I see 2 ways to create a Group in MicroStation:
- Named Group.
Group is very limitated because I understand we cannot add/remove elements later. And it is basically a Cell.
I understand that "Graphic Group" is a Named Group...
Because tools such as "Add to Graphic Group" and "Remove From Graphic group" are only for "Named Groups".
There is also "Graphic Group Lock" (ON /OFF) for Named Groups.
Why Bentley differenciates between Graphic Group and Named Group? is not the same? Is the old name of Named Group?
Joan Martínez Serra said:I see 2 ways to create a Group in MicroStation:
- Named Group.
the worst is that it is one dialog - in my view - "Add to Graphic Group" there you have to switch on the Option "Named Group" . Without you get GG, with the option an NG.
That is confusing.
Named Groups allow dependencies and "active" and "passive" members.
The worst is though that you can not copy that "Named Group" (or create a cell from it) ( it is a longstanding request) - In effect the Named Groups are not useable in practice.
You can copy GGs (it increases the GG Number)
Also - to confuse new users ? - there is the "Group" command which effectively creates an (unnamed) cell. (You can give it a name later in the properties)
Need help for the selected function? Click into the "Toolsettings" dialog and press F1 For Screenshots try Win+Shift+S on your Keyboard - Using "ScreenRecorder" for Videos Brauchst Du Hilfe zur gewählen Funktion? Klicke in das "Funktionseinstellungsfenster" und drücke F1
Gerd Eisenacher said:In effect the Named Groups are not useable in practice.
I strongly disagree with such general statement, especially because I know users that use NG daily.
It does not mean that NG is not usable for you.
Gerd Eisenacher said:The worst is though that you can not copy that "Named Group"
Similarly to Jon I do not quite understand what do you mean by "copy NG":
Gerd Eisenacher said: (or create a cell from it) ( it is a longstanding request)
I do not recall I saw such request in ideas, but they are many of them, so maybe I missed it.
The request sounds interesting, but is not simple, because NG allows "far referencing", when elements in NG can be from active model, and from direct/nested references. So more conditions have to be fulfilled to allow to create a cell from NG content.
Gerd Eisenacher said:Also - to confuse new users ? - there is the "Group" command which effectively creates an (unnamed) cell.
Well, it's a result of history and only limited "good words" in language. Do you have any idea how one or second tool should be renamed?
Bentley Accredited Developer: iTwin Platform - AssociateLabyrinth Technology | dev.notes() | cad.point
Well, If you have a NG say "Workplace" - desk, chair, computer etc. and try to copy it. At least last time I did that I just got separate elements. Not a NG called e.g. "Workplace_001" or something alike.
I like the capability to have active and passive members, but ...
What is the idea of a Group that you can not copy? Same when you try to create a cell from a NG. I guess I have filed an idea from that - (including further discussions) Yes, you are right that this does not fit my idea of a group.
GGs can be copied on the other hand. They are just counted forward.
Remember GGs and NGs are created through the same dialog...
Regarding the history and naming I may have an idea...
GGs could be a "Loose Group" (thats how they behave depending if you have GG-Lock on or off) - kind of obscure though
NGs could be "Habit Group" or maybe "Subject Group" (as they the prominent feature to have active/passive members) - also kind of obscure if you have not created them yourself - (they perhaps could visually better show their dependency?)
But they should also be able to be put in a "catalog" or "library" and maintain their (active/passive) functionality. To reuse them.
Otherwise we have the "Cell" grouping through the "Grouping" function - or Ctrl-G - which results in an unnamed cell.
(I stop here as this leads to nested cells etc., Shared Cells also to the Items + labeling of items (legacy Tags) and further stuff)
Jan Šlegr said: NG allows "far referencing"
I have obviously not grabbed that...
The out-of-the-box functionality of NGs and GGs may serve a purpose if you include them in add-ons or craft specifc extensions. In pure microStation I do not see much of a benefit. (?)Maybe you can describe a workflow to use them in vanilla microStation?
Well I learned something new today. I very occasionly utilize graphic group. So I had to mess with named groups, just to see. I created a group, added a few elements, went to copy it. With graphic group lock on it copies as a group, GG lock off it ignores the group. So that's confusing. I also wonder if named groups are automatically created in any scenario (like GG does). And where's the bidness to make the named group a cell. Still learning.
Connect r16 10.16.03.11 self-employed
I guess you are mixing up GG with NG. A "simple" GG (numbered) you can copy when GG-lock is on.
A named group can not be copied.
A named group can even get elements from a reference attached.
So what can we do with a named group?
If it has elements from a reference you cant move the group as a whole - obviously.
You can copy the named group elements. But then you end up with just the single elements.
You can create a display set from a NG, nice.... communities.bentley.com/.../named-groups-displaysets-and-quick-sets
What else? Obviously I was expecting something different,,,
Gerd Eisenacher said:I guess you are mixing up GG with NG. A "simple" GG (numbered) you can copy when GG-lock is on.
No. I did a simple test. Opened the Named Group dialog, created a new group, added a few elements. I then copied those elements. They all copy as a named group with graphic group lock on. With the lock off they do not copy as a group. Although as individual elements they still show as being part of a group.
There is lots I do not know about this, new to me, function. But in it's simplest form it does indeed recognize graphic group lock.
When a Named Group is copied, the copied elements are no longer part of a group. They may have been copied together, but after the copying they have no relation to each other. This, to me, makes them a limited usage item. I mean, it's great I have a group of these things, but that's kind of all I see. I would like the ability to copy a named group and end up with another (probably incremented) named group, or at least an unnamed graphic group.
I dislike graphic groups because there is no visual cue as to what elements are in the GG, and elements can be manipulated separately (with the selection tool) even if the graphic group lock is on. I can't think of how many times some unrelated element accidentally got included in a graphic group, to end up moved or rotated or otherwise manipulated in unexpected ways (because it wasn't supposed to be part of a GG!).
There is another type of group that is not a Graphic Group nor a Named Group, and that is the type of group that creates orphan cells. This is actually the type I use most often because it is most useful to me. I can create it on the fly, it is not dependent on any lock status, and if I need to make a copy of this orphan cell group, I get another orphan cell group (still grouped). While this tool is often discouraged, I love it because of the ease of use.
Microstation 08.11.09.919Power GeoPak 08.11.09.918Power InRoads 08.11.09.918
MaryB said:When a Named Group is copied...
You can assign a propagation policy to a Named Group.
Bob Rayner said: Opened the Named Group dialog, created a new group, added a few elements. I then copied those elements. They all copy as a named group with graphic group lock on
One propagation policy is just that: the Change Propagation options are: Group Lock — only when Graphic Group Lock is on.
Regards, Jon Summers LA Solutions
MaryB said:love it because of the ease of us
So lets define what the use of each of these groupings is Including use cases.I have a hard time to find examples for some. And maybe how they can be advanced (in ideas)
Jan Šlegr said:I know users that use NG daily
I would like to understand how they are utilizing them.
Jon Summers said:You can assign a propagation policy
OK, can one give me an example of a use case? Is this not very obscure? How do I "see" as a subsequent user how these settings have been done for a particular group?
Gerd Eisenacher said:Is this not very obscure?
I think that Named Groups were devised by Barry Bentley for MicroStation V8i. I don't believe that he intended them to be obscure. As with many things, it's subjective whether something is obscure or arcane; familiarity with NG use will lessen FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt/Angst, Unsicherheit und Zweifel).
Right, but obviously some (including me) would like to know use cases to then decide whether they are applicable for them. We often "think" we understand - like here - only to hit a invisible wall. Maybe it is my lack of imagination (or intellectual capability...)