I'm hoping this is a quick question: can "Plain" MicroStation CONNECT (i.e.no verticals, non-ORD) access a workspace developed for ORD? I ask because I'm getting ready to work on a project where the deliverable will be ORD but, but it's a good bet not everyone will use ORD. Some of our partners doing non-roadway work will use "plain" MicroStation CONNECT. Will there be any sort of issue with them doing so? I'm guessing not, but want to confirm. The corollary question: can a user of MicroStation V8i SS10 access this workspace? With the advent of worksets and such, I am guessing not...Thanks for any information!
Mary, that's great... thanks!
To follow on with what others have said, yes. You can mingle MicroStation, ORD, OpenBridge, OpenRail, etc. configurations. In the configuration files you can test to find out what the active application is and set variables/load resources differently based on the application.
Here is an example from the PennDOT configuration...
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Do not automatically update text fields when opening a file in MicroStation # "Field Update all" or modifying the linked element will update existing fields #---------------------------------------------------------------------------- %if $(_ENGINENAME) == "MicroStation" MS_AUTO_UPDATE_FIELDS = NEVER %else MS_AUTO_UPDATE_FIELDS = FollowModelFlag %endif #============================================================================ # Set variables based on if the application is bridge #============================================================================ %if $(_ENGINENAME) == "OpenBridgeModeler" MS_DESIGNSEED = PennDOT_Bridge.dgn OBM_TEMPLATE_FILE = $(CIVIL_ORGANIZATION_STANDARDS)Bridge Templates/templates.xml OBM_PIER_TEMPLATE_FILE = $(CIVIL_ORGANIZATION_STANDARDS)Bridge Templates/PierLib.xml OBM_STIFFENER_FILE = $(CIVIL_ORGANIZATION_STANDARDS)Bridge Templates/StiffenerLibrary.xml OBM_CONNECTIONPLATE_FILE = $(CIVIL_ORGANIZATION_STANDARDS)Bridge Templates/ConnectionPlateLibrary.xml OBM_CROSSFRAME_FILE = $(CIVIL_ORGANIZATION_STANDARDS)Bridge Templates/CrossFrameLibrary.xml OBM_MATERIAL_FILE = $(CIVIL_ORGANIZATION_STANDARDS)Bridge Templates/MaterialLibrary.xml OBM_LEAP_BEAMS_TEMPLATE_FILE = $(CIVIL_ORGANIZATION_STANDARDS)Bridge Templates/default.lbclib OBM_AUX_CELLLIST = $(CIVIL_ORGANIZATION_STANDARDS)Bridge Templates/Auxlib.cel OBM_BEARING_CELLLIST = $(CIVIL_ORGANIZATION_STANDARDS)Bridge Templates/BearingLib.cel OBM_PIER_CELLLIST = $(CIVIL_ORGANIZATION_STANDARDS)Bridge Templates/PierCellLib.cel OBM_ELEMENTNUMBERS_NBI_FILE = $(CIVIL_ORGANIZATION_STANDARDS)Bridge Templates/ElementNumbers_NBI.xml OBM_ELEMENTNUMBERS_STATE_FILE = $(CIVIL_ORGANIZATION_STANDARDS)Bridge Templates/ElementNumbers_State.xml %else MS_DESIGNSEED = Warning.dgn %endif
As for accessing the ORD configurations from SS10, that would be a strong no!Keep your SS10 and CONNECT configurations separate, even if some of the dgnlibs, cell libs, etc. remain the same. Make copies and store them in separate directory structures.
Rod WingSenior Systems Analyst
I agree with Rod - keep things separated for versions.
I believe this will become a bit more dicey when the verticals (IE: Building, Civil, etc...) start versioning the datasets and the software.
Timothy Hickman
CADD Manager | CADD Department
timothy.hickman@colliersengineering.com
Main: 877 627 3772|
1000 Waterview Drive Suite 201 | Hamilton, New Jersey 08691
Great Thread - for a great question!
Charles (Chuck) Rheault CADD Manager
MDOT State Highway Administration
Indeed, Chuck.
Rod, I am assuming that that the issue with auto-updating fields is that MS Connect cannot possibly understand ORD fields, and updating them will cause the fields to default to OpenRoads "code". However, we have seen printing issues within ORD, and many have mentioned using MS Connect for printing sheet sets. One would like to have the sheet data update, but not any of the ORD data within the active model/ drawing model data. How are you folks printing sheets within the different configurations that you develop for folks? We here have done minimal work with this portion of ORD/ MS Connect. and are primarily in a development phase currently. Hopefully, Bentley will make further developments to make ORD and MS Connect much more consistent within this particular need.
Mark