Level Number Map

As has already been explained here by a number of people this concept of the old level number map containing the limited 64 levels was something that was replaced with the Level Display dialog. This is due to the major change in operation between V7 and V8 DGN file format where the amount of levels that can be defined in a file are now virtually unlimited. The concept of the numbers against each level is also a concept that only really remains as a legacy workflow due to these old concepts. I would suggest having a closer look at the operations of the Level Display dialog as it should not be too much of a difference to turn levels on and off like you did before. As you stated the Level Name you have in your design file are still the numbers so you can just a click on each of these levels to turn them on or off.

https://docs.bentley.com/LiveContent/web/MicroStation%20Help-v15/en/LevelDisplay.html

Mr Bell, as a practicing architect of 25+ years, who started in Microstation when it was still on Intergraph VAX-based Clippers, and who now uses, albeit very grudgingly, Revit, I completely understand what Bentley had to do to the layer system. 

I can claim a more than passing familiarity with the layer system, as I was the one who worked with Autodesk's Tech Desk in 2012 to figure out the massive file bloat when one import something from DGN to DWG with . It was a simple translational issue of line type styles, and we needed a translation matrix.  Without which, something fundamental to the element definition structure "fractured" in the DWG file, and files that should've been less than 500KB ended up at 10MB.  It was an intrinsic issue - meaning once you 'infected' a file, deletion of the DGN import, purging, command line purging, nothing but a 'Ctrl-Z' would save your file.  So if you saved and closed out, you were done.

Forgive my digression.  I'm chiming in because I only used Microstation in Arch School, and in am back finishing my MArch at Pratt Institute, while having just scored my first personal architectural commission.  So I'm looking at this from all sides.

And I can absolutely see the point that a small one-man outfit, who uses the 8x8 grid of yore in a visual manner, as I did myself, it is an exceedingly fast & efficient organizational method that keys into an architect's base training - visual cues. For instance, my first row of eight defined primary massing, the second row the form, the third row, the structure, the fourth row, the lighting - it was visual rational planned with rigor and utterly intuitive.  Just as Mr Singleton describes his own methodology from an engineering perspective - it works. 

And yes, only in small projects, with limited no. of staff on it. The latter is a given, as hardly anyone is fluent in Microstation, however, the former, unfortunately due to it's retained use in all major transportation projects within State & Federal jurisdictions means large projects.  The last firm I worked at, Zyscovich Architects, completed in 2020 Miami International Airport's latest terminal.  There's a dedicated transportation studio of Microstation veterans that take these types of project on at Zyscovich.

BUT this doesn't mean the need for the  simpler organizational grid system must be eradicated.  Surely they're not mutually exclusive.  Sometimes, evolution doesn't require the genocide of a species type, if the evolutionary process folds in the adaptation of the previous evolution.  Simply put, we still have the same five senses the cavemen did, we simply have much greater faculty of interpreting their input. 

So yes, this is hearty "Hear hear!" in response to Mr. Singleton's post.  Perhaps if you read my bio, new as I am to this particular forum community, you might see I speak from a position of some fair experience in both academia & professional practice, with full CAD & Revit fluency too.

I'd be grateful if you could acknowledge this message, and ecstatic if you / Bentley expressed a willingness to revisit the issue with someone who was once offered a job there while he was an architectural undergrad, and who has some knowledge of "what goes on behind the scenes", if you will. And as a professional who's just signed his first major commission, I'm more than willing to find reasons to move from Autodesk to Bentley, but there needs to be some development. 

When I first started using Microstation, there was an elegance to the GUI, borne from it's Unix roots.  I'm now seeing a more blocky cumbersome "Windows" look, that just doesn't have the same slickness.  Facility aside, you can get a lot of attention from your GUI.  After all, at the end of the day, all these programs do the same thing.  They're surface modelers with some parametric capability to claim BIM-worthiness.  We're not talking Solidworks, or Catia, or any of the myriad self written / customized software like Ove Arup developed combining computational fluid dynamics with simple prioritized avatar behavior to model likely human surge directions in sudden, drastic fire events in large spaces.  RWDI's CFD analysis software has been customized with materials science in metallurgy.  You have a huge fan, you were the first, you're still the most accurate, and so please.

Sincerely,

TS Yong

Interesting conversation even for non architect as I am. It looks like there is a comparison between MicroStation CONNECT and Revit. Maybe I am wrong.

They are not same type of product. MicroStation CONNECT is a powerful general CAD platform BIM enabled with some functionalities such as item types (custom properties sets), collaborative environment, etc. but it is not engineering specific.
It is the platform for many applications such as Building, Rail, Road, Bridge, Water,...

If we want to do a comparison, then we should compare OpenBuilding Designer to Revit.

Though this is quite off-topic compared to the original topic. 

I agree it's a strange comparison between Microstation and BIM modelling software. Though indeed Microstation offers quite a lot of functionality, with Item Types, which might be a lot more compared to other CAD applications.

A correct comparison to Revit (or ArchiCAD, SketchUp, BricsCAD BIM, ...) would be to Openbuildings Designer. In my opinion Bentley does a good job with OBD, though the remarks about bugs that Barry made is applicable here as well.

When looking at "production" level software (Tekla, Allplan, Advance Steel, ...) the comparison should be made to ProStructures.

Johan De Cock said:

I agree it's a strange comparison between Microstation and BIM modelling software.

Is there a direct comparison being made between Revit and MicroStation??

Barry Lothian said:

Is there a direct comparison being made between Revit and MicroStation??

If not a direct comparison then at least indirect. You said yourself that you used MS V8i on "level 2 BIM projects", then start your argumentation for MS not being a BIM software. In that post and others you repeatedly mention/compare with Revit.

I'd be very interested to know if you ever considered AECOsim / OBD as an alternative? In my opinion going from MS to Revit for construction/building projects is almost as big a step as going from 2D AutoCAD to Revit. 

Johan De Cock said:

I'd be very interested to know

Please, respect the best practices, stay focused to the original question and do not steal the discussion with own new topic.

The original question was about old MicroStation tool, not available in the new versions. When you are interested in comparing products, create a new post.

Regards,

  Jan

Johan De Cock said:

I'd be very interested to know

Please, respect the best practices, stay focused to the original question and do not steal the discussion with own new topic.

The original question was about old MicroStation tool, not available in the new versions. When you are interested in comparing products, create a new post.

Regards,

  Jan