Cells vs shared cells.

Here is the section of the Help file that explains the differences. https://docs.bentley.com/LiveContent/web/MicroStation%20Help-v23/en/GUID-6B18AF53-C01E-2D58-971C-C2AD1B7BE502.html

Personally, I do not like shared cells and any time I come across a file that uses them I use the keyin <Delete SCDefs All>. That wat each cell is its own entity rather than grouped to the first instance of a particular cell. Way too many issues experienced with shared cells.

mwlong said:

Way too many issues experienced with shared cells.

It is only because of bad implementation of them by Bentley development. It is normal cells which actually should be avoided but lack of proper tools make it otherway around and SC are non-natively "hacked" into DGN format so feel out of place. 

I disagree, because I run into some of these issues in AutoCAD with blocks as well. Having a single definition that cannot be edited or modified without affecting every other instance just causes too many problems. or a massive block library of a thousand similar (but not identical) blocks.

For example, I have a single cell for my "Road Closed Ahead" traffic signs. There are some instances where I need "Road Closed 500 ft". Both of these are paid for as the same sign code (XW20-3). This code happens to be the name of the cell, making reports, labels and counts simple. With normal cells, I can place my regular XW20-3, and if I need the variant, I can simply edit "Ahead" to read "500 ft" and move along. Labels, counts and reports work without any extra effort. If I use shared cells, I now have to create a separate cell for the "500 ft" variant, with a different name (that no longer patches my pay item, and will not show up as desired in reports).

That's just one example of why normal cells work better for me.

The edits can be avoided by using tags/attributes. As I said only bad implementation makes them unusable and that definition can't be easy accessed for edits.

I agree with Oto, I have to deal with DWG that I have to carry forward and deliver DWGs

There are actual bugs with shared cells that I have filed and that are recognized but not solved. Eg, the fact that microStation does not show the Blockname (that you see in AC) but shows the blockdescription as cellname. This results in those ommious "(Star)-Cellnames that you get when the blockdescription is not defined in a DWG block.

Also the lack of the announced (see the ideas section) Block/cell edtior (wich allows to edit blocks in-file in AC)

I always fostered the idea of trying to not use blocks/shared cells. But my reality (needing to dangle with DWGs) requires a better implementation - Or I need to swap to AC...)

This list of issues seems to be still actual - communities.bentley.com/.../309448

I also agree here. Although the attributes implementation in microStation is also bad. I tried to use attributes  /labels. Cells with attributes do not copy straightfoward (you need to collect them in a selection set together with the block before copying.

I also ran into loosing the linkage to the labels in some situations. Also you can not cut-and-paste them (like a titleblock with al lot of attributes/labels) - all things that -as I had to learn as kind of a bitter truth- you do in AC without a second thought.

I also agree here. Although the attributes implementation in microStation is also bad. I tried to use attributes  /labels. Cells with attributes do not copy straightfoward (you need to collect them in a selection set together with the block before copying.

I also ran into loosing the linkage to the labels in some situations. Also you can not cut-and-paste them (like a titleblock with al lot of attributes/labels) - all things that -as I had to learn as kind of a bitter truth- you do in AC without a second thought.