MicroStation issues
boris_...@my-deja.com
I am an architect with 10 years experience working with microstation in
a variety of residential and small comercial buildings, using 2d and 3d
techniques. Currently, I am employed with a small practice, and for the
past 6 years have used microstation to produce full construction
documents, not only floor plans and elevations but also, site plans,
structural and architectural details, footing plans, framing plans,
internal elevations, joinery details, etc, etc.
I also have kept myself informed through different publications, about
the progress in the area of CAD, and thanks to the help of different
CAD dealers, been able to try different CAD programmes like Autocad 14,
2000, Architectural desktop 2,
Archicad, Smart Architect, Caddsman Architect, Chief Architect,
Triforma, DataCad, and have attended briefings for other programmes,
like cadsoft and AP design. I have also had numerous conversations, and
discussions with other senior architectural professionals and very
experienced CAD users about CAD issues in Architecture.
The opinions that i am about to express, with the hope of stimulating
discussion are based on that experience, and concentrate mainly in the
micro level, not the big enterprise, global macro aspects of it.
1- I know how to use MicroSation to produce quality contract documents,
and in general I think it is a good general CAD programme, and
satisfies the needs of many people in different industries quite well.
I particulary prise the select programme, because offers quite a lot
for your money. I know Autocad users that are quite surprised in terms
of what microstation offers, and how flexible it is.
But I think that MicroStation is defficient in several areas such as:
2- Interface: For a cad user new to microsation, a custom interface can
be quite easy to use, but for a experienced user,
it really slows you down. I find that over the years it has collected
a number of ways of doing things, so you always need to be aware where
you are entering numbers. Different boxes have the imput at different
times. It is very messy.
I find that the much cursed, direct input command window of autocad is
several orders of magnitude faster than the toolbars that microstation
and other programmes use. I purchased a very good macro
called "commands"(Authored by Graeme Rawlins - December 1998) that has
helped me to operate faster, but is only a patch, not a solution to the
problem.
3- Limit of 63 levels: increases the number of files that have to be
created to produce a project, the task of accessing design and
reference files and creating them is a time consuming task . File
management is more difficult, different level name structures to be
created to provide situational awereness. I think that to address this
issue through project bank will make things very complicated. It is
another piece of software to be implemented set up and maintained. More
commands to learn.
4- To exchange information with other consultants is very time
consuming because tables have to be set up and the output has to ve
visually checked for correctness. I avoid it as much as i can. Many
government authorities in Australia require
dwg drawings to be issued acording to their autocad standards, as part
of services agreements.
5- After developing office cad standards through the settings manager
and the interface, and observing how contract draftsmen work, using
autocad, i have arrived to the conclusion that again, the use of
settings manager increases your workload and slows you down enormously,
so i decided to forget about it and use a limited number of levels and
colours. I have been using it for the past 2 months, and my stress
levels are a lot lower!. I will only use it when there is a demand for
it.
6- The price to pay for having a programme that does not interfere with
windows registry, with the obvious advantages, is
that it is not as fully integrated to windows as other programmes are.
7- There is quite a number of little things that need to be addressed
like for example attach reference file dialog boxes resizeable to
allow for long file names that are common these days, allow for copy
and paste of design elements between two simultaneous microsation
sessions under win95, more drag and drop to name a few. (I have a small
wish list)
8- Applications availability: there is not enough third party add-on
programmes available for architecture (why? i do not know). Autocad
users for example are very spoiled in that area. The issue of add-ons
for MicroSattion makes me think of Triforma and the whole aspect of 3d
modeling in architecture. I have a very particular view about it and
hope to witte about it very soon.
As a full time user, i would like to see microstation grow into a much
faster and better, and more efficient and functional CAD programme.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bob Keller
<boris_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8em3hh$c4s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> MicroStation issues:
>
>
> I think that to address this
> issue through project bank will make things very complicated. It is
> another piece of software to be implemented set up and maintained. More
> commands to learn.
>
I think that many 'large' companies need something like ProjectBank. But,
companies like us (we are a small architectural firm also) have no use for
it,
and to force us to convert to a system that requires additional overhead to
setup and maintain (over what is already required to run the CAD program)
is not right.
Microstation needs to continue to evolve and improve in the ways that
Boris has described in his post - without ProjectBank. Go ahead and
continue
to develop PB, Bentley, but don't leave us 'small' users out in the cold!
I would like to hear from some other 'small' companies out there. Have you
tried PB? Do you use it?
Bob Keller
Luis Acosta Architects, P.C.
Bke...@loaarchitects.com
bear
Our firm is only five people at the moment. The only reason we don't use it
yet is that it is not available with the other packages.
For starters, anyone running off a network should be using PB. The ability
to run locally has to be an advantage.
Bear.
"Bob Keller" <Bke...@loaarchitects.com> wrote in message
news:sgtnti...@corp.supernews.com...
Bob Keller
bear <forward...@mpx.com.au> wrote in message
news:390ee0de$0$31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> How small is small.
>
> Our firm is only five people at the moment. The only reason we don't use
it
> yet is that it is not available with the other packages.
>
> For starters, anyone running off a network should be using PB. The ability
> to run locally has to be an advantage.
>
> Bear.
>
Yeah, when I say 'small', I'm talking about ten or less users on a network
in one physical location.
Our firm is only eight people and we are on a network.
I can't see any advantage in using PB today. What do you mean
by the 'ability to run locally'? Are you an architectural firm?
What, exactly, will PB do for you?
Thanks for your input.
Bob Keller
with
Bentley personnel (including Keith Bentley). As an architectural firm, I do
not
need any of the features you have just described. Our files are rarely over
2MB
in size. And with only three drafters and dozens of files per project, we
almost
never need to have two people working in the same file at the same time.
The only PB features I see any value in are being able to undo a fenced area
and having more levels. And more levels will not be available until a PB
editor
with this feature is created.
So my point is: why should I install PB server on my server, install PB
client on
all the workstations, setup all of my projects on PB, import existing files
into PB,
modify my backup system to backup PB files also, learn how load and commit
files, train the drafters how to load and commit files, learn how to deal
with the
inevitable problems that arise when using new software for the first time.
And all of that so that I can perform a fence undo!!
I'm glad that PB addresses a need for you, but I feel like there must be
many
other Microstation users out there like the original poster of this thread
and I,
who don't need ProjectBank. We feel that PB does not solve any of the
concerns
that we have today, it provides features we aren't interested in, and the
addition
overhead required to run PB on top of the CAD editor makes the whole process
MORE complicated (a step in the wrong direction).
How about it? Are there any other small users who have even tried
ProjectBank?
Come on you small Architects, speak up!
Bob Keller
Luis Acosta Architects, P.C.
Bke...@loaarchitects.com
bear <forward...@mpx.com.au> wrote in message
news:390ee99e$0$31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> Firstly, we are a engineering consultancy who specialises in 3D CAD.
>
> On large jobs we are using in excess of 25-25 meg files. Running these
over
> a network is slow. PB allows you to have multiple users work on the same
> model by moving the files to be worked on to the briefcase which is
locally
> stored.
>
> When users are happy with changes they can commit the changes to the
> network.
>
> The changes are then stored by PB with a user defined description.
>
> This method can also be used to keep a record of tender-construction
issues.
>
> Previous changes can be reinstated from previous commits saving time by
not
> having to change a model back to a previous stage or having to get the old
> copy off the archives.
>
> When having several people work on the same model-design file, it can
detect
> when there is a clash in the information that is to be committed to the
> network. It then allows you to view the change clashes and commit the
> correct change. It also keep track of what was done by whom and when.
> Auditing issue solved.
>
> Have you had a good look at the features of PB.
>
> I would be interested in your comments if you think these are not of an
> advantage.
>
> Bear.
>
Nathan Emerson
out PB, but as far as I know it requires a WinNT server to work and we use
Novell!
I broached the subject that maybe we should switch to a TCP/IP protocol and
was told categorically NO as there are security fears over TCP/IP!
Nathan.
===== Original Message from "Bob Keller" <Bke...@loaarchitects.com> at
2/05/00 15:12
>
><boris_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8em3hh$c4s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> MicroStation issues:
>>
>>
>> I think that to address this
>> issue through project bank will make things very complicated. It is
>> another piece of software to be implemented set up and maintained. More
>> commands to learn.
>>
>I couldn't agree more!
>I think that many 'large' companies need something like ProjectBank. But,
>companies like us (we are a small architectural firm also) have no use for
>it,
>and to force us to convert to a system that requires additional overhead to
>setup and maintain (over what is already required to run the CAD program)
>is not right.
>Microstation needs to continue to evolve and improve in the ways that
>Boris has described in his post - without ProjectBank. Go ahead and
>continue
>to develop PB, Bentley, but don't leave us 'small' users out in the cold!
>I would like to hear from some other 'small' companies out there. Have you
>tried PB? Do you use it?
>
>Bob Keller
>Luis Acosta Architects, P.C.
>Bke...@loaarchitects.com
>
===== Comments by nathan....@readprocess.co.uk (Nathan Emerson) at
2/05/00 16:50
Galilee
Try this site, it will check your machines whilst on line and let you know
the *leaks* for security issues. It is normally the Microsoft print service
under TCP/IP which provides entrance to the PC. But it can be sealed.
http://grc.com It is called *Shields Up* and this guy knows what he is
talking about. Try it.
It gave me a feed back of all my shared directories which could be read by
anyone who wants to have a look.
--
Regards
Sam
"Nathan Emerson" <nathan....@readprocess.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3905...@readprocess.demon.co.uk...
> *********************************************************************
> New posting to comp.cad.microstation news group.
> Provided by the newsgroup-microstation "Majordomo" List Server
> *********************************************************************
> *********************************************************************
> To Un/Subscribe your self to any Bentley System, Inc. "Majordomo" list:
> via web : http://majordomo.bentley.com
> *********************************************************************
SamuelG
I have been saying this for ages but always blamed for whinging. ProjectBank
and it's derivatives are for large corporations etc not for the small
company, but the Bentley boys will tell you different.
The core product MicroStation has suffered at the hands of PB, GEO this and
that and the program is now past it's sell by date. There have been very
little enhancements since MicroStation '95 and the program is showing it's
age.
If you think you Architect guys are being left behind, spare a thought for
us Precision Mechanical guys. The agreement with Intergraph shows me in what
direction Bentley are heading and it is not the mechanical road.
So just a word for Jack, Dave Stoll and a few other Solid Modellers that are
still left, if you not evaluating other mechanical programs NOW you are
going to be left at the starting gate. It is difficult to be locked into the
DGN format but you have got to make the break at some stage and I personally
think Modeler will be history in the near future. 3D solids and
Intergraph/Bentley do not mix and they will never master it thoroughly. What
happened to Intergraph's EMS?
They are too far behind SolidWorks, Solid Edge, Think3 and IronCAD, even
AutoDesk have made the effort to stay in the mechanical field with Inventor
after their disasters with Mechanical Desktop.
If any Bentley monitors would like to come out and state, "MicroStation
Modeler is considered one of our core products and will not be dropped" I
will eat the hat covering my long flowing locks of brown hair (slight touch
of grey on the sides).
Is Bentley still supporting R&B Mold Design Jack?
> 6- The price to pay for having a programme that does not interfere with
> windows registry, with the obvious advantages, is
> that it is not as fully integrated to windows as other programmes are.
One of the reasons we get a lot of exceptions at 00005x etc. To get truly
into Windows it requires a re-write from the bottom up and that is why it is
being propped up with ProjectBank. Bentley think that PB will be their
saviour in this environment and maybe for the big boys, yes, but for the
small user where is there to go, except to the other CAD vendors and ask for
90 day evaluations.
--
Regards
Sam McCammond
Galilee Engineering Design Services
http://www.galilee.co.za
sam...@galilee.co.za
<boris_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8em3hh$c4s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> MicroStation issues:
>
> created to provide situational awereness. I think that to address this
> issue through project bank will make things very complicated. It is
> another piece of software to be implemented set up and maintained. More
> commands to learn.
>
Galilee
Not being a *network fundii* his analysis was sufficient for me to block the
one security hole that I had on my network. The whole Internet security
issue is totally out of my depth (I'm sure you will remark, along with a lot
more issues). So I personally have no way of finding the holes in my
security and this site was recommended by a fellow user. It was interesting
to read his analysis and to see my shared folders come up on his site. His
FAQ gave enough information for me to block the gap and by visiting the site
you are not obligated to let his machine test yours. He does provide a lot
of information about security without the tests and that was sufficient for
me.
I'm afraid that if anyone wants to hack my machines they will be sorely
disappointed because they won't find much of interest.
I take your point that it is not for everyone and maybe a little foolish to
go in there and let him do a port scan but out of network ignorance what
other alternative have I got.
--
Regards
Sam
"Mark Hamstra" <mark.h...@bentley.com> wrote in message
news:8enasp$s70$1...@news.bentley.com...
> *********************************************************************
> New posting to comp.cad.microstation news group.
> Provided by the newsgroup-microstation "Majordomo" List Server
> *********************************************************************
>
>
>
> Galilee <gal...@global.co.za> wrote in message
> news:8emuja$do7$1...@ctb-nnrp1.saix.net...
> : Nathan,
> : Try this site, it will check your machines whilst on line and let you
know
> : the *leaks* for security issues. It is normally the Microsoft print
> service
> : under TCP/IP which provides entrance to the PC. But it can be sealed.
> : http://grc.com It is called *Shields Up* and this guy knows what he is
> : talking about. Try it.
>
> You might want to gain a little more knowledge before making such
> recommendations, Sam. The information and "services" provided from that
> site are all pretty rudimentary, and in no way are a substitute for a
proper
> security audit. In fact, if one were to blindly follow your
recommendation
> and allow that site to conduct port scans of the local network, he could
> find himself in hot water. Such port scans are often preliminary to or
part
> of exploitation attempts, so an unauthorized initiation of one against
one's
> own network could easily be misinterpreted as an attack. Any infosec
staff
> that are unnecessarily aroused by such an unauthorized scan wouldn't
likely
> view your efforts as helpful.
>
> --
> Mark Hamstra
> Bentley Systems, Inc.
Mark Hamstra
Nathan Emerson <nathan....@readprocess.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3905...@readprocess.demon.co.uk...
: out PB, but as far as I know it requires a WinNT server to work and we use
: Novell!
: I broached the subject that maybe we should switch to a TCP/IP protocol
and
: was told categorically NO as there are security fears over TCP/IP!
Your IT personnel's ignorance is showing. There is nothing inherently less
secure about TCP/IP vis a vis IPX as used by Novell; in fact, if anything,
IPX is more easily exploited. The only way the "TCP/IP is insecure"
response makes any sense is if they are concerned about having a routed
interface to the Internet -- which is a pretty bogus argument since it is
trivial to maintain the same isolation from the Internet that your IPX
network has now regardless of whether you are running TCP/IP internally.
Mark Hamstra
Galilee <gal...@global.co.za> wrote in message
news:8emuja$do7$1...@ctb-nnrp1.saix.net...
: Nathan,
: Try this site, it will check your machines whilst on line and let you know
: the *leaks* for security issues. It is normally the Microsoft print
service
: under TCP/IP which provides entrance to the PC. But it can be sealed.
: http://grc.com It is called *Shields Up* and this guy knows what he is
: talking about. Try it.
You might want to gain a little more knowledge before making such
recommendations, Sam. The information and "services" provided from that
site are all pretty rudimentary, and in no way are a substitute for a proper
security audit. In fact, if one were to blindly follow your recommendation
and allow that site to conduct port scans of the local network, he could
find himself in hot water. Such port scans are often preliminary to or part
of exploitation attempts, so an unauthorized initiation of one against one's
own network could easily be misinterpreted as an attack. Any infosec staff
that are unnecessarily aroused by such an unauthorized scan wouldn't likely
view your efforts as helpful.
--
bear
On large jobs we are using in excess of 25-25 meg files. Running these over
a network is slow. PB allows you to have multiple users work on the same
model by moving the files to be worked on to the briefcase which is locally
stored.
When users are happy with changes they can commit the changes to the
network.
The changes are then stored by PB with a user defined description.
This method can also be used to keep a record of tender-construction issues.
Previous changes can be reinstated from previous commits saving time by not
having to change a model back to a previous stage or having to get the old
copy off the archives.
When having several people work on the same model-design file, it can detect
when there is a clash in the information that is to be committed to the
network. It then allows you to view the change clashes and commit the
correct change. It also keep track of what was done by whom and when.
Auditing issue solved.
Have you had a good look at the features of PB.
I would be interested in your comments if you think these are not of an
advantage.
Bear.
"Bob Keller" <Bke...@loaarchitects.com> wrote in message
news:sgtpjq6...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> bear <forward...@mpx.com.au> wrote in message
> news:390ee0de$0$31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> > How small is small.
> >
> > Our firm is only five people at the moment. The only reason we don't use
> it
> > yet is that it is not available with the other packages.
> >
> > For starters, anyone running off a network should be using PB. The
ability
> > to run locally has to be an advantage.
> >
> > Bear.
> >
>
> Yeah, when I say 'small', I'm talking about ten or less users on a network
> in one physical location.
>
> Our firm is only eight people and we are on a network.
> I can't see any advantage in using PB today. What do you mean
> by the 'ability to run locally'? Are you an architectural firm?
> What, exactly, will PB do for you?
>
> Thanks for your input.
>
Keith Laurie
What list. A number of valid points which I would hope Bentley are working
on at this very time.
A couple of things I might comment on:
>3- Limit of 63 levels: increases the number of files that have to be
> created to produce a project
> so i decided to forget about it and use a limited number of levels and
> colours. I have been using it for the past 2 months, and my stress
> levels are a lot lower!. I will only use it when there is a demand for
> it.
Do these two comments not cancel each other?
2 . Not quite sure what you are getting at. Do you mean Icons versus
key-ins? Personal preference really I feel, and what you are used to. Some
people remember key shortcuts better, some pictures. I prefer icons, though
with Dual screen have plenty of room for them.
3. I find the use of Reference files is no more complicated than a huge
layer structure, and gives you many benefits that are time consuming using
layers, especially in 3D. Being able to turn on and off whole sections of a
model with one click, decide what can and can't be selected or snapped to,
etc. Acads Layer system is more fiddly than Level Manager, and does not
bridge the Xref gap from what I understand (correct me if I am wrong).
4. Yep. I guess they have the same problems in the States where many of the
Clients require files in DGN. One day we will all get what we want (I
hope!), which is seamless transfer between formats. I believe Bentley were
aiming at a Java fix to allow them to open Acad files Native, but get the
feeling the Legal issues were too much to overcome.
5. Don't know, don't use it. Triforma automates most setting anyway.
6. I guess. I agree that being able to relate better to other Windows
programs (Especially Word, where line weights etc. disappear real quick)
would be a VERY handy tool.
8. Probably are, you just have to know where to go looking. Saying that, I
am in Structural, so don't know. Acad is probably way ahead anyway by virtue
of it's larger user base.
Having been a Triforma Convert for the last year+, I would say that I can
see the future, and 2D as a "model" medium has a limited lifespan. I now
"draw" only 15% of my sheets, being mostly annotation and close up details.
All other plans, elevations, sections, etc. are automatically generated, and
updated regularly as the model develops, with NO (read "zilch", "zero",
"zip") conflicts between views - if the beam is the right place in the
model, it WILL be in the right place in all elevations, plans, sections
etc.. Move the beam, and ALL views adjust.
Don't like the angle of an elevation? Want to rotate it 10 degrees? Want to
see further back? Want to see what is immediately in front of it? Click
click. Done. No more drawing time involved.
Until you have been able to use it in real jobs a few times, you won't
believe how useful it is.
Acad ADT is where Acad are pushing into now, though by the sounds of the ADT
NG's, there are still very few people using it. One guy here has bought it,
but has been too busy to learn how to use it (or too stuck in the rut).
OK. Thanks for your contribution.
Regards
Keith Laurie
> , the task of accessing design and
> reference files and creating them is a time consuming task . File
> management is more difficult, different level name structures to be
> created to provide situational awereness. I think that to address this
> issue through project bank will make things very complicated. It is
> another piece of software to be implemented set up and maintained. More
> commands to learn.
>
> 4- To exchange information with other consultants is very time
> consuming because tables have to be set up and the output has to ve
> visually checked for correctness. I avoid it as much as i can. Many
> government authorities in Australia require
> dwg drawings to be issued acording to their autocad standards, as part
> of services agreements.
>
> 5- After developing office cad standards through the settings manager
> and the interface, and observing how contract draftsmen work, using
> autocad, i have arrived to the conclusion that again, the use of
> settings manager increases your workload and slows you down enormously,
>
> 6- The price to pay for having a programme that does not interfere with
Greg Burgon
>observing how contract draftsmen work, using
>autocad, i have arrived to the conclusion that again, the use of
>settings manager increases your workload and slows you down
[snip]
By far the most useful aspect of the settings manager, in my experience,
has been setting office standard text, notes and dimensions,
particularily when working with a number of drawings at vastly different
scales (assuming, of course, that you draw 1:1). How do you figure out,
for example, what height 3.5mm text should be when the scaled drawing
output to the printer is, say, 1:250? Quick calc, maybe. More
importanly, how do you ensure everyone in the office has the same text
settings?
Dennis Barker
development of ProjectBank. I will put it to use when Triforma is released &
certified for PB. However, I believe you must look beyond the short term
hassles to see what Bentley is trying to build in the clearing beyond the
forest. If you have done the research and had discussions with people at
Bentley, you should realise that Bentley have had to struggle with the
limitations of the dgn file format and maintaining support existing user
files. They could just dump dgn, as other vendors have done, but they
realise the need to protect the investment which user's old files represent.
Future version of Ustn will still be capable of editing dgn files without
PB. This has been stated.
So ProjectBank is all about giving us a new data structure which will allow
us to do more intelligent things - in the longer term - along with giving us
better collaboration, file recovery & error checking along the way.
In the long term, I am sure there will be some terrific benefits from this
development, but at the moment, I agree, phase one of ProjectBank is not
giving us all that much. So if you don't see the benefit of revision
history, file sharing, etc., I wouldn't be worried about whether or not you
use it right away. But look beyond the current release and see if the
benefits of a much better data structure are going to provide you with some
of the things you would like to see. It is quicker & easier to put a patch
on a worn elbow of a sweater than to knit a whole new sweater. But sometime
or other, wouldn't it be nice to have a New Sweater. I think Bentley has
taken the bigger picture approach to this rather than the band-aid approach
of putting patches on a worn-out cad format that was designed about 25 years
ago when a mainframe computer ran at less than 1 mips.
Dennis Barker
Bob Keller <Bke...@loaarchitects.com> wrote in message
news:sgtt7r1...@corp.supernews.com...
> Bob Keller
> Luis Acosta Architects, P.C.
> Bke...@loaarchitects.com
>
>
> bear <forward...@mpx.com.au> wrote in message
> news:390ee99e$0$31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
TFPierce
Having been an intermediate Beta tester for PB, I found it to add yet
another layer of interface between my design intent and applying lines. As
an architect, I think the more fluid the delivery of elements, a.k.a. user
interface, the more useful software is as a design tool.
I have found programming the function keys in MicroStation very valuable for
implementing commands, reducing at least 30% of the time required to produce
the drawings, rather than hunting visually for icons with a mouse. I
compare this with the Autodesk key-in interface which can take several steps
of additional input to create the same element. Autocad 2000 has,
implemented the zoom mouse, and O Snaps and Polar Snaps which I find
similar, if not easier to use than Acu Draw, These features have improved
the AutoCad interface significantly. I think if MicroStation developed an
automatic autozoom feature with incrementally larger fields of view keyed to
individual clicks on the mouse wheel, similar to the autopan feature, it
would be more efficient than the constant manual zoom that AutoCad has
developed.
Bentley's multiple windows, the ability to copy through reference files,
lack of pen settings and true on screen representation of line weights,
built-in postscript export, not to mention java mdl programming- still seem
greater attributers for me; as does the ability to flip up rough elevations
on a plan, shoot a perspective, save it as a two dimensional file, edit it
for quick presentation drawings, and render it with Adobe-type programs. My
experience leads me to believe, developing true three-d solid models on
modest budgets does not equate to profitability with small fees, and locks
one into creating a lesser range of design alternatives.
It's ironical for me, that there seems to be a great need for more than 63
layers. I find limiting the layers adds to a more fluid delivery of
creating elements. At first, I was appalled at how many layers there were
to an Autocad drawing until I realized that the same drawing was modified
for many with viewports. Currently, I don't know where I stand on this
issue, I still like to lay down lines while designing and not be preoccupied
with precision or layering. I attribute this to a having evolved from a
tradition of manual drafting. For me, the medium is an abstract expression
of the built environment, the irony now, is that the abstract representation
is far more accurate that real world conditions.
I appreciate the integration of the animation and rendering of MicroStation,
But simple programming features like the ability to predict the grain of
patterning for mapping, as in 3D Vis, would be very nice, rather than the
current crap shoot.
In closing, I would prefer to see Bentley make a small office edition, not
Powerdraft, price competitive, but with 3D features like a usable camera,
engineered for small offices.
Best Regards
Galilee
You have a valid point when you are almost sure that Bentley will stay with
Architecture. I don't have the confidence that they will stay with Modeler
in the long run. So why waste my energies on something that may no longer
exist.
I want new technology on my PC today and don't have time to wait for all the
goodies in the pipeline. Which may or may not arrive. Remember Objective
MicroStation?
--
Regards
Sam McCammond
Galilee Engineering Design Services
http://www.galilee.co.za
sam...@galilee.co.za
news:390f...@nexus.comcen.com.au...
> *********************************************************************
> New posting to comp.cad.microstation news group.
> Provided by the newsgroup-microstation "Majordomo" List Server
> *********************************************************************
>
>
Nathan Emerson
Sam's original suggestion of trying out the web site was very useful and
threw up some interesting results (I won't go into details as it's quite
embarrassing for our (sh)IT Manager) but Mark's comments are correct and
maybe I should have just forwarded the address to the (sh)IT Manager and let
him worry about it. But, ho-hum, I read Mark's message after I'd tried out
the site <g>. Anyway, any changes that need to be made to our network will
have to be done by somebody else as this is getting out of my depth. Don't
forget I'm just a low-life, stinking, draughtsman! :-)
Back to my original post.....
After I got home last night I remembered what the original fear (expressed
by our (sh)IT Manager) was. It wasn't the network protocols, it was the fact
that PB requires IP addresses for each machine, the same as SELECTServer. I
don't know if IP addresses are to do with WinNT Server or TCP/IP as that's
getting out of my depth, but our (sh)IT Manager was concerned that as soon
as you give a machine an IP address if could be directly targeted by an
outside source and they could then get into our system. Now this could all
be bol**cks (as that seems to be his answer to everything) but is it true
and does PB require an IP address?
Why can't PB use machine names instead of IP addresses, the same as the
licensing system?
Nathan.
===== Original Message from "Galilee" <gal...@global.co.za> at 2/05/00
21:17
>Mark,
>Not being a *network fundii* his analysis was sufficient for me to block the
>one security hole that I had on my network. The whole Internet security
>issue is totally out of my depth (I'm sure you will remark, along with a lot
>more issues). So I personally have no way of finding the holes in my
>security and this site was recommended by a fellow user. It was interesting
>to read his analysis and to see my shared folders come up on his site. His
>FAQ gave enough information for me to block the gap and by visiting the site
>you are not obligated to let his machine test yours. He does provide a lot
>of information about security without the tests and that was sufficient for
>me.
>I'm afraid that if anyone wants to hack my machines they will be sorely
>disappointed because they won't find much of interest.
>I take your point that it is not for everyone and maybe a little foolish to
>go in there and let him do a port scan but out of network ignorance what
>other alternative have I got.
>--
>Regards
>Sam
>
>
>"Mark Hamstra" <mark.h...@bentley.com> wrote in message
>news:8enasp$s70$1...@news.bentley.com...
>> *********************************************************************
>> New posting to comp.cad.microstation news group.
>> Provided by the newsgroup-microstation "Majordomo" List Server
>> *********************************************************************
>>
>>
>>
>> *********************************************************************
>> To Un/Subscribe your self to any Bentley System, Inc. "Majordomo" list:
>> via web : http://majordomo.bentley.com
>> *********************************************************************
>
===== Comments by nathan....@readprocess.co.uk (Nathan Emerson) at
3/05/00 14:05
Frank Conforti
PB. One thing tho... Yes, PB v1 does not add appreciably to the drawing
capabilities of MicroStation. If you analyze our conundrum of trying to
deploy a new data technology into a mature design environment you realize
that our biggest problem is avoiding work interruptions as much as possible.
If you've used MS for more than 5 years then you know Bentley's approach.
First we release a fundamental change in operation that's a
behind-the-scenes implementation (MS 95) followed later by a more user
oriented change like MS SE where we spent time optimizing the user interface
and adding tangible tools (I'm sure THAT will trigger some comments!) This
way, we give you the chance to get the technology in place before we spring
it on your users per se. MS/J and PB are essentially our 'behind the
scenes' technology introduction with minimal impact on the user interface.
MS-ECM and the EC updates scheduled for later this year through next year
will introduce the serious user-side improvements.
With that said, I would still highly recommend you evaluate PB for a sooner
rather than later deployment if for no other reason than to become familiar
with the new data paradigm that PB introduces. Heck, at this point I'd say
start trying it out yourself and don't worry about 'selling' it to your
users yet. I believe the benefits of PB 1.0 are tangible but you'll have to
discover them yourself.
In case you hadn't noticed, I'm fairly passionate about this subject and
I'll let you in on something else... so is the entire development staff here
at Bentley. This _is_ really cool stuff and, again, we'd just like you to
discover it for yourself!
BTW, if you are attending the AIA Conference 2000 in Philadelphia this week
you might want to stop by the Bentley booth. I'll be teaching a class about
PB in the booth every 90 minutes or so, so if you want to try out PB and
discuss its ramifications c'mon by.
End of editorial... back to our regular scheduled program... ;->
Regards,
Frank Conforti ( frank[dot]conforti[at]bentley[dot]com )
Bentley Systems - Foundation Product Planning and Technology
"Dennis Barker" <djba...@innovision.comcen.com.au> wrote in message
news:390f...@nexus.comcen.com.au...
Bob Keller
Thank you, it's nice to hear from someone in architecture. Would you
mind answering a few questions?
You're going to use PB with Triforma. What -Exactly- will PB allow you to
do that you cannot do today? I do see the advantages of PB for a large
company or one who works with very large files, but I don't understand
what advantage PB is to a single seat user.
And having to manage the additional overhead of running PB in addition
to the dgn editor, can only decrease efficiency (the reason we chose MS
over the others in the first place). When I hire someone just out of
college,
I'm lucky if they know what a two-by-four is, much less how to draft
efficiently or use the computer. One of the BIG advantages to MS is that
all changes are saved without having to actually save the file. Now, with
PB,
changes have to be committed to PB store. So drafter A can't find the most
recent drawing because drafter B forgot to commit his changes last week!
Or worse, drafter B lays out all of the reflected ceiling grids on the floor
plan,
but drafter A hasn't commited the floor plan revisions yet. I can only see
efficiency going down with PB.
Everyone talks about how awful it would be to, as you say, 'just dump dgn'.
I'm not sure that I understand this position. What would be so bad about
a Microstation J ver. 8 (complete with 256 levels), that could load files
created
in older versions of MS, but whose files once saved in ver. 8, could not be
loaded by the older versions? J ver. 8 could also allow you to open files
created in previous versions, modify them, and then save the file in the
format
of the old version.
Are you absolutely sure that future versions of Ustn will be capable of
editing
dgn files without PB? My understanding is that this is not the case. A
future
non-PB version of Microstation will have to be true to today's dgn format.
So,
are you saying that ten years from now Bentley will be releasing new non-PB
versions of Microstation?
Thank you for your time,
Bob Keller
Luis Acosta Architects, P.C.
Bke...@loaarchitects.com
Dennis Barker <djba...@innovision.comcen.com.au> wrote in message
Jim Weisgram
<tfpi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[...snip...]
>It's ironical for me, that there seems to be a great need for more than 63
>layers. I find limiting the layers adds to a more fluid delivery of
>creating elements.
[...snip...]
I can understand that in many applications the needs are quite
different and generally 63 levels is plenty. In fact when we started
using CAD, 63 levels did meet our needs. Our needs are more complex
today, and I expect that they will continue to evolve. The current
level limit does inhibit our ability to evolve, and does force us to
break up work in ways that are rather artificial.
Since it seems to me that an object oriented approach to data/methods
should offer a much more intelligent approach to managing all this
information, then I am content to wait hoping that is in fact what
will develop. In my view, just adding more levels is ultimately only a
band aid.
Mark Hamstra
Nathan Emerson <nathan....@readprocess.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3905...@readprocess.demon.co.uk...
: Sam's original suggestion of trying out the web site was very useful and
: threw up some interesting results (I won't go into details as it's quite
: embarrassing for our (sh)IT Manager) but Mark's comments are correct and
: maybe I should have just forwarded the address to the (sh)IT Manager and
let
: him worry about it. But, ho-hum, I read Mark's message after I'd tried out
: the site <g>. Anyway, any changes that need to be made to our network will
: have to be done by somebody else as this is getting out of my depth. Don't
: forget I'm just a low-life, stinking, draughtsman! :-)
Ummm... yes, any IT group that leaves their network vulnerable to the level
of exploits probed by Sam's recommended site deserves to be embarassed. On
the upside, such an IT group presents new career opportunities for a
low-life draughtsman with sufficient intellect, curiosity, and
initiative....
: Back to my original post.....
: After I got home last night I remembered what the original fear (expressed
: by our (sh)IT Manager) was. It wasn't the network protocols, it was the
fact
: that PB requires IP addresses for each machine, the same as SELECTServer.
I
: don't know if IP addresses are to do with WinNT Server or TCP/IP as that's
: getting out of my depth, but our (sh)IT Manager was concerned that as soon
: as you give a machine an IP address if could be directly targeted by an
: outside source and they could then get into our system. Now this could all
: be bol**cks (as that seems to be his answer to everything) but is it true
: and does PB require an IP address?
Yes, it is bol**cks. Yes, PB does require machines to have IP addresses.
: Why can't PB use machine names instead of IP addresses, the same as the
: licensing system?
Things like file/print sharing over NetBEUI don't use machine names any more
than TCP/IP does. In both cases (and the Novell/IPX case), the machine name
is merely a convenience for humans that can't remember the numerical
addresses that the machines and network protocols actually use. For
NetBEUI, there is a mapping between the machine name and the hardware
address of the machine's Ethernet interface. For TCP/IP the similar mapping
is via another layer of indirection to the abstract IP address instead of to
the physical hardware address. As a result, IP is not restricted to a
single, physically connected Ethernet segment, but can be routed across
multiple physical network types and interconnects -- i.e., internetworking,
and hence, the name Internet.
The Internet is the single biggest force driving network technologies today.
It is such a large force that it is effectively driving out NetBEUI, IPX,
SNA, DECnet, and all the other incompatible, proprietary network protocols
and their associated nasty kludges (like Microsoft's WINS name service) in
favor of open standards like TCP/IP and DNS.
The upshot is that any IT group that is trying desperately to hang onto any
non-TCP/IP network is trying to go against the massive Internet flow and is
in a deep state of denial (or appalling ignorance), and any software vendor
that is trying to support more networking protocols than just TCP/IP is
likely wasting valuable time and effort. Yes, that means that IT groups
have to become familiar with the technology that everyone and everything
else is or will be using. Yes, that means they have to deal with such
issues as security in a public networking environment. No, blanket
rejections of TCP/IP on security grounds are not responsible or
respectable -- relatively simple and well established techniques (like
RFC1918 private network addresses, NAT (Network Address Translation), and
commercially available firewalls) are adequate for all but the most extreme
security requirements, and there are plenty of consultants and training
courses available to compensate for insufficient knowledge. Whining that
software vendors should indefinitely continue to support network
technologies whose time has passed will likely fall on deaf ears.
Frank Conforti
need TCP/IP services on the clients and the app server but you do NOT need
fixed ip addresses. In other words, if you have a properly configured NT
network the DHCP server will keep track of the machine name to IP address
mapping. I've used PB with both fixed IP addresses and DHCP assigned IPs
and both work equally well. You'll find PB is a very well mannered TCP
service that works within the existing NT (and Win98 clients) network.
Heck, it even works alongside a Novell server network (the PB server must
run on an NT box though) as long as the required TCP/IP services are
installed on the clients. I've even used it from home via a webshuttle
modem sharing device (that also acted as a simple DHCP server). There just
isn't that much to setting up PB on your existing network!
PB... Try it, you'll like it!
--
Frank Conforti ( frank[dot]conforti[at]bentley[dot]com )
Bentley Systems - Foundation Product Planning and Technology
"Nathan Emerson" <nathan....@readprocess.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3905...@readprocess.demon.co.uk...
> If I might just jump in here.....
> Sam's original suggestion of trying out the web site was very useful and
> threw up some interesting results (I won't go into details as it's quite
> embarrassing for our (sh)IT Manager) but Mark's comments are correct and
> maybe I should have just forwarded the address to the (sh)IT Manager and
let
> him worry about it. But, ho-hum, I read Mark's message after I'd tried out
> the site <g>. Anyway, any changes that need to be made to our network will
> have to be done by somebody else as this is getting out of my depth. Don't
> forget I'm just a low-life, stinking, draughtsman! :-)
>
> Back to my original post.....
> After I got home last night I remembered what the original fear (expressed
> by our (sh)IT Manager) was. It wasn't the network protocols, it was the
fact
> that PB requires IP addresses for each machine, the same as SELECTServer.
I
> don't know if IP addresses are to do with WinNT Server or TCP/IP as that's
> getting out of my depth, but our (sh)IT Manager was concerned that as soon
> as you give a machine an IP address if could be directly targeted by an
> outside source and they could then get into our system. Now this could all
> be bol**cks (as that seems to be his answer to everything) but is it true
> and does PB require an IP address?
>
> Why can't PB use machine names instead of IP addresses, the same as the
> licensing system?
>
> >> --
> >> Mark Hamstra
> >> Bentley Systems, Inc.
> >>
> >>
Mark Hamstra
Frank Conforti <frank.c...@bentley.com> wrote in message
news:8epbom$r8d$1...@news.bentley.com...
: Where did you get the idea that you need fixed IP addresses for PB? You
: need TCP/IP services on the clients and the app server but you do NOT need
: fixed ip addresses.
Where'd you get the idea that we were talking about *fixed* IP addresses?
The expressed concern is over TCP/IP in general, regardless of whether the
addresses are statically or dynamically allocated.
: In other words, if you have a properly configured NT
: network the DHCP server will keep track of the machine name to IP address
: mapping.
Ummm... no it won't -- or, at least, that's not necessarily true. The
disconnect between DHCP address assignments and DNS names is one of the
major hassles with using DHCP at present. DNS was designed before there
ever was such a thing as DHCP, so it is predicated upon the assumption that
all IP addresses are static. Only more recent implementations of DNS (like
BIND 8) support any provision for dynamic updates of the namespace; but a
standardized, end-to-end solution from DHCP client, through DHCP server, to
DNS server does not exist at present (soon, though). As a result, the only
way to maintain DNS synchronization with dynamically assigned IP addresses
is by means of some non-standard mechanism -- whether in Microsoft's
DHCP/DNS server or through an extension to other DHCP and DNS
implementations, like ISC's DHCPd and BIND. Don't make the mistake of
assuming that dynamic DNS works everywhere just because we have done the
work to implement such a dynamic DNS solution on Bentley's networks.
: I've used PB with both fixed IP addresses and DHCP assigned IPs
: and both work equally well. You'll find PB is a very well mannered TCP
: service that works within the existing NT (and Win98 clients) network.
Provided that network has been configured to use TCP/IP... there's no
requirement for such on a Windows network prior to Windows2000.
: Heck, it even works alongside a Novell server network (the PB server must
: run on an NT box though) as long as the required TCP/IP services are
: installed on the clients. I've even used it from home via a webshuttle
: modem sharing device (that also acted as a simple DHCP server). There just
: isn't that much to setting up PB on your existing network!
Nathan Emerson
But you know what they say "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing"
which brings us back to our IT guy......
Anyway, putting together what you and Frank Conforti have said I think I
have a solution that would enable us to use PB in conjunction with our
Novell server and IPX protocol.... (But first I'd just like to make
something clear, I'm not against PB since I've not tried it and believe me I
want to try it! It just that I was under the impression I couldn't use it
due to our Novell network.)
In our Drawing Office we have three CAD machines of which only two are used,
so the spare will become the PB server but will actually store the drawing
database (or whatever it is that PB turns DGN's into) on the Novell network
using the IPX protocol. Is this possible?
The two CAD machines will then become PB clients communicating with the PB
server (on the spare computer) using TCP/IP protocol across the network.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but from what your saying this shouldn't cause
any problems as the TCP/IP will be floating along the wires but because it's
not recognised by the network the network will ignore it. So in effect the
three CAD machines will become a mini network with the spare as the
"gateway" onto the Novell network. That way the bits that need TCP/IP or IPX
can have it but without interfering with each other.
Nathan.
===== Original Message from "Mark Hamstra" <mark.h...@bentley.com> at
3/05/00 15:52
>
>Nathan Emerson <nathan....@readprocess.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3905...@readprocess.demon.co.uk...
>: If I might just jump in here.....
>: Sam's original suggestion of trying out the web site was very useful and
>: threw up some interesting results (I won't go into details as it's quite
>: embarrassing for our (sh)IT Manager) but Mark's comments are correct and
>: maybe I should have just forwarded the address to the (sh)IT Manager and
>let
>: him worry about it. But, ho-hum, I read Mark's message after I'd tried out
>: the site <g>. Anyway, any changes that need to be made to our network will
>: have to be done by somebody else as this is getting out of my depth. Don't
>: forget I'm just a low-life, stinking, draughtsman! :-)
>
>Ummm... yes, any IT group that leaves their network vulnerable to the level
>of exploits probed by Sam's recommended site deserves to be embarassed. On
>the upside, such an IT group presents new career opportunities for a
>low-life draughtsman with sufficient intellect, curiosity, and
>initiative....
>
>: Back to my original post.....
>: After I got home last night I remembered what the original fear (expressed
>: by our (sh)IT Manager) was. It wasn't the network protocols, it was the
>fact
>: that PB requires IP addresses for each machine, the same as SELECTServer.
>I
>: don't know if IP addresses are to do with WinNT Server or TCP/IP as that's
>: getting out of my depth, but our (sh)IT Manager was concerned that as soon
>: as you give a machine an IP address if could be directly targeted by an
>: outside source and they could then get into our system. Now this could all
>: be bol**cks (as that seems to be his answer to everything) but is it true
>: and does PB require an IP address?
>
>Yes, it is bol**cks. Yes, PB does require machines to have IP addresses.
>
>: Why can't PB use machine names instead of IP addresses, the same as the
>: licensing system?
>
>--
>Mark Hamstra
>Bentley Systems, Inc.
===== Comments by nathan....@readprocess.co.uk (Nathan Emerson) at
3/05/00 16:30
SamuelG
Sam was only trying to be helpful and I still get whacked over the nut.
Life is not fair :-(
--
Regards
Sam
"Mark Hamstra" <mark.h...@bentley.com> wrote in message
news:8epedg$shv$1...@news.bentley.com...
Galilee
You whacked me first for suggesting he goes to that site.
You wearing a spotted tie today?
--
Regards
Sam
"Mark Hamstra" <mark.h...@bentley.com> wrote in message
news:8epk29$vbh$1...@news.bentley.com...
> *********************************************************************
> New posting to comp.cad.microstation news group.
> Provided by the newsgroup-microstation "Majordomo" List Server
> *********************************************************************
>
>
>
> SamuelG <sam...@galilee.co.za> wrote in message
> news:8epj26$1b5$1...@ctb-nnrp1.saix.net...
> : >Ummm... yes, any IT group that leaves their network vulnerable to the
> level
> : of exploits probed by Sam's recommended site deserves to be
embarrassed.<
> :
> : Sam was only trying to be helpful and I still get whacked over the nut.
> : Life is not fair :-(
>
> Gee... and I thought I was whacking Nathan's IT group.
Mark Hamstra
Mark Hamstra
Nathan Emerson <nathan....@readprocess.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3905...@readprocess.demon.co.uk...
: But you know what they say "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous
thing"
: which brings us back to our IT guy......
:
: Anyway, putting together what you and Frank Conforti have said I think I
: have a solution that would enable us to use PB in conjunction with our
: Novell server and IPX protocol.... (But first I'd just like to make
: something clear, I'm not against PB since I've not tried it and believe me
I
: want to try it! It just that I was under the impression I couldn't use it
: due to our Novell network.)
:
: In our Drawing Office we have three CAD machines of which only two are
used,
: so the spare will become the PB server but will actually store the drawing
: database (or whatever it is that PB turns DGN's into) on the Novell
network
: using the IPX protocol. Is this possible?
Not sure what you mean by "store the drawing database...using...IPX."
ProjectBank has essentially two separate server-side stores: the actual ECM
object store, and the shadow filesystem (used for things like client-side
reference files). Those stores don't necessarily have to be on the same
server machine, but they are each resident in some server's local
filesystem. As such, "stor[ing] the drawing database" (whether intended to
mean the object store or the shadow filesystem) is a filesystem issue, not a
network protocol issue.
Accessing either of those stores is a networking issue. In the case of the
object store, that fundamental portion of ProjectBank must (currently) run
on an NT box, and must be accessed by clients using TCP/IP -- Novell
filesystem and IPX have no role to play. In the case of the shadow
filesystem, I suppose that it may be possible for that filesystem to reside
in a Novell volume and be accessed via IPX. I can't see why the
client-to-shadow file connection couldn't work over IPX, but I'm not certain
whether the object store-to-shadow filesystem connection can be via IPX -- I
think it should work, but I don't know for certain. In any case, you'll
need a TCP/IP-based NT server and clients already, so I guess I don't see
why you wouldn't use SMB/NetBIOS over TCP/IP instead of trying to fight your
way through a non-standard configuration using IPX.
: The two CAD machines will then become PB clients communicating with the PB
: server (on the spare computer) using TCP/IP protocol across the network.
: Now correct me if I'm wrong, but from what your saying this shouldn't
cause
: any problems as the TCP/IP will be floating along the wires but because
it's
: not recognised by the network the network will ignore it.
Depends on what you mean by "the network." The physical network is likely
some version of Ethernet. IPX, TCP/IP, and NetBEUI are all examples of
higher level protocols that can be implemented on top of Ethernet. These
higher level protocols are all independent of each other, so there is no
more reason why they can't be simultaneously implemented on the same
physical network than there is reason that a wine glass and water glass
can't both be simultaneously supported by the same underlying table.
: So in effect the
: three CAD machines will become a mini network with the spare as the
: "gateway" onto the Novell network.
If you want your shadow filesystem on a Novell volume, then there may be
some need for a TCP/IP-IPX gateway. Similarly, if your PB clients and
servers are not on the same physical network segment (or, actually,
broadcast domain), then the intervening routers will need to support TCP/IP
in addition to their current handling of IPX. Otherwise, there is no reason
why your TCP/IP and IPX networks couldn't co-exist in total ignorance of
each other -- and some of us Unix types still pine for the days when we only
had to share the wires and not the TCP/IP network with these other upstart
OSes.
: That way the bits that need TCP/IP or IPX
: can have it but without interfering with each other.
Correct in essence, but you're going to have to work out the details.
Thomas Voghera
<Bke...@loaarchitects.com> wrote:
Bob
>Dennis,
>
>Thank you, it's nice to hear from someone in architecture. Would you
>mind answering a few questions?
>
>You're going to use PB with Triforma. What -Exactly- will PB allow you to
>do that you cannot do today?
Tracking of revisions ! Think of it. At anytime you can ask. Show me
changes since yymmdd.
At least I hope there will be easy tools for this.
For the next 6 (or18 months) there will be little else and Bentley has
a lot to pick up on the user interface.
I do see the advantages of PB for a large
>company or one who works with very large files, but I don't understand
>what advantage PB is to a single seat user.
>
>And having to manage the additional overhead of running PB in addition
>to the dgn editor,
I don't think it will be that difficult. Don't be carried away by
Bentley's marketing talk. There are fundamental changes that is basis
for the ECM editor later, but nothing to worry about now.
Thomas V
******************************************************************
Thomas Voghera, TVAK
Box 8215, 163 08 SPÅNGA, SWEDEN
Tel +46 8 56471414 Fax +46 8 795 7587 Mob +46 70 695 7630
e-mail: thomas....@telia.com
******************************************************************
Mark Hamstra
: Bob Keller <Bke...@loaarchitects.com> wrote in message
: news:sh0f80l...@corp.supernews.com...
: > Dennis,
: >
: > Thank you, it's nice to hear from someone in architecture. Would you
: > mind answering a few questions?
: I'll Try.
[snip]
Nice job, Dennis. The only thing I see significantly out of line in your
treatise is the following: "Remember that ProjectBank is just a data store,
it doesn't know what the data is, it just stores it. It is the "clients"
which read and understand what the data is, and then allow you to do
something with it."
That's not accurate. The object store does indeed know and understand the
ECM schemas that it stores, and can perform various operations on the basis
of that knowledge. Right now those operations are primarily along the lines
of validating stored objects to be certain that components are and remain in
a consistent state, but in the future the object store will likely be
playing an even more active role -- it is certainly not just a passive data
store, nor would you want it to be: the component store is the centralized
agent that has a global view of the entire project, not just the clients'
more limited and individualized views; as such, it is in a unique position
to perform and coordinate operations that require such a global perspective.
Keith Laurie
TFPierce <tfpi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:TdOP4.46933$WF.24...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> similar, if not easier to use than Acu Draw, These features have improved
> the AutoCad interface significantly. I think if MicroStation developed
an
> automatic autozoom feature with incrementally larger fields of view keyed
to
> individual clicks on the mouse wheel, similar to the autopan feature, it
> would be more efficient than the constant manual zoom that AutoCad has
> developed.
>
I suggested this to them years ago. Use a two key/one button chord for
dynamic zoom in, other button out. Then you could pan across dynamically
using the one key/one button chord, depress the next key and straight away
be zooming in. Smooth, seamless, slick. You could even have a third key for
faster/slower zoom rate toggle.
They didn't listen, getting all caught up in the intellimouse fad.
Regards
Keith Laurie
Dennis Barker
You have raised some interesting questions, I'll do my best to answer them
fom my point of view & experience of over 20 years in Achitecture & Cad
Management. My responses are my "understanding" of PB in my own words and
therefore may not express a technically accurate dissertation on the
subject.
see below.
Bob Keller <Bke...@loaarchitects.com> wrote in message
news:sh0f80l...@corp.supernews.com...
> Dennis,
>
> Thank you, it's nice to hear from someone in architecture. Would you
> mind answering a few questions?
I'll Try.
>
> You're going to use PB with Triforma. What -Exactly- will PB allow you to
> do that you cannot do today? I do see the advantages of PB for a large
> company or one who works with very large files, but I don't understand
> what advantage PB is to a single seat user.
In terms of drawing/modelling functionality to produce a project, The
current version of PB won't add any thing. But, as is the case today infact,
I have a client who wants to go back to a previous scheme. Thankfully I have
that scheme saved, but I don't always. With Projectbank I could recover that
scheme or other stages which were committed to PB. It also means that I will
not have to deliberately keep these milestones as separate directories of
files. On a large job, keeping a separate set of files at the various
design, approval, etc., stages of a project can add up to a lot of disk
space, but with PB these milestones can be a commitment to PB which can be
recovered and replotted if necessary. This to me is a benefit.
>
> And having to manage the additional overhead of running PB in addition
> to the dgn editor, can only decrease efficiency (the reason we chose MS
> over the others in the first place). When I hire someone just out of
> college,
> I'm lucky if they know what a two-by-four is,
lucky I go back to pre-metric days - I know what a two-by-four is! Except
that in Australia it was generally a "four-b'-two"
> much less how to draft
> efficiently or use the computer. One of the BIG advantages to MS is that
> all changes are saved without having to actually save the file. Now, with
> PB,
> changes have to be committed to PB store. So drafter A can't find the
most
> recent drawing because drafter B forgot to commit his changes last week!
> Or worse, drafter B lays out all of the reflected ceiling grids on the
floor
> plan,
> but drafter A hasn't commited the floor plan revisions yet. I can only
see
> efficiency going down with PB.
Yes I see your point. But some of that is also a management problem.
Currently you wouldn't change the ceiling grid until the walls are done, and
this would probably be the same with ProjectBank. But there is the
possibility for two peole to work along together on the same file, it just
requires that extra step of a more regular file commit and a syncronise
every now and then. Isn't there just a hint of possibility that this may be
advantageous when those deadlines are getting closer? There will be some
more overhead to manage, but not that much. The changes worked on in the
local breifcase will be saved as the user works, as it currently does.
Remember that Microstation is just a PB client. It still functions the same.
Your staff will have to learn to commit their work to PB. But it is not a
difficult task to do. Give them some credit for intelligence. If you think
they are not capable of this, then I suggest you get new staff.
>
> Everyone talks about how awful it would be to, as you say, 'just dump
dgn'.
> I'm not sure that I understand this position. What would be so bad about
> a Microstation J ver. 8 (complete with 256 levels), that could load files
> created
> in older versions of MS, but whose files once saved in ver. 8, could not
be
> loaded by the older versions? J ver. 8 could also allow you to open files
> created in previous versions, modify them, and then save the file in the
> format
> of the old version.
To be honest, Bob, I think this is what we are getting. It may have been
possible to add to the existing dgn format, but that would be up to
technically educated folk at Bentley to say why it could or couldn't be
done,. Upward compatibility is probably easy, but backward compatibity is
not. That other system is a case in point. I continually convert a friend's
version 11 dxf files through Microstation to Acad 14 because Acad can't open
them. And then they force you to upgrade by saying if you don't do it by
xx/xx/xx you will have to pay full price. A real nice way to treat your
customers.
However, while it may have been possible for Bentley add functionality to
dgn, I think they saw the need to basically rewrite Microstation from the
ground up. In doing this they developed what is an engineering component
store (ie ProjectBank) which would allow a greater level of intelligence to
each element, or component, of your design. This will enable a Triforma
element to know what it is much better than it currently does and to also
understand it's relationships to other interelated elements. This kind of
thing is so different to dgn it doesn't even make sense to me to try and
patch it in to dgn. If you need to change your data structure, you need to
change your data structure! So in essence, Bentley are in fact dumping the
dgn format in favour of a new improved one, but they aren't trading in the
old one. They have recognised that historical data is important to many
users, so they have made a committment to continue to support dgn files as
long as there is a need for it. In the process of working all this out, I
think Keith, Barry & Co also figured out that we should have a better file
management system, one which was superior to our current useage of
referenced files. This is the briefcase interface to PB, rather than just
accessing the data directly, & locking the data in much the same way as
files are at present. Sure, this adds a little more overhead to the daily
routine, but also gives some benefits - perhaps intangible until you need
them.
>
> Are you absolutely sure that future versions of Ustn will be capable of
> editing
> dgn files without PB? My understanding is that this is not the case. A
> future
> non-PB version of Microstation will have to be true to today's dgn format.
> So,
> are you saying that ten years from now Bentley will be releasing new
non-PB
> versions of Microstation?
My "understanding" is that in the future, Microstation will be supported &
shipped as a "Client" of ProjectBank. This should mean that it can operate
both outside of Projectbank (as it has done for years) and in PB Client
mode, with data inside or outside of PB. What level of enhancements are made
for Microstation/DGN in the future is another question altogether. Bentley's
main thrust forward will be the forthcoming Engineering Component Modelling
(ECM) Clients for ProjectBank which will use a totally different data
structure to the dgn format. The ECM editor (lets call it Microstation/ECM)
will be able to open, read and edit this more intelligent level of data.
Microstation/DGN will still be able to open and edit dgn data stored inside
or outside of PB, and AutoCAD(via Projectwise) will be able to open and edit
DWG data stored in PB. (we might even see a Microstation/DWG editor at some
stage??) Remember that ProjectBank is just a data store, it doesn't know
what the data is, it just stores it. It is the "clients" which read and
understand what the data is, and then allow you to do something with it.
When it comes to building a 3D project model, the greater level of
intelligence afforded by ECM will be essential. We, as users, may not be
there yet or need it all yet, but I believe Bentley have the future in their
sights and are trying to provide tools that will stand up to the increasing
demands of building/plant owners & operators over the years ahead. And
putting patches on dgn wasn't going to get them, or us, that far.
If this synopsis is not correct, then perhaps Frank can set us all
straight... Earth to Frank, Earth to Frank.... Come in Frank...
>
> Thank you for your time,
>
That's OK. I hope this helps (or at least makes sense!)
I have always wanted to be near the forefront of technology, which is one of
the reasons I started using Triforma. I stumbled into a job using CAD about
17 years ago and I have seen, used and taught a lot of CAD stuff over the
years. Perhaps I am just optimistic about the benefits all this will bring,
but I'd rather be optimistic about new possibilities and new ways of working
in the industry, than only whether I am turning out 2D plans more
efficiently than last week. But that's me.
regards,
Dennis Barker
Innovision Technologies Pty Ltd
Sydney, Australia
th...@my-deja.com
> that in Australia it was generally a "four-b'-two"
>
down-and-under ?
Thomas V
Dennis Barker
and wouldn't have it any other way.
Dennis Barker
<th...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8er36v$v8n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> > that in Australia it was generally a "four-b'-two"
> >
>
Dennis Barker
>
> [snip]
>
> Nice job, Dennis. The only thing I see significantly out of line in your
store,
[snip]
Thanks for the vote of confidence Mark, and for your clarification of the
more technical issues. I'll commit that data to my GreymatterBank and
synchronise it right away.
I had an inkling that my statement wasn't entirely correct, although my
understanding comes from what I've read and experienced so far. But I was
just trying to convey a point as simply as possible, and that was that PB
requires the use of clients like Ustn & ECM as editors of the data, and for
that reason, Bentley would continue to ship Ustn as an editor of the dgn
data that could be stored in PB. You may recall I found a bug in the import
process very early on, so I discovered then that something more intelligent,
such as verifying the integrity of the data as it is imported/commited into
PB, was happening inside it. But this is essentially hidden from the user,
is it not? From the user's perspective, it is the data store, but perhaps
not "just a data store".
BTW, has someone talked you out of leaving?
regards
Mircea Troi
I would like to ask you some questions as you failed to answer my previous ones:
1. Does Bentley intend to mimic the Smallworld datastore? Then you should find
better ways to deal with multiple users working on the same design, tracking and
reversing changes.
2. Can you explain what ECM stand for? Or should I? Because from the original
Bentley document it helps only to implement a product and it is not a product
per se.
3. If Bentley have introduced PB server, does this mean that the server will
support other clients except Bentley products (AutoCad?, Catia?, Pro/E?). It
seems that you are preparing for a universal CAD server, so why not other
software companies take advantage of your PB?
4. Did Bentley find a way to get rid of the old IGDS format in a way that would
not bother Intergraph?
5. What happened with the long promised Objective Microstation? Did your top
programmers get lost and moved to Microsoft?
6. And my favorite question? When will Bentley open to developers because you
can not have what AutoCad offers just keeping all info for your development
team. You will remain with some applications that have support no more (MDE for
example).
7. When will Bentley develop a normal TIFF (raster) plotter driver leaving the
user to choose the resolution, compression, ...?
8. Why should I wait to finish my current project (with MS v 07.00....) before
upgrading to MS v 07.01...? Because with your care for users and developers you
have changed the directory structure and if I install the new version I will
lose a lot of my settings. Is this the way the Microstation SP will work?
9. One of the most interesting things I have heard about Microstation J was that
are about 10:1 Java to MDL programmers around the world and they could improve
things. Sure not with what Bentley provides them as a JMDL environment.
10. The happy news is that you will get some developers from Intergraph: Maybe
Bentley could learn something from them.
Regards,
Mircea Troi
Chris Zakrewsky
>6. And my favorite question? When will Bentley open to developers because you
>can not have what AutoCad offers just keeping all info for your development
>team. You will remain with some applications that have support no more (MDE for
>example).
I'll leave most of BBQ-processing to Frank, but at one point (your favorite)
I may provide an update: just received another day a CD with PB SDK!!!!!
Although dated January, it is a beginning... (and a kinda of 'record' about
how long time it takes to burn a CD these days... ;-) ).
Best!
/Chris Zakrewsky
Mircea Troi wrote in message <3911645B...@one.net.au>...
Bob Keller
Thank you! Someone was FINALLY able to express in real world
terms an actual use for PB. You can use PB to return to a
previous design phase of a project.
As architects, we are typically legally required to store our
drawings at the major design phases (schematic, design
development, and contract documents). In pre-computer
days the architect would simply keep a reproducible copy
of the drawings at each design phase. We do not keep
hard copies any longer, instead, when changing to a new
design phase we copy the design files to a new directory
and make the old directory 'read only'. The old directory
is then archived and stored on and off site. So in order
to use PB for this purpose I would have to be able to trust
that the software will return ALL of the design files to
EXACTLY the state they were in at the time of the submittal.
They MUST be perfect - remember these are legal documents.
Seems that storing the CAD files in the state of the submittal
would be a safer and more reliable method. Plus, I wouldn't
have to go through the process of asking PB to return the
files to a previous state. All I have to do now is grab the ZIP
disk, pop it in my drive - DONE !
What if you use PB to return your files to a previous design
scheme as you mentioned. OK, now a couple weeks later
the owner changes their mind again and want to go back to the
design you reverted from. How do you get THAT design back?
Concerning my ceiling grid example:
My point was that I am trying to justify the overhead of PB
(installation, project setup, training, etc.) with the value
realized from using PB. The value is not there. And I think
everyone has agreed that the real value in PB is not going
to be realized until some time in the future. In our 'small'
office I cannot afford the time to learn, implement, and train
on a new system unless a very real, significant improvement
will be realized from the new system.
Which brings me to another point. When we bought into
the Select Program a few years ago, it was because we
wanted the improvements available in SE. Converting to SE
from MS95 was totally painless. Likewise migrating from
SE to J. But, this is not a software upgrade. This is not
a new version of Microstation, this is a completey new
system that we never chose to purchase. Our primary reason
for purchasing Microstation over other CAD packages was
the ability to customize MS to make it very efficient.
In our office efficiency is the KEY! If this new version was
just Microstation J ver. 8 or Microstation 2000, I could be
save in the knowledge that Bentley would release an upgrade
that follows in the tradition of Microstation. But this is not
an upgrade, it is a totally new system. Am I wrong in feeling
that we purchased one product and are now being forced
to use something else?
Feeling trapped,
GHouck
Dear Frank,
[snip]
2. Can you explain what ECM stand for? Or should I? Because from the
riginal
[snip]
I assume that it does NOT mean Electronic Counter Measures from
my Navy days?
Yours,
Geoff Houck
systems hk
hk...@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~hksys
Thomas Voghera
Clearly the main purpose of PB is in the future many moons from now.
And most of us has very little use of it all those months it's been
alive.
But when PB runs with Triforma I'll test it. I don't think the
installation or managment will be so difficult. On the contrary, from
the user side of it PB dgnschema is quite simple and trivial.
And I expect to have some use of the roll-back, but mostly I hope it
will provide a system and interface for revisions. RevisionPM and
clouds in the drawings. When using a model and "calculating" the
drawings this becomes very tricky. One change in the model can be seen
in many drawings. How do you keep track of that in a secure way
without using a lot of manhours.
And PB won't prevent you from creating a backup CD. And my guess is
that it will be very easy to "insert" an earlier version of a project,
from a cd, into PB to see differences to current status.
I believe you exaggerate the problems and underestimate the
posibilities.
Thomas V
******************************************************************
Bob Keller
We must be the only architects on the face of the planet who
use Microstation the way we do. We do not use models. We
do not use Triforma. We do production contract documents
for addition/remodels of public educational facilities. Of the
sixty or so files created for a typical project only two or
three files (the floor plan files) would EVER need to be shared
by the same person at the same time. And that problem occurs
so rarely today that using PB to fix it is like buying a $40,000
SUV just in case I might drive over a little bump in the road once
a month.
You're right, I have exaggerated the problems and underestimated
the possibilities. So I guess we will just keep using SE and
pumping $$ into the Select program until we get a product that
has some benefit over SE (for us!). Or something better comes
along from another manufacturer ... ?
Thank you all for your time and goodbye.
Bob Keller
Luis Acosta Architects, P.C.
Bke...@loaarchitects.com
Thomas Voghera <thomas....@telia.com> wrote in message
news:3911ead0....@news.telia.net...
komae
As far as I know PB is free to Select subscribers.
Also, if you don't mind me asking. If you have select, why are you still
using SE and not J.
Bear.
TFPierce
I am delighted to hear from you. My first suggestion of such features met
with such arrogant responses in the MicroStation forum. I have recently
submitted such a suggestion to Zif Davis hoping perhaps they would be astute
enough to understand what the significance as to the digital zoom feature
could be. I feel with the right perception may be a million dollar idea,
not to mention the assistance it would offer those with disabilities.
Thanks again.
Sincerely,
TFPierce
Dennis Barker
I can understand exactly where you are coming from.
If that is where you are at with your work, then Microstation, "as is",
serves you well. I have been doing that type of work on CAD for 17 years. I
wasn't trying to disagree with your reluctance to install ProjecBank. In
fact I said I wouldn't worry about using it yet if you don't see the value.
But I'm a guy who likes to work with new stuff & I want to work in 3D. That
makes us different. All I have been trying to put forward is that Bentley
have seen the need to move ahead, and that has included a new file format
know thus far as ECM (Engineering Component Modelling) The first phase of
this, to ease us into this new paradigm, is Projectbank DGN, which gives us
the familiar microstation and file compatability, but introduces us to a new
and smarter way of storing data. It is a stepping stone to the future. There
seems to be many people on this group who have expresed similar opinions to
yours, and there are some valid points that need to be worked through. But I
think that dismissing Projectbank as a waste of time is not giving credit to
Bentley for at least being forward thinking. Would you rather find that in
5-10 years that Bentley has been bypass by every other CAD vendor and is
slowly fading into the sunset. There have been plenty of others who have
already disappeared off the horizon. AutoCAD has, I am told, already changed
their file format for their Mechanical desktop. So Bentley are not the only
ones seeing the need to move to newer technologies.
But to sum up, Don't rush into it, but do think through it with an open mind
and with an eye on the future. And bear in mind that some of us are finding
that there is some real benefits in going to Triforma and working in 3D.
It's not about getting pretty pictures, but getting faster and better
co-ordinated 2D Plans, Elevations and Sections. Isn't that what you want?
And having done that, we can also get a pretty picture if we need one.
regards,
Dennis Barker
Innovision Technologies Pty Ltd
Sydney, Australia
Voice 61 2 9899 1886
Fax 61 2 9899 1896
www.innovision.comcen.com.au
Bob Keller <Bke...@loaarchitects.com> wrote in message
news:sh40d6...@corp.supernews.com...
Jim Weisgram
<Bke...@loaarchitects.com> wrote:
[...snip...]
>
>Everyone talks about how awful it would be to, as you say, 'just dump dgn'.
>I'm not sure that I understand this position. What would be so bad about
>a Microstation J ver. 8 (complete with 256 levels), that could load files
>created
>in older versions of MS, but whose files once saved in ver. 8, could not be
>loaded by the older versions? J ver. 8 could also allow you to open files
>created in previous versions, modify them, and then save the file in the
>format
>of the old version.
>
[...snip...]
Perhaps it is because of the various nature of the changes that are
necessary. For example, some people want more levels. Possibly that is
no big deal to implement, unless it breaks some customizations (some
sort of special user commands, for example) that depend on the
structure of the file format, so that they no longer work with the new
version of the product. All the sudden we could find ourselves left
with many years of legacy files that cannot be brought up and worked
on with our current workflows.
Remember that CAD is more than a tool all on its own. There are a lot
of vertical applications that are sold that work with the MicroStation
file format at a very low level, that in fact become the actual
application the customer uses, and depend on that format doing exactly
what it does today, so that these would break if the format changed.
While Bentley isn't responsible for these they would make a lot of
their customers unhappy if they broke these applications.
You could say, "so? Just don't upgrade, then". But that only works if
the customer is a complete island. Otherwise there will need to be
ongoing exchange of work with other entities.
Keith Kakerbeck
<frank.c...@bentley.com> wrote:
<snip>
> There just isn't that much to setting up PB on your existing network!
>
>PB... Try it, you'll like it!
>
>--
>
>Frank Conforti ( frank[dot]conforti[at]bentley[dot]com )
>Bentley Systems - Foundation Product Planning and Technology
>
<snip>
If what you say is correct, would you please be kind enough to
forward instructions covering PB installation on my LANtastic (v7.0)
network running Win'95 as the OS at both server and clients. <G>
--Keith
--------------------------------------------------
If you think education is expensive try ignorance.
--------------------------------------------------
Keith Kakerbeck
Pioneer Industries
keit...@netzero.net
------------------
Frank Conforti
> drawings at the major design phases (schematic, design
> development, and contract documents). In pre-computer
> days the architect would simply keep a reproducible copy
> of the drawings at each design phase. We do not keep
> hard copies any longer, instead, when changing to a new
> design phase we copy the design files to a new directory
> and make the old directory 'read only'. The old directory
> is then archived and stored on and off site. So in order
> to use PB for this purpose I would have to be able to trust
> that the software will return ALL of the design files to
> EXACTLY the state they were in at the time of the submittal.
> They MUST be perfect - remember these are legal documents.
>
Yup, know about this. You can back up your PB server store or if you are
using the shadowfile system, you could even archive the shadow files of your
project. If you are worried about someone dipping into the history of a
project back before a particular submittal there is a command in PB for
compressing out historical data so users can't go back past a specific point
in the project.
> Seems that storing the CAD files in the state of the submittal
> would be a safer and more reliable method. Plus, I wouldn't
> have to go through the process of asking PB to return the
> files to a previous state. All I have to do now is grab the ZIP
> disk, pop it in my drive - DONE !
>
Returning a project to a previous state is as simple as creating a new
briefcase. There is an option at briefcase creation time for setting it to
the current state of the project or at any revision state of that project.
I call this a down-revved or historical briefcase. Works like a charm!
If you are truly worried about returning to a specific revision you can
always archive out the PB server store just as you would the dgn files in
your scenario.
> What if you use PB to return your files to a previous design
> scheme as you mentioned. OK, now a couple weeks later
> the owner changes their mind again and want to go back to the
> design you reverted from. How do you get THAT design back?
>
Actually, you wouldn't 'return' to that previous design but reinstate the
older revision and commit it as the most current version. In this way, you
have the best of both worlds; you have the original state, the modified
state and the reinstated original state. You could even do a difference
file between the modified state and the reinstated original state to
pinpoint the exact elements affected by the reinstatement.
There is nothing to stop you from creating several briefcases against one
project all at different revision levels in the project. However, only a
current briefcase can commit to the server (this is done by simply synching
your BC). In this way, you can explore, cut, copy, whatever, design data
from older revisions. This has proved helpful especially when doing 'what
if' scenarios.
If there was one major enhancement for the end user that PB provides it's
the unlimited undo capability. You can review any element in the design and
reinstate it as the current version of that element. You can even undo
element DELETIONS (try that with any other doc mgmt system or design
center!) all the way back to the beginning of the project under PB. This
can be done on an individual level or for entire commit sessions.
An editorial point here... we (Bentley) are learning about PB's capabilities
just as our users are. The way you apply this tool is going to depend on
what you need to do. I would suspect that a year from now there will be
aspects of PB in general use that we had not anticipated but was discovered
by our users and applied to their operation.
> Concerning my ceiling grid example:
> My point was that I am trying to justify the overhead of PB
> (installation, project setup, training, etc.) with the value
> realized from using PB. The value is not there. And I think
> everyone has agreed that the real value in PB is not going
> to be realized until some time in the future. In our 'small'
> office I cannot afford the time to learn, implement, and train
> on a new system unless a very real, significant improvement
> will be realized from the new system.
>
How do you KNOW the value is not there? Have you actually tried out
ProjectBank? As far as implementation time and 'training' there just is NOT
a lot of training involved! I really don't think you'll have nearly as much
trouble deploying PB as you think.
I'll say it again... TRY IT OUT FIRST even if only on one machine in your
office... it is worth the effort.
> Which brings me to another point. When we bought into
> the Select Program a few years ago, it was because we
> wanted the improvements available in SE. Converting to SE
> from MS95 was totally painless. Likewise migrating from
> SE to J. But, this is not a software upgrade. This is not
> a new version of Microstation, this is a completey new
> system that we never chose to purchase. Our primary reason
> for purchasing Microstation over other CAD packages was
> the ability to customize MS to make it very efficient.
> In our office efficiency is the KEY! If this new version was
> just Microstation J ver. 8 or Microstation 2000, I could be
> save in the knowledge that Bentley would release an upgrade
> that follows in the tradition of Microstation. But this is not
> an upgrade, it is a totally new system. Am I wrong in feeling
> that we purchased one product and are now being forced
> to use something else?
>
PB is not a full fledged document management system. Instead, it is a new
way to interact with your design data but without having to totally retool
your current operation. Yes, you do have to set up a simple application
server but that overhead is not nearly as high as you seem to fear. We've
run PB around here at Bentley on 200MHz Pentium PRO equipped machines with
absolutely no problem. In fact, we keep a lab equipped with these older
machines just because we want to make sure it works well even in slower
environments. About the only real demand is the practical need for 128MB
memory if you are running both the server and client on the same box.
> Feeling trapped,
Why? You'll still be able to use MicroStation to work with the DGN file
types. In fact, even when you fire up MSJ with PB enabled, there is a
button in the PB Explorer that takes you right to the good old MicroStation
Manager dialog box. As as always been the case with MicroStation, you'll
always will be able to work with plain old DGN files in MicroStation.
Bob Keller
I said I was done discussing this in the newsgroup, but
I can't resist responding to a couple of your comments.
> Returning a project to a previous state is as simple as creating a new
> briefcase. There is an option at briefcase creation time for setting it
to
> the current state of the project or at any revision state of that project.
> I call this a down-revved or historical briefcase. Works like a charm!
>
> If you are truly worried about returning to a specific revision you can
> always archive out the PB server store just as you would the dgn files in
> your scenario.
>
Returning a project to a previous state without PB is as simple as
sticking a disk into the disk drive. Either way, with or without PB,
I must archive and store the submittal off site. So PB's ability to
return to revision states is no advantage whatsoever for my purpose -
archiving project submittals.
>
> How do you KNOW the value is not there? Have you actually tried out
> ProjectBank? As far as implementation time and 'training' there just is
NOT
> a lot of training involved! I really don't think you'll have nearly as
much
> trouble deploying PB as you think.
>
> I'll say it again... TRY IT OUT FIRST even if only on one machine in your
> office... it is worth the effort.
>
If you remember I DID try it out first! And I do not appreciate your
posting
a newsgroup message insinuating that I did not!!
>
>
> > Feeling trapped,
>
> Why? You'll still be able to use MicroStation to work with the DGN file
> types. In fact, even when you fire up MSJ with PB enabled, there is a
> button in the PB Explorer that takes you right to the good old
MicroStation
> Manager dialog box. As as always been the case with MicroStation, you'll
> always will be able to work with plain old DGN files in MicroStation.
>
What EXACTLY will new versions of Microstation be like? Sure, I'll be able
to work with plain old DGN files, but will any new features for non-PB
files EVER be included in these releases, or will have I have to convert to
PB to use any of the new features?
Frank Conforti
> If you remember I DID try it out first! And I do not appreciate your
> posting
> a newsgroup message insinuating that I did not!!
> >
Forgot about that... I still contend you should give it another try. Then
again, if your mind is made up then it is made up. Won't bother you again.
[snip!]
> What EXACTLY will new versions of Microstation be like? Sure, I'll be
able
> to work with plain old DGN files, but will any new features for non-PB
> files EVER be included in these releases, or will have I have to convert
to
> PB to use any of the new features?
I would say your chances of ever seeing signficant enhancements to non-PB
enabled DGN are close to zero. A primary reason we are introducing PB is to
overcome the current limitations of the DGN file format and make it easier
to introduce new intelligence into the design model. DGNs will continue to
be supported for a long time to come, just not as the primary storage model.
Regards,
Bob Keller
>
> Forgot about that... I still contend you should give it another try. Then
> again, if your mind is made up then it is made up. Won't bother you
again.
>
What for? See below...
>
> I would say your chances of ever seeing signficant enhancements to non-PB
> enabled DGN are close to zero. A primary reason we are introducing PB is
to
> overcome the current limitations of the DGN file format and make it easier
> to introduce new intelligence into the design model. DGNs will continue
to
> be supported for a long time to come, just not as the primary storage
model.
>
So, since there will be no more enhancements to non-PB
enabled DGN then the fact that future versions of Microstation
will support the old DGN does nothing to address my original
argument that I feel trapped. PB is a totally new system, not
just a new version of Microstation, you either jump on the PB
bandwagon (either now or in the near future), or you can watch
as Microstation J slowly becomes obsolete.
I have tried time and again to explain how we work in our office
and that PB does not have any features that we can use at this
time. Others in this newsgroup and yourself have stated that the
best enhancements will be forthcoming as new PB enabled DGN
editors and engineering configurations become available. At this
time we have decided to stick with Microstation (because it's
awesome) and because when the new PB enabled DGN editors
and other such stuff become available we may find sufficient
enhancements to justify converting our system.
I think its obvious that many people have found PB to be a
godsend, but there may be a larger group of MS users who will
have opinions similar to mine (just less outspoken ;-). The local
Microstation-using architects that I have contacted (just last
week) had not even heard of ProjectBank.
I have high hopes for the Microstation of the future, which
reminds me of my post of a couple weeks ago that started all
of this - why not poll all Microstation users about what they
would like to see in future products?
--
Bob Keller
Luis Acosta Architects, P.C.
Bke...@loaarchitects.com
> Regards,
Keith Kakerbeck
practical purposes we have reached the end of the line for
Microstation as a stand alone, 2d / 3d drafting package.
--Keith K
On Mon, 8 May 2000 17:13:23 -0400 "Frank Conforti"
<frank.c...@bentley.com> wrote:
<snip>
>I would say your chances of ever seeing signficant enhancements to non-PB
>enabled DGN are close to zero. A primary reason we are introducing PB is to
>overcome the current limitations of the DGN file format and make it easier
>to introduce new intelligence into the design model. DGNs will continue to
>be supported for a long time to come, just not as the primary storage model.
>
>Regards,
>--
>
>Frank Conforti ( frank[dot]conforti[at]bentley[dot]com )
>Bentley Systems - Foundation Product Planning and Technology
>
Frank Conforti
returns to the office then commits their changes... Actually, nothing stops
them from remotely connecting to the network and uploading those changes.
In fact, because only changes are ever sent over the remote connection
(versus the entire design file), it actually is possible to communicate over
existing dial-up connections.
Just wanted to set the record straight before someone 'corrects' me on this
point ;->
Frank Conforti
improved just that it will have a bigger tool box (AKA PB/ECM) to work with.
Several general purpose utilities are already under development that address
some outstanding MS issues (more on these later). I would not categorize
this as "DGN versus PB component bank" as Bentley will continue to support
DGNs AND PB component banks side-by-side. It is just that many of the
requests for enhancing the DGN file (ie, unlimited levels, names with more
than 80 characters, cell names greater than 6 characters, floating point
coordinates) can only be accomplished using a new data format thus the PB
solution. Keep in mind that MS/J equipped with PB can directly read and
write to both DGN and the PB briefcase (client's local component store)
without the need to communicate with the PB server. This is how we are
able to support both online sessions to the server and non- connected
sessions (read: stand-alone) without having to do anything special. Laptop
users simply disconnect from the network with their files 'gotten' from the
server, do their work as they need to in the field and, once back in the
office, simply plug back in and commit their changes. No special modes, no
special software. Simple and direct.
HTH!
--
Frank Conforti ( frank[dot]conforti[at]bentley[dot]com )
Bentley Systems - Foundation Product Planning and Technology
"Keith Kakerbeck" <keithN...@enter.net> wrote in message
news:3918032b...@news.enter.net...
> Is it fair to assume, based on the below quote, that for all
> practical purposes we have reached the end of the line for
> Microstation as a stand alone, 2d / 3d drafting package.
>
> --Keith K
>
> On Mon, 8 May 2000 17:13:23 -0400 "Frank Conforti"
> <frank.c...@bentley.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >I would say your chances of ever seeing signficant enhancements to non-PB
> >enabled DGN are close to zero. A primary reason we are introducing PB is
to
> >overcome the current limitations of the DGN file format and make it
easier
> >to introduce new intelligence into the design model. DGNs will continue
to
> >be supported for a long time to come, just not as the primary storage
model.
> >
> >Regards,
> >--
> >
> >Frank Conforti ( frank[dot]conforti[at]bentley[dot]com )
> >Bentley Systems - Foundation Product Planning and Technology
> >
SamuelG
ProjectBank and will never load it.
Enough of the persuasion to "go on, just try it" We do not want it.!!!!!!
Myself and a lot of the smaller users have no need for it and do not want to
pay SELECT fees on something we don't want.
To hell with backwards compatibility, convert the files into the new system
that you should have written a couple of years ago instead of trying to flog
a dead horse. Other CAD vendors saw the light and realised to capture the
market you require a modern package, for goodness sake stop living in the
past. IGDS is history
As someone has already mentioned most of the latest releases of REAL 3D
solid model programs have got a PB built in and it is considered part of the
program.
>A primary reason we are introducing PB is to<
> >overcome the current limitations of the DGN file format and make it
easier<
> >to introduce new intelligence into the design model.<
So busy churning GEO's that you forgot your foundation package and PB is
just a way of trying to catch up. Forget it! Your outta date and PB is your
admission that you have screwed up in the CAD environment.
Bentley you are going to pay for this big mistake. Try explaining to a new
user that he not only needs /J but he also needs PB to do things other
vendors are doing with one and he requires SELECT just to have this luxury.
If I was a Director at Exton, I would hang my head in shame that I have let
down so many loyal users by going this route.
It should have been a complete upgrade to Microstation with advanced
enhancements that WORK then they you may have had a bunch of happy chappies.
But for myself and others, shame on you!!!
Go on take your NG onto your server so that it can be moderated to stop
complaints like above because I for one don't give a toss what you do as you
have proven NOT to listen to your users.
MicroStation R.I.P.
--
Regards
Sam
"Keith Kakerbeck" <keithN...@enter.net> wrote in message
news:3918032b...@news.enter.net...
> *********************************************************************
> New posting to comp.cad.microstation news group.
> Provided by the newsgroup-microstation "Majordomo" List Server
> *********************************************************************
> *********************************************************************
> To Un/Subscribe your self to any Bentley System, Inc. "Majordomo" list:
> via web : http://majordomo.bentley.com
> *********************************************************************
SamuelG
An old Coke bottle was found floating in Lake Minnetonka with a note
in it. How SamuelG at sam...@galilee.co.za got it there by Tue, 9 May
2000 18:19:02 +0200 is unknown. Here is an excerpt:
Now this one I really like, was never into Grateful Dead. And the *toe jam*
was making me take a shower three times a day, just in case. Where's Lake
Minnetonka?
Now if we had only more users with backbones like yourself who speak out
instead of a bunch of NG *yes men* we may have got somewhere, but the nails
are firmly in the coffin. You and I couldn't save Bentley now. But we can
always say, we tried. I think your AutoCAD learning is the way to go. I have
ditched MicroStation and Modeler completely except for the mods to thousands
of existing drawings and still paying SELECT just in case they have a
re-think. It's built into my overhead and is a tax write off but unless
there is something new appears from Exton in the near future it will stop.
> I received word they're wasting even more time<
> with their Viecom nonsense. I ran the Flash-demo, and it's more of the<
> same big-org bullshit.<
It's in Ralph Grabowski's e-zine which I am about to print out. Why do they
persist in this rubbish when we are getting abort in MDL's. Definitely lost
their focus. Next move they will start to lose their SELECT payments, we can
vote with our bank accounts..
--
Regards
Sam
"Solo" <so...@uncle.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.138223827...@news.uswest.net...
> *********************************************************************
> New posting to comp.cad.microstation news group.
> Provided by the newsgroup-microstation "Majordomo" List Server
> *********************************************************************
>
>
> An old Coke bottle was found floating in Lake Minnetonka with a note
> in it. How SamuelG at sam...@galilee.co.za got it there by Tue, 9 May
> 2000 18:19:02 +0200 is unknown. Here is an excerpt:
>
> > When is Bentley going to get it into their heads that some users do not
want
> > ProjectBank and will never load it.
> > Enough of the persuasion to "go on, just try it" We do not want
it.!!!!!!
> > Myself and a lot of the smaller users have no need for it and do not
want to
> > pay SELECT fees on something we don't want.
>
> I second that. NOBODY in my users group has any plans for implementing
> this thing. My IT director has point-blank told me that if I want to
> run this PB dog, our department will have to pony-up for a Application
> Server. That's certainly not in our budget for this year or next.
>
> > If I was a Director at Exton, I would hang my head in shame that I have
let
> > down so many loyal users by going this route.
>
> Ever known a Suit who'd admit to a mistake?
>
> > It should have been a complete upgrade to Microstation with advanced
> > enhancements that WORK then they you may have had a bunch of happy
chappies.
> > But for myself and others, shame on you!!!
>
> Double-shame on them. I received word they're wasting even more time
> with their Viecom nonsense. I ran the Flash-demo, and it's more of the
> same big-org bullshit.
>
> > "Keith Kakerbeck" <keithN...@enter.net> wrote in message
> > news:3918032b...@news.enter.net...
> > > Is it fair to assume, based on the below quote, that for all
> > > practical purposes we have reached the end of the line for
> > > Microstation as a stand alone, 2d / 3d drafting package.
>
> Too bad. If the day comes when PB is mandatory, it's goodbye Bentley
> in my company. I'm learning AutoCad now just in case.
>
> --
> Solo
Bob Keller
Bentley. Within the next couple years, as the 'small' users
who don't follow this newsgroup or look at their Select CD's
start to learn about PB for the first time - will they rejoice,
or will they question this product like some of us are doing
today.
Seems to me that a very simple way to solve everyone's
problem would be for Bentley to release a PB-enabled
DGN editor that would just save directly to a PB data
store. Those who want new MS features without all of
the briefcases and client/server issues would use this
version of Microstation. And those who want the
client-server, revision checking, fully ProjectBank
enabled monster could do so.
Does this make any sense?
Bob Keller
Luis Acosta Architects, P.C.
Bke...@loaarchitects.com
SamuelG <sam...@galilee.co.za> wrote in message
news:8f9dr2$b8f$1...@ctb-nnrp1.saix.net...
> When is Bentley going to get it into their heads that some users do not
want
> ProjectBank and will never load it.
> Enough of the persuasion to "go on, just try it" We do not want it.!!!!!!
> Myself and a lot of the smaller users have no need for it and do not want
to
> pay SELECT fees on something we don't want.
> To hell with backwards compatibility, convert the files into the new
system
> that you should have written a couple of years ago instead of trying to
flog
> a dead horse. Other CAD vendors saw the light and realised to capture the
> market you require a modern package, for goodness sake stop living in the
> past. IGDS is history
> As someone has already mentioned most of the latest releases of REAL 3D
> solid model programs have got a PB built in and it is considered part of
the
> program.
>
> >A primary reason we are introducing PB is to<
> > >overcome the current limitations of the DGN file format and make it
> easier<
> > >to introduce new intelligence into the design model.<
>
> So busy churning GEO's that you forgot your foundation package and PB is
> just a way of trying to catch up. Forget it! Your outta date and PB is
your
> admission that you have screwed up in the CAD environment.
> Bentley you are going to pay for this big mistake. Try explaining to a new
> user that he not only needs /J but he also needs PB to do things other
> vendors are doing with one and he requires SELECT just to have this
luxury.
> If I was a Director at Exton, I would hang my head in shame that I have
let
> down so many loyal users by going this route.
> It should have been a complete upgrade to Microstation with advanced
> enhancements that WORK then they you may have had a bunch of happy
chappies.
> But for myself and others, shame on you!!!
> Go on take your NG onto your server so that it can be moderated to stop
> complaints like above because I for one don't give a toss what you do as
you
> have proven NOT to listen to your users.
> MicroStation R.I.P.
> --
> Regards
> Sam
>
> "Keith Kakerbeck" <keithN...@enter.net> wrote in message
> news:3918032b...@news.enter.net...
> > *********************************************************************
> > New posting to comp.cad.microstation news group.
> > Provided by the newsgroup-microstation "Majordomo" List Server
> > *********************************************************************
> >
> >
> > Is it fair to assume, based on the below quote, that for all
> > practical purposes we have reached the end of the line for
> > Microstation as a stand alone, 2d / 3d drafting package.
> >
SamuelG
PB for the users who are not prepared to become CAD administrators. But I
can see a few problems.
1. Will Bentley listen and implement?
2. Will the loyal users stick around long enough and wait till your
suggestion is developed?.
3. If the current enhancements on the Server are an example of what is to
come then they have no chance to compete in the market.
Here is the posting about the new enhancements which I downloaded but after
reading sent them to the Recycle bin.
>Does anyone at Bentley test these things before releasing them to the
>public?
>They all seem like wonderful productivity enhancements, but if they
>screw up other day to day operations, what's the use of having them at
all?
>With the new "Popup ToolSettings" enabled, if you select Place Text,
>then move your cursor somewhere in the drawing area (out side the text
>editor), as soon as you begin to type, the focus is shifted from the
>Text Editor to AccuDraw, so the text you are trying to put in the
>editor is interpreted as AccuDraw shortcuts. This is causing our users
>to quit AccuDraw, which is never a good thing. This only happens when
>PopSet is enabled.
>The new "QuickEdit" text editor mode is valuable in that it saves mouse
>clicks when editting text, but try to fill in some datafields with it
>enabled. Or even worse, try using the "Auto Fill ED" command. You'll
>get real frustrated real quick.
My answer to point 1. is NO they won't listen and haven't done since
MicroStation '95 that is why they are in the mess they are in now.
Number 2. Users are migrating fast, had a private e-mail tonight asking
about alternative software.
Number 3. The basic program is riddled with bugs and needs a clean up from
top to bottom.
People regard me in this NG is something of a *loose cannon* and to those
that do please note that a lot of my postings/comments are supported by
Bentley employees. How do I know, because they e-mail me privately.
--
Regards
Sam
"Bob Keller" <Bke...@loaarchitects.com> wrote in message
news:shgsokn...@corp.supernews.com...
> *********************************************************************
> New posting to comp.cad.microstation news group.
> Provided by the newsgroup-microstation "Majordomo" List Server
> *********************************************************************
>
>
> Seems to me that a problem could be brewing for
> Bentley. Within the next couple years, as the 'small' users
> who don't follow this newsgroup or look at their Select CD's
> start to learn about PB for the first time - will they rejoice,
> or will they question this product like some of us are doing
> today.
>
> Seems to me that a very simple way to solve everyone's
> problem would be for Bentley to release a PB-enabled
> DGN editor that would just save directly to a PB data
> store. Those who want new MS features without all of
> the briefcases and client/server issues would use this
> version of Microstation. And those who want the
> client-server, revision checking, fully ProjectBank
> enabled monster could do so.
>
> Does this make any sense?
>
> Bob Keller
> Luis Acosta Architects, P.C.
> Bke...@loaarchitects.com
>
>
temp...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>When is Bentley going to get it into their heads that some users do not want
>ProjectBank and will never load it.
>Enough of the persuasion to "go on, just try it" We do not want it.!!!!!!
>Myself and a lot of the smaller users have no need for it and do not want to
>pay SELECT fees on something we don't want.
>To hell with backwards compatibility, convert the files into the new system
>that you should have written a couple of years ago instead of trying to flog
>a dead horse. Other CAD vendors saw the light and realised to capture the
>market you require a modern package, for goodness sake stop living in the
>past. IGDS is history
i find this quite interesting, since this issue is very prevalent in
modern day software platforms. in actuality, this debate can rage
about a variety of subjects!
backwards compatibility is a major issue for most users of software.
does anyone particularly like the fact that in order for you to use
the latest devices and software you must switch to a different or
better platform? i can best equate it with the coming modern emission
standards which will be in place in 2003 in the united states... does
anyone particularly mind that in 3 short years you will be forced to
purchase a new car in order to meet these standards? in other words,
everyone who uses the old trusty unleaded gasoline car right now, must
either retrofit a new, cleaner burning engine, or purchase a cleaner
burning vehicle? this sort of situation comes in all realms in
technology... not just software. some people swear by LP's, some by
CD's. either choice is yours to make, although sacrifices must be made
for both.
as being one who has read this newsgroup for quite some time, i have
seen quite a display from you sam. it seems to be quite odd that you
continously choose to debunk everything that comes within your path,
and choose not to embrace the idea. those who do not think forward
will continue to live within the past.
regardless of whether any of us like it or not, software's future is
based in client & server-based technologies. if you live and die by
stand-alone machines and stand-alone CAD design, then prepare for the
worst, because if i can colloborate in realtime with a specialist
halfway across the world, ill run circles around you and your trusty
single seat.
narrow viewpoints will be shoved underneath the rug in this situation,
choose to accept or move aside.
Max Voigt
In article <8fa1vi$sl5$1...@ctb-nnrp1.saix.net>, "SamuelG"
<sam...@galilee.co.za> wrote:
>Tempie,
> My clients are here, within kms of me, not halfway around the
world. So why
>do I have to participate in client servers and the like. You
will have a bit
>of running to do to complete circles around me. I don't need a
specialist
>halfway across the world, to my clients I am the specialist.
Why do you
>think they pay my invoices every month..
>>because if i can collaborate in realtime with a specialist
>> halfway across the world, ill run circles around you and your
trusty
>> single seat.<
is why they
>has chosen me to do their CAD work right on their doorstep.
>You are reading Bentley's MicroStation Manger and maybe reading
Joel Orr's
>latest "thick or thin" client technology and trying to relate
it to current
>CAD situations, very well for the large corporations but for
the small user
>not applicable.
>> narrow viewpoints will be shoved underneath the rug in this
situation,
>> choose to accept or move aside.
NG and they
>are saying much the same as myself and it is about time they
came to the
>surface and spoke out instead of lurking in the background.
>
>> as being one who has read this newsgroup for quite some time,
i have
>
from V4 or the
>CompuServe NG days.
>> seen quite a display from you sam<
>Regards
>Sam McCammond
>Galilee Engineering Design Services
>http://www.galilee.co.za
>sam...@galilee.co.za
><temp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:39187ea5....@news.earthlink.net...
>>
*****************************************************************
****
>> New posting to comp.cad.microstation news group.
>> Provided by the newsgroup-microstation "Majordomo" List
Server
>>
*****************************************************************
****
>>
****
>> To Un/Subscribe your self to any Bentley System,
Inc. "Majordomo" list:
>> via web : http://majordomo.bentley.com
>>
*****************************************************************
****
>
>
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
SamuelG
SamuelG
but I like being the big wheel and use small cogs when necessary.
--
Regards
Sam
SamuelG
Sure it is not www.viecon.com instead of www.viecom.com
The latter is about web hosting and the former. Ah No..... with music and
all.
Goodnight.
--
> *********************************************************************
> New posting to comp.cad.microstation news group.
> Provided by the newsgroup-microstation "Majordomo" List Server
> *********************************************************************
>
>
> in it. How SamuelG at sam...@galilee.co.za got it there by Tue, 9 May
>
> > Now this one I really like, was never into Grateful Dead. And the *toe
jam*
> > was making me take a shower three times a day, just in case. Where's
Lake
> > Minnetonka?
>
> Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. It's the biggest recreational lake in the
> Mpls/St. Paul metro area. Many things besides Coke bottles are bobbing
> about in the lake unfortunately.
>
> > and still paying SELECT just in case they have a
> > re-think. It's built into my overhead and is a tax write off but unless
> > there is something new appears from Exton in the near future it will
stop.
>
> could be used for more practical uses once I'm sure Bentley has
> completely abandoned small users like ourselves.
>
> > It's in Ralph Grabowski's e-zine which I am about to print out. Why do
they
> > persist in this rubbish when we are getting abort in MDL's. Definitely
lost
> > their focus.
>
> and watched the demo. Nice pretty animations, but it didn't tell me
> one shilling's worth of useful info. It's more Vapor-ware big-biz
> nonsense.
Russell Kauffman
Usually I just read what you have to say, smile, sometimes even comment to
myself " well he DOES have a point there" and move on. However I am noticing
a distinct tone to your posts on the issue of Project Bank that reminds me a
little of my five year old grandson, who just told us at supper that "He
just did not want to eat". he was hungry, the meal was one of his
favorites, but he didn't want to do what he didn't want to do.
I work at a large US Electric & Gas utility that at one time had in excess
of 350 seats of Microstation, but with downsizing and deregulation we have
lost over 200 design seats internally. I now find myself relying on small
external providers of design services on a project basis and since I don't
want to subsidize my consultants their deliverables need to be Microstation.
I really don't care if they use AutoCAD or not, as long as they deliver an
auditable .DGN according to our graphic & database specs.
What I think you may be missing is that some of us, particularly utilities
and Departments of Transportation have terabytes of .DGN files that go back
to the M&S Computing (fmr. name for Intergraph) days in the mid to late
70's. We went through the massive conversion from (I believe) IGDS 4.0 to
IGDS 6, where every file had to be opened and re-saved. I never want to do
that again! So backwards computability is a major factor for me and the
small, <10 seat, engineering and surveying companies that support me.
The other thing that I think you may be missing is contained in the
announcement yesterday of VIECON, the Bentley ASP venture and the whole
world of the Internet/Extranet economy. Small, boutique design providers
now have the ability to play with the big boys as part of the virtual
project team. The only proviso is that the better be able to synch up any
time or any day to what the other virtual team members are doing.
Now that is not to say that Bentley has always made the "Business Case"
clear or articulate for Project Bank, but I think I finally get it. I need
engineering design software that will: Protect my mult-$m investment in
designs and plant infrastructure, provide a common communication medium for
parametric designs (more than expensive etch-a-sketch) and enable us to
participate in the e-economy. The e-economy is the opportunity of a
lifetime to talented design professionals that overcomes the barrier to
entry formerly maintained by the Big Boys (& Girls) in the "Bricks & Mortar
engineering firms. You're right you don't need to play if you don't want
to, but like I told my grandson if you want to grow up to be a big, mature
man with strength you may want to try it. It MAY be good for you and your
company.
V/R
Russ
--
Russell S. Kauffman, PLS
Surveys & Mapping
PSE&G Co.
(973) 430-6951
Russell....@pseg.com
SamuelG <sam...@galilee.co.za> wrote in message
news:8f9dr2$b8f$1...@ctb-nnrp1.saix.net...
> When is Bentley going to get it into their heads that some users do not
want
> ProjectBank and will never load it.
> Enough of the persuasion to "go on, just try it" We do not want it.!!!!!!
> Myself and a lot of the smaller users have no need for it and do not want
to
> pay SELECT fees on something we don't want.
> To hell with backwards compatibility, convert the files into the new
system
> that you should have written a couple of years ago instead of trying to
flog
> a dead horse. Other CAD vendors saw the light and realised to capture the
> market you require a modern package, for goodness sake stop living in the
> past. IGDS is history
> > *********************************************************************
> > New posting to comp.cad.microstation news group.
> > Provided by the newsgroup-microstation "Majordomo" List Server
> > *********************************************************************
> >
> >
Miguel Chalbert
Solo <so...@uncle.net.invalid> wrote in message
>
.......................
> Too bad. If the day comes when PB is mandatory, it's goodbye Bentley
> in my company. I'm learning AutoCad now just in case.
>
> --
> Solo
Maybe he is moving to Acad news group to....;-)
SamuelG
The lurkers are not lurking, they are cancelling their SELECTS. As I said,
voting with their wallets. I think this is only the beginning.
Russ, I and only I, know what is good for my company. As I stated before I
don't want PB AND I am not alone.
Thanks for your contribution.
--
Regards
Sam McCammond
Galilee Engineering Design Services
http://www.galilee.co.za
sam...@galilee.co.za
news:G82S4.181$8M1.5...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
SamuelG
to whatever newsgroups you can post to,
Obviously didn't like what you read, but offered no suggestions. Another
*yes man*. Just take what they throw at you and say nothing. Typical of this
NG.
--
Regards
Sam
"Miguel Chalbert" <chal...@netcabo.pt> wrote in message
news:8fac0k$il7$1...@duke.telepac.pt...
> *********************************************************************
> New posting to comp.cad.microstation news group.
> Provided by the newsgroup-microstation "Majordomo" List Server
> *********************************************************************
>
>
>
SamuelG
> announcement yesterday of VIECON, the Bentley ASP venture and the whole
> world of the Internet/Extranet economy. Small, boutique design providers
> now have the ability to play with the big boys as part of the virtual
> project team. The only proviso is that the better be able to synch up any
> time or any day to what the other virtual team members are doing.
Last time I heard this similar technology was to drag an item from an
Internet site and drop it into your design.
Try it you might like it, if you can find a site and have the program to do
it.
Are you aware that most users down here have not got access to the Internet
as per company policy.
I appreciate your informative and lengthy post and will agree to differ in
our opinions on PB.
--
Regards
Sam McCammond
Galilee Engineering Design Services
http://www.galilee.co.za
sam...@galilee.co.za
"Russell Kauffman" <gun...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:G82S4.181$8M1.5...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
ssea...@my-deja.com
level of rancor and humor are still progressing in (steadily) opposite
directions.
Then again, just seeing Sam bite at the obvious posts meant ot incite a
reaction from him is fun in it's own right =)
Anyways... back to serious reading of 'yes-man' posts where nobody has
questions or problems regarding Microstation/Powerdraft/Projectbank...
ssearles (the Gov't spud that Sam offered to teach how to make real
money)
P.S to Sam: How's the Solidworks NG handling your entrance??? =P
In article <8faprp$8gc$1...@ctb-nnrp1.saix.net>,
"SamuelG" <sam...@galilee.co.za> wrote:
> For your information, being an AutoCAD/MicroStation users doesn't
limit you
> to whatever newsgroups you can post to,
> Obviously didn't like what you read, but offered no suggestions.
Another
> *yes man*. Just take what they throw at you and say nothing. Typical
of this
> NG.
>
> --
> Regards
> Sam
>
> "Miguel Chalbert" <chal...@netcabo.pt> wrote in message
> news:8fac0k$il7$1...@duke.telepac.pt...
> >
*********************************************************************
> > New posting to comp.cad.microstation news group.
> > Provided by the newsgroup-microstation "Majordomo" List Server
> >
*********************************************************************
> >
> >
> >
> > Solo <so...@uncle.net.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.138223827...@news.uswest.net...
> > >
> > .......................
> > > Too bad. If the day comes when PB is mandatory, it's goodbye
Bentley
> > > in my company. I'm learning AutoCad now just in case.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Solo
> >
> >
> > Maybe he is moving to Acad news group to....;-)
> >
> >
> >
> >
*********************************************************************
> > To Un/Subscribe your self to any Bentley System, Inc. "Majordomo"
list:
> > via web : http://majordomo.bentley.com
> >
*********************************************************************
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
bear
From what I understand from the Sydney Forum, it would require a re-write to
implement certain changes.
Certain things were explained very well by Phil Chouinard and Tom Anderson.
While that may label me a yes man
to others, I have had no reason to question Phil and some others to date.
PB is meant to help try to fix some problems while continuing to advance.
Although it seems to me that while being a small
user (5 seats) my opinions are in the minority. And these are just my
opinions. Take them or leave them.
Bear.
"Jim Weisgram" <jwei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i6k5hs8m2r1mgu97p...@4ax.com...
SamuelG
money)<
How to earn your first US$1,000,000 using CAD is not given out to all and
sundry. And believe me the first is the hardest, it gets easier after that.
It has been a long and sometimes very tough battle and I have many scars,
but I got there.
Do you think I have been fiddling around with MicroStation all these years?
No Sir!
The necessary information has to be gleaned from the person in an
intelligent manner. Sorry, but you just failed the first test.
If you would perhaps like to rephrase your posting I may just give you a few
hints. If I don't get a reply from you I will assume you wish to remain a
loser.
--
Regards
Sam
<ssea...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8fbhlp$orr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>snip<
SamuelG
Feel up to it tonight? It was a long and winding road last night and I don't
think our point got through to the masses. The Bentley monitors certainly
logged out double quick, but that is the nature of the beast. However we can
exchange a few niceties if you wish.
--
Regards
Sam
"Solo" <so...@uncle.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.1383317ab...@news.uswest.net...
> *********************************************************************
> New posting to comp.cad.microstation news group.
> Provided by the newsgroup-microstation "Majordomo" List Server
> *********************************************************************
>
>
> An old Coke bottle was found floating in Lake Minnetonka with a note
> in it. How Miguel Chalbert at chal...@netcabo.pt got it there by Wed,
> 10 May 2000 02:01:24 +0100 is unknown. Here is an excerpt:
>
> > Maybe he is moving to Acad news group to....;-)
>
> Been there. Done that. If I do drop Ustn and permanently reside in an
> Acad group, it'd be under a different name since I ticked a few
> acadders off by getting involved in microstation vs. Acad flame
> war(s). I mistakenly maintained that Ustn was better. I'm coming to
> grips with my illusions slowly, by surely as Bentley makes more dumb
> decisions.
>
> --
> Solo
ssea...@my-deja.com
between budget cycles, I'll drop you a line...
ssearles (Gov't spud)
In article <8fbstu$re1$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
SamuelG
>If I don't get a reply from you I will assume you wish to remain a<
> > loser.
I do notice you replied.
Regards
Sam
<ssea...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8fc26f$b50$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> *********************************************************************
> New posting to comp.cad.microstation news group.
> Provided by the newsgroup-microstation "Majordomo" List Server
> *********************************************************************
>
>
Frank Conforti
The Bentley monitors certainly logged out double quick, but that is the
nature of the beast.
[snip!]
Not true. Just don't have anything to add to this 'thread'.
--fjc
Miguel Chalbert
Samuel G and some others dont like and dont want PB.
Some others think it may be a good development.
Some others (maybe most), like me, are just expecting to see what comes of
it, and realy dont understand what all this fuss is about.
P.S.: Sam I am not a yes man at all, and I never thougt that you would take
a litle humour so bitterly.
And I dont post more often just because, as English is not my native
language, writing in english is a litle painfull to me.
Miguel
John Lloyd
Is that a "mens" 7 or 8 series or a "girlie" 3 or 5 series?
Back on the thread, it's interesting to note that Bently is alienating its
last audience i.e. its windows userbase.
Where do they go from here? Maybe Keith & co are making an artform of plot
losing?
Sigh... back to my autocad work...
'later
'best
John
SamuelG
You have lost me here. I don't remember the posting at all. There were so
many *flying about* that I lost track. Please send it again so that I can
see where I am supposed to be angry, could have been the translation.
ME BITTER! Never. I think all the guys in this NG are the best on Usenet
and I would never feel bitter about a posting from anyone on this group..
Never mind your English, keep posting.
> *********************************************************************
> New posting to comp.cad.microstation news group.
> Provided by the newsgroup-microstation "Majordomo" List Server
> *********************************************************************
>
>
SamuelG
No reply to this one. The Income Tax man may be monitoring and I don't wish
to put my head on the block. I took the badge off the rear just in case..
--
Regards
Sam McCammond
Galilee Engineering Design Services
http://www.galilee.co.za
sam...@galilee.co.za
"John Lloyd" <j...@net-tech.com.au> wrote in message
news:3919F235...@net-tech.com.au...
> *********************************************************************
> New posting to comp.cad.microstation news group.
> Provided by the newsgroup-microstation "Majordomo" List Server
> *********************************************************************
>
>
Keith Kakerbeck
I'm sorry but at this point in time I simply can not buy into your
argument. I see PB as an "add on" patch of uStn, not the "future
step" that BS would have us believe that it represents.
Further, as I have stated in other posts, my uStn seats are on
Win'95 on a LANtastic network, please explain to me how I can take
*ANY* advantage of PB.
--Keith K
On Tue, 9 May 2000 10:11:50 -0400 "Frank Conforti"
<frank.c...@bentley.com> wrote:
>No, I would NOTmake that assumption. MicroStation will continue to be
>improved just that it will have a bigger tool box (AKA PB/ECM) to work with.
>Several general purpose utilities are already under development that address
>some outstanding MS issues (more on these later). I would not categorize
>this as "DGN versus PB component bank" as Bentley will continue to support
>DGNs AND PB component banks side-by-side. It is just that many of the
>requests for enhancing the DGN file (ie, unlimited levels, names with more
>than 80 characters, cell names greater than 6 characters, floating point
>coordinates) can only be accomplished using a new data format thus the PB
>solution. Keep in mind that MS/J equipped with PB can directly read and
>write to both DGN and the PB briefcase (client's local component store)
>without the need to communicate with the PB server. This is how we are
>able to support both online sessions to the server and non- connected
>sessions (read: stand-alone) without having to do anything special. Laptop
>users simply disconnect from the network with their files 'gotten' from the
>server, do their work as they need to in the field and, once back in the
>office, simply plug back in and commit their changes. No special modes, no
>special software. Simple and direct.
>
>HTH!
>
>--
>
>Frank Conforti ( frank[dot]conforti[at]bentley[dot]com )
>Bentley Systems - Foundation Product Planning and Technology
>
>
>
>"Keith Kakerbeck" <keithN...@enter.net> wrote in message
>news:3918032b...@news.enter.net...
temp...@hotmail.com
Kakerbeck) wrote:
my lord! you are using win95 in a production environment? even with
LANtastic? these are both horribly outdated, and even microsoft admits
that win95 should never be used in any sort of heavy graphics work....
it doesnt even include true opengl in the graphics subsystem!
not just with PB, but what *can* you do with such a network setup?
my cable modem at least resides on true 10BaseT.
Frank Conforti
If you do change your underlying OS and network to one that supports TCP/IP
then you would be able to implement a PB solution. Sorry but TCP/IP is a
prerequisite for communicating between PB clients and servers.
One thing though... you can still interface with other companies that are PB
based but it does require them to do a bit more prep work before providing
you with source DGNs. They would essentially create a briefcase on a their
system at a client machine, do a 'get' (this creates working DGN files for
MS) and then copy the resulting DGN workfiles to you. They would also need
to note the revision level of the briefcase at the time they sent you the
files (not difficult to do). Later, when you send your files back to them,
they would simply recreate the briefcase at that same revision level (we
call this a historical briefcase), do the same 'get' but afterwards copy
your modified DGN workfiles over those just 'gotten' from the server. In
this way, you fool the PB client into thinking you just did a lot of edits
on the workfile. The most interesting (and, frankly, very exciting to me)
feature of this workflow is the project manager's ability to review your
external changes BEFORE commiting them to the server. This includes the
individual lines, arcs circles modified, created even deleted. AND, they
can opt to accept or reject each individual modification/creation before the
commit. On at least one occasion, this feature was used to identify an
unauthorized change made to a referenced baseline drawing that would have
led to serious confusion as the plots generated by the subcontractor did not
match those generated from the main project site. Don't tell me that ain't
exciting stuff!
--fjc
--
Frank Conforti ( frank[dot]conforti[at]bentley[dot]com )
Bentley Systems - Foundation Product Planning and Technology
"Keith Kakerbeck" <keithN...@enter.net> wrote in message
news:39194ca5...@news.enter.net...
> Frank-
>
> I'm sorry but at this point in time I simply can not buy into your
> argument. I see PB as an "add on" patch of uStn, not the "future
> step" that BS would have us believe that it represents.
>
> Further, as I have stated in other posts, my uStn seats are on
> Win'95 on a LANtastic network, please explain to me how I can take
> *ANY* advantage of PB.
>
> --Keith K
>
Keith Kakerbeck
hands are tied. So, until such time as the corporate purse is opened
I must work with what is available. <VERY big sigh>
--Keith K
On Fri, 12 May 2000 13:07:56 GMT temp...@hotmail.com wrote:
>On Thu, 11 May 2000 11:41:22 GMT, keithN...@enter.net (Keith
>Kakerbeck) wrote:
>
>my lord! you are using win95 in a production environment? even with
>LANtastic? these are both horribly outdated, and even microsoft admits
>that win95 should never be used in any sort of heavy graphics work....
>it doesnt even include true opengl in the graphics subsystem!
>
>not just with PB, but what *can* you do with such a network setup?
>
>my cable modem at least resides on true 10BaseT.
>
>
>>
>>Further, as I have stated in other posts, my uStn seats are on
>>Win'95 on a LANtastic network, please explain to me how I can take
>>*ANY* advantage of PB.
>>
>>--Keith K
>>
>
--------------------------------------------------
Keith Kakerbeck
I'll have to give you high marks for creativity, you have managed to
concieve of a way, round-about though it may be, for me to realize
some PG functionality.
--Keith K
--------------------------------------------------