can anyone help me
nospam
I have a job come in that requires the original drawings
supplied to me being in the .dgn format & the drawings when I have finished
them going back in .dgn format.
The main problem is that I use AutoCAD, can I convert
these .dgn files to .dwg and back again without compromising the following?
(qoute from spec) "Element attributes and cells must retain their integrity
and all project directory and file naming conventions adhered to".
Does anyone have any experience of software called
speedicon & modelview.?
What is the cheapest version of microstation I can
purchase to convert the files.?
ANY HELP THAT YOU CAN GIVE ME WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.
BiLLY
Jud Caswell
Project directory and file naming should be no problem. Element attributes
can certainly be controlled in MicroStation's dxf and dwg import/export, as
can cells. It takes some coordination, effort and knowhow, but it's
possible. But you probably aren't going to be using MicroStation's file
translation, are you? The biggest problem would be if you're required to use
your client's cell libraries, or provide your client with MicroStation cell
libraries. Have you posted to an AutoCAD newsgroup? I'm sure other user's
have had to do this before -- maybe they could help you better than we
can -- ie. we don't have any trouble providing clients with .dgn format
files... :-)
The least expensive version of MicroStation is called PowerDraft. Go to
www.bentley.com to investigate prices, local resellers, whatnot.
-Jud
nospam wrote in message <01bdeafe$efac9660$fb10dbc3@default>...
Truels Wissneth
nospam wrote:
> Can anyone give me some advice:-
> I have a job come in that requires the original drawings
> supplied to me being in the .dgn format & the drawings when I have finished
> them going back in .dgn format.
> The main problem is that I use AutoCAD, can I convert
> these .dgn files to .dwg and back again without compromising the following?
> (qoute from spec) "Element attributes and cells must retain their integrity
> and all project directory and file naming conventions adhered to".
MicroStation SE should theoretically handle that quite well...
>
> Does anyone have any experience of software called
> speedicon & modelview.?
> What is the cheapest version of microstation I can
> purchase to convert the files.?
MicroStation is per definition EXPENSIVE (don't know about the us, but in
norway/europe it sells for about $6500). after all, it is a professional CAD
package... go figure yourself: what did you shell out for ACAD?
the best you can do is a student version @ $50 or so. but then again, you
wouldn't be able to use it for commercial purposes ....
regards :-)
Gary N. Wood
>nospam wrote:
>
>> Can anyone give me some advice:-
>> I have a job come in that requires the original drawings
>> supplied to me being in the .dgn format & the drawings when I have finished
>> them going back in .dgn format.
>> The main problem is that I use AutoCAD, can I convert
>> these .dgn files to .dwg and back again without compromising the following?
>> (qoute from spec) "Element attributes and cells must retain their integrity
>> and all project directory and file naming conventions adhered to".
>
It is impossible to say with certainty if tis is even possible. It
will depend entirely on the contents of the design files you will
receive.
There are some elements in MicroStation for which there are NO
comparable AutoCAD elements. When they are translated to AutoCAD, they
will have to translate into whatever AutoCAD has available. In general
they will display OK, and plot OK, but some information may be lost.
WHen they are translated back to MicroStation, they will translate
into th MicroStation equivalent of whatever AutoCAD entity they have
become.
In other words, the "round trip" may end you up with a different
Microstation element than what you started with.
This is not NECESSARILY the case, just a possibility, that depends on
whether any such elements are in the MicroStation file to begn with.
Same thing with cells. Note that cells and blocks are NOT identical.
In any case, you will need some software to translate from .dgn to
.dwg. If you end up getting a MicroStation product to do that with, my
recommendation would include being open to the idea of doing the
editing in MicroStation.
Try it, you'll like it.
-Gary
Chad Berreau
Gary N. Wood wrote:
> >nospam wrote:
> >
> >> Can anyone give me some advice:-
> >> I have a job come in that requires the original drawings
> >> supplied to me being in the .dgn format & the drawings when I have finished
> >> them going back in .dgn format.
> Same thing with cells. Note that cells and blocks are NOT identical.
>
Question here is this. I am planning on looking into it for own work purposes. But
haven't as yet.
Mapping Cells.
Anyone out there done this?
What are the pitfalls and bonuses from your pov?
Is a benefit worth the price in time to set up?
curious,
chad
Broot
>
==> really good info snipped for length
>
> If you don't foresee many MicroStation jobs in your future, then it might
> be better to find a third-party translator to work with your AutoCad
> setup (AutoDesk is being rather arrogant to not include a DGN translator
> in the program) or a CAD Viewer that does translations. I think AutoVue
> at www.cimmetry.com can do rough translations.
although i'm not picking nits, scotty, i've been dealing with this '.dgn
-> .dxf -> .?' for much too long.. i agree that that Autodesk does not
include a .dgn translator, hell they don't even mention .dgn anywhere in
the program!, but i don't chalk it up so much to arrogance as i do plain
'bad blood'. Autodesk had a really firm grip on the 'CAD' field with
little competition on a wide basis, until those madcap brothers heard
their calling, and started putting a really large 'wake-up' dent into
Autodesks' fender.. however, my feeling is that it is Bentley with a
slight chip on its shoulder when it comes to third party rendering
software.. i work in the visualization field, and as such have had to
work with many different file formats, and without a doubt the number
one problem causing format is .dgn.. i'm currently working on an
animation for an offshore rig.. the client would have liked to include
rolling oceans, particle based splashes at the base, smoke/steam, etc..
the usual step is to import the file into Kintetix 3DStudio Max, Newtek
Lightwave, MS Softimage, etc.. unfortunately, MicroStation has a fairly
limited export vocabulary.. the .dwg/.dxf export is 'trickey' at best
with so many parameters as to make a simple file export an exercize in
headbanging. i do have better results with the .igs format, but .igs
wouldn't be considered a 'standard' in animation software.. i have found
that while Polytrans (www.okino.com) cannot read .dgn, it can read .igs
and export the 'regular' animation file formats.. so too does Rhino3d
(www.rhino3d.com, Rhino3d actually performs a touch better than PolyT.)
I've brought this point up before, only to be answered with the ol',
"Just get MasterPiece and do it in that." we work with large .dgn files
which can contain over a hundred refs', and although we can usually
produce our animations with Intergraph DesignReview or ModelView,
niether of those packages currently have the 'built-in' ease of use that
a plugin like MasterPiece does within MicroStation95 or MS-LE.. we now
find ourselves in the comprimising position of producing a P.R. video
which we aren't totally happy with, and which we know could have been
much more appealing and lively, had we been able to export it into a
'real' animation package.. when i've questioned a few tech support
people about the lack of .dgn support, i've had a couple from totally
non-related companies inform me that it is Bentley who doesn't seem to
want to divulge it's .dgn 'secrets' and impose a degree of arrogance
unto itself.. i'm not picking on Bentley, i'm much more comfortable on
MS95/SE than i am in AutoCad, but Bentley should realize that there is a
real and expanding market for high quality visualization materials, and
by excluding the .3ds, .lwo, .iob, etc. file formats it is doing a
diservice not only to itself, but to users, and more importantly, users'
clients.. Autodesk has its Kinetix visualization division which is
taking the CGI market by storm, including its latest offering of
3DStudio Viz, which DOES include a .dgn importer (we're running tests
now). if Bentley doesn't realize the true need for the type of powerful
visualization productions being offered by the CGI industry, it will
only continue to play 'catch up' while the others play 'king of the
hill'..
> If the DGN files involve any non-translatable feature described above,
> translating may not be viable option and it may be better to work with
> the file in MicroStation only.
this has been our best and safest policy, when it comes to detailed
files where accuracy is of most concern.
> HTH,
ditto,
> (sorry for the length)
mee too.. :-\
> Scotty
Broot
Broot
>
> In article <361060...@idt.net>, nos...@idt.net says...
>
> > although i'm not picking nits, scotty, i've been dealing with this '.dgn
> > -> .dxf -> .?' for much too long.. i agree that that Autodesk does not
> > include a .dgn translator, hell they don't even mention .dgn anywhere in
> > the program!, but i don't chalk it up so much to arrogance as i do plain
> > 'bad blood'. Autodesk had a really firm grip on the 'CAD' field with
> > little competition on a wide basis, until those madcap brothers heard
> > their calling, and started putting a really large 'wake-up' dent into
> > Autodesks' fender.. however, my feeling is that it is Bentley with a
> > slight chip on its shoulder when it comes to third party rendering
> > software.. i work in the visualization field, and as such have had to
> > work with many different file formats, and without a doubt the number
> > one problem causing format is .dgn..
>
[fancy and impressive dodge, before being nicked on the upper arm by
scotty, but then he does cheat].. :-) .. you are correct sir.. and after
'sparring' with Bentley and its Tech Supp, it's refreshing to hear an
understanding 'voice'.. nor did i intend to totally blame Bentley
either, i understand how touchy and volatile the software market can
get.. it just seems that it's the end users who are getting the short
end of this stick.. :-\
> <snip> [Deep Breath] Ever heard of paragraphs, Broot? ;-)
did i forget to mention i type while wearing a snorkle!..
well it's not a 'rant' if you come up for air!.. :-)
> > i'm not picking on Bentley, i'm much more comfortable on
> > MS95/SE than i am in AutoCad, but Bentley should realize that there is a
> > real and expanding market for high quality visualization materials, and
> > by excluding the .3ds, .lwo, .iob, etc. file formats it is doing a
> > diservice not only to itself, but to users, and more importantly, users'
> > clients.. Autodesk has its Kinetix visualization division which is
> > taking the CGI market by storm, including its latest offering of
> > 3DStudio Viz, which DOES include a .dgn importer (we're running tests
> > now). if Bentley doesn't realize the true need for the type of powerful
> > visualization productions being offered by the CGI industry, it will
> > only continue to play 'catch up' while the others play 'king of the
> > hill'..
>
> I'm not in the animation/visualization biz so I never knew about the
> problems you stated. If Bentley guards it's cards too closely, they could
> be in danger of becoming a permanent niche market like Apple/Mac (no
> disrespect to the Mac fans out there).
scotty, you hit the nail on the head!.. i too have used the Apple
anology before.. to no avail, it seems.. which is a shame, because
although we posses several hundred licences of MS95/LE, when i'm asked
in what format i prefer to receive files for animation production, i
tell them .dwg if possible, and .dgn as a last resort.. i'd really hate
to see Bentley pull an 'Apple' by not allowing multiple third party
support for its file format.. it takes several specialized packages to
produce a good quality video, from Photoshop, to Premiere, to
SoundForge, to StudioZ Central.. no one program can be an island. we
don't see Photoshop trying to be a word processor, or QuarkXpress an
image editing package, but these packages do simplify the other's
requirements for file importation/compatability, Photoshop can rasterize
vector based graphics and allows for simple text manipulation, and Quark
has Photoshop compatible features which allows these two, and many
other, programs to exist in their respective specialized fields, thereby
giving the user the flexability and options he may need in order to
accomplish his work in a more direct and simplified manner..
[steps off soapbox, to thunderous applause, and only the small fruits
and vegetables are thrown.]
> <*> Scotty <*>
greg litvyn
The best thing to do is UPGRADE to AutoCAD Map 3
it can import/export to dgn.
G.L.
CADability
Wolfgang Klein
nospam schrieb in Nachricht <01bdeafe$efac9660$fb10dbc3@default>...
> Does anyone have any experience of software called
>speedicon & modelview.?
>
> BiLLY
>
hello Billy,
I'm working in a huge IT-department. In our company we use and support CAE-
applications such as Speedikon M (model view is obsolate and substituted by
FrameWorks i think.
(microstation based applications and they require Microstation to run on).
May be this is your question. For further information and when you are
interested
i supply my mail-adress: Wolfgang...@Bayer-ag.de
so
Seymour Dupa
Microstation 'light'. It's about $400-$500.
nospam <bill...@eurobell.co.uk> wrote:
> What is the cheapest version of microstation I can
> purchase to convert the files.?
> ANY HELP THAT YOU CAN GIVE ME WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.
>
> BiLLY
--
If You Always Do the Things You've Done,
You'll Always Have the Things You Got.