply by having the drafting view open its own view. If its the former then the model will always be updated first and then the 2D changes secondly.
Like what? I don't follow what your point is.
...cont.
Barry Lothian said:If you have a standalone detail drawn in a Drafting View, simply create a Detail Group from the annotations and insert that into a plan or section view. This allows you to perform a 2D/3D coordination review.
As I understand it, a Detail Group is akin to a Cell or Block. They have to be inserted into a Drafting view. Not sure how this helps with 2d/3d coordination? Are you saying that you would be able to place the Detail Group into a 3d Model view?
Barry Lothian said:Yes its not done in a 3D view but I've never found that a disadvantage at all.
Yes, I've never driven a Bentley either... but it doesn't mean I don't want to or it won't be a superior ride :-)
Barry Lothian said:Standard Drafting View details are typically stored in stand-alone RVT files so that they can be inserted into projects.
I think the AUGI poster was referring to the difficulty of transferring Details between projects, due to the unlinked and isolated nature of the Drafting views. I think that he does know that you can export them as separate .rvt
Barry Lothian said:Um, not sure he is going on about because what he is talking about isnt achievable afaik.
Actually, as long as you keep the Detail geometry within the Profile, you can kind do what he is describing. This kind of thing has been discussed in the forums and with Bentley. The problem is that it is too easy to get carried away and deviate from what the linear or swept object's actual composition. Example would be a concrete beam, where the rebar will vary along its length.
Barry Lothian said:Not so. As I say, the profiles used are just the external boundary.
See above.
Barry Lothian said:They are over-simplifying the process unless their details were super-simple.
Agreed... BTW not my words.
Barry Lothian said:and thank goodness for that, I wouldn't want that anyway.
Actually, you do want the text when you are coordinating in 3d. All kinds of important information. Example, welding and finish information is not modeled but annotated. As mentioned above, Sheet model is there to clean things up for drawing readability.
Barry Lothian said:I have to disagree with his statement,
We will have to agree to disagree. I have to say, embedding the detail geometry within the sweep profiles would not be an obvious way forward to most users. It also creates a lot of management overheads, and will trip up users who are not aware of the 'trick'.
Barry Lothian said:Is this your personal opinion or have you got a link to an Autodesk authored article where that statement is verified?
Hmmm... yes, it is not based on a sanctioned statement. It is of course possible that I've missed the secret button somewhere but it is obvious that R*vit struggles to work this way. Regardless, the AUGI poster seems to agree with me, and he uses R*vit on daily basis.
Interesting to note that as the project gets bigger and bigger, the more like Mstn/ACAD the set up becomes... running counter to R*vit's 'everything in one model' origins. I bet that's not a sanctioned workflow either.
Barry Lothian said:You do realise that there are many many firms around the world that have catalogues of standard drafting view details that are simply inserted into a project and each view inserted into sheet(s) without any further modification?
Yes, I have been extremely surprised to see how much of it can be completely uncoordinated! I suppose its a case of don't blame your tools and BIM is a process blah blah.
Barry Lothian said:Just because its designed to be operated differently doesn't make it wrong.
Not right or wrong, just challenged...especially for large complex projects. I suppose that's why they are working on Project Plasma. That is not to say there aren't things in R*vit that Mstn users would give XYZ to have....
Dominic Seah said:As I understand it, a Detail Group is akin to a Cell or Block. They have to be inserted into a Drafting view. Not sure how this helps with 2d/3d coordination? Are you saying that you would be able to place the Detail Group into a 3d Model view?
No, I already explained this before. A detail group can be created FROM the contents of a drafting view and THEN inserted into either of the following:
Once again, you CANNOT load a detail group into a 3D view. If you don't believe me then see the image below where a 3D view is activated and the option is greyed out.
Dominic Seah said:Yes, I've never driven a Bentley either... but it doesn't mean I don't want to or it won't be a superior ride :-)
Bentley huh? I see what you did there...I'd take a Nissan Skyline R34 GT-R V·Spec II Nür over a Bentley any day of the week.
I've worked on projects in Mstn where a 3D view was used in combination with orthogonal views of multiple ACS & clip volumes (positioning 3D models of OLE structure brackets in contexts against a point clouds of viaducts and cuttings). Was the 3D view beneficial? Not really, it played no part in the alignment process. All it provided is a contextual view of the geometry and the point cloud made pretty by Descartes, all after the critical positioning exercise was completed in ortho views.
For the record, are you actually aware of the fundamental difference between a 3D view in Mstn and Revit? Are you also aware of the rules of annotations within Revit views?
Dominic Seah said:Actually, as long as you keep the Detail geometry within the Profile, you can kind do what he is describing. This kind of thing has been discussed in the forums and with Bentley. The problem is that it is too easy to get carried away and deviate from what the linear or swept object's actual composition. Example would be a concrete beam, where the rebar will vary along its length.
That's not what I was referring to, what I meant was I couldn't recall if a profile family with inner voids could create a modelled extrusion. I've just tested it and it can but I'm not sure I would ever go to those extents. What that Youtube video shows I would also likely NOT do either. Reason being, if I had a building section, all those detail components would be visible making a large dark mess. I would prefer to add the components in the (likely only 1) detail view where it should be seen at the appropriate scale.
Dominic Seah said:Actually, you do want the text when you are coordinating in 3d. All kinds of important information. Example, welding and finish information is not modeled but annotated.
If I tell you I wouldn't want to see text or other annotations in a 3D view then believe me, i REALLY don't and stating that I do isn't going to change that fact. Perhaps YOU want it, I dont have the need for it as I get to see that information in the other view types.
Dominic Seah said: As mentioned above, Sheet model is there to clean things up for drawing readability.
You refer to a sheet model, are we talking about a Bentley product now? If not the statement suggests to me that you don't understand how annotation is done in Revit.
Dominic Seah said:We will have to agree to disagree. I have to say, embedding the detail geometry within the sweep profiles would not be an obvious way forward to most users. It also creates a lot of management overheads, and will trip up users who are not aware of the 'trick'.
If you re-read what I said before and the response above:
At no point did I advocate the process of nesting detail components in sweeps.
Dominic Seah said:Hmmm... yes, it is not based on a sanctioned statement. It is of course possible that I've missed the secret button somewhere but it is obvious that R*vit struggles to work this way. Regardless, the AUGI poster seems to agree with me, and he uses R*vit on daily basis.
Am I missing something in his posts that you are reading as I don't see anything he says that he agrees with you. You made an initial post asking a question and he provided answers, not you making a statement and him agreeing with it. You still aren't clarifying where Revit is supposedly struggling. It sounds more like you are struggling to accepts Revit's workflows because you are used to doing things in a Bentley manner which happens to be different.
Dominic Seah said:Interesting to note that as the project gets bigger and bigger, the more like Mstn/ACAD the set up becomes... running counter to R*vit's 'everything in one model' origins. I bet that's not a sanctioned workflow either.
That post was from 2016 and significant improvements were made since then in the handling of larger files. I didn't get around to testing 2019 and I believe 2020 is now out so I expect yet even further improvements have been made since. From my experience I never found any slowdown and my last project was modelled with a more granular approach that a would typically be done, still worked absolutely fine though. I don't know where you get the 1 model theory from, standard approach on any project involves at least 2 RVT files not 1 (and that's just for the Architectural discipline)
Dominic Seah said:Yes, I have been extremely surprised to see how much of it can be completely uncoordinated! I suppose its a case of don't blame your tools and BIM is a process blah blah.
Standard details that I am aware companies often insert from project to project where applicable are typically partition/door details etc... There is no need for coordination for such details because they would have been created and reviewed internally until deemed acceptable to office standards and therefore ready for insertion into different projects. Do you disagree with that or do you coordinate all your metal stud partition details with 12.5mm Gyproc wallboard on both sides against all your modelled walls of such construction 'just in case'? Do you sleep better at night having done so?
Dominic Seah said:Not right or wrong, just challenged...especially for large complex projects. I suppose that's why they are working on Project Plasma.
Well that's your viewpoint but it is not one based on experience which is conveyed by your questions and assumptions. I could be forgiven for thinking formed its from heresay, opinions of others and cherry-picking forum threads for years gone by but I'm not one that jumps to conclusions. I also know users who would also challenge that assumption and they are likely more experienced that the guy in the AUGI thread. I'm not sure what future change in direction Revit will take but for the moment its not something I have to worry about.
Dominic Seah said:That is not to say there aren't things in R*vit that Mstn users would give XYZ to have....
Some initial things that spring to mind:
There is also the inverse, some tasks in Revit are an absolute PITA to perform: