Author Topic: AutoCAD + Microstation  (Read 23114 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mark

  • Custom Title
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 28762
Re: AutoCAD + Microstation
« Reply #30 on: June 17, 2008, 10:20:23 AM »
Sounds like Bentley wants to.

Quote from: Bentley
You probably already know that 95 percent of the world’s infrastructure is designed, constructed, and maintained using DGN and DWG files. But did you know that with MicroStation, users can directly edit content in both file formats at the same time? This capability makes MicroStation a “must have” interoperability platform.

I would be willing to bet you could not even open a Civil 3D drawing and do nothing but immediately save it back to dwg format with Microstation and be able to continue design work with Civil 3D . . .

I bet you're right! Heck C3D can't even work between it's own versions you think Bentley can!! :)

TheSwamp.org  (serving the CAD community since 2003)

CADaver

  • Guest
Re: AutoCAD + Microstation
« Reply #31 on: June 17, 2008, 12:06:37 PM »
So much blather .. if they wanted to promote interoperability, they would document and open the DGN format for everyone. As it stands, the file format is still strictly regulated by Bentley and is available only after asking for Bentley to give it to you. Further, it is available only to those who are Select members or a supporting member of the OpenDGN project.

Oh they want to promote interoperability but only between DGN and DWG. They don't document their format any more than Adesk does because that helps keep their customers locked into their product.
Nah, not even that good.  NavisWorks is a tool that allows, not the interchange of data, but the viewing and querying of data from each application simultaneously.  Bentley was very happy opening their format to Navisworks developers ... until Autodesk bought the company, then nothing.  Bentley just wants to 'sound' like that's what they're after.  For all their blather about ISO 15926 compliance from Autodesk, Bentley's new plant products are having their own trouble complying.  As I expected, forcing such compliance stagnates the development of future innovations.  It is impossible to predict the direction/capabilities/requirements of the next application and build a format 'now' that will be at all suffient 'then'.

CADaver

  • Guest
Re: AutoCAD + Microstation
« Reply #32 on: June 17, 2008, 12:07:38 PM »
Sounds like Bentley wants to.

Quote from: Bentley
You probably already know that 95 percent of the world’s infrastructure is designed, constructed, and maintained using DGN and DWG files. But did you know that with MicroStation, users can directly edit content in both file formats at the same time? This capability makes MicroStation a “must have” interoperability platform.

I would be willing to bet you could not even open a Civil 3D drawing and do nothing but immediately save it back to dwg format with Microstation and be able to continue design work with Civil 3D . . .

I bet you're right! Heck C3D can't even work between it's own versions you think Bentley can!! :)


Bentley XM is more compatible with AutoCAD R2006+ than it is with Bentley MSta V7 and down.

CADaver

  • Guest
Re: AutoCAD + Microstation
« Reply #33 on: June 17, 2008, 12:15:16 PM »
I bet there is at least one user of both AutoCAD and Ms out there who has figured out how to make them sing in harmony.
You'd probably lose that bet.  The applications and their respective verticals have yet sing sing in harmony with themselves in their current release.  Every step either application takes in embedding data in their current formats is a step farther away from compatibility.

Now I'm back to my original question?  Why should they?  If I'm building and selling widgets, I want my widgets to be the best widgets on the market, and I'll do what ever I need to do to keep them that way.  Why should I modify my widgets so that they work with widgets that aren't as good as mine?  What possible market advantage would that provide for me?  It would only allow the inferior widget company to sell his INSTEAD of me selling mine. I don't think so.

dfarris75

  • Guest
Re: AutoCAD + Microstation
« Reply #34 on: June 17, 2008, 01:39:18 PM »
Why should they?

To make their customers happy with glee of course.  :-D Why else?

M-dub

  • Guest
Re: AutoCAD + Microstation
« Reply #35 on: June 17, 2008, 02:21:20 PM »
Why should they?

To make their customers happy with glee of course.  :-D Why else?

Bah!  Among other threads in here, did you read this one?

CADaver

  • Guest
Re: AutoCAD + Microstation
« Reply #36 on: June 17, 2008, 02:59:41 PM »
Why should they?

To make their customers happy with glee of course.  :-D Why else?
hmmm... but not their stockholders.

CADaver

  • Guest
Re: AutoCAD + Microstation
« Reply #37 on: June 17, 2008, 03:16:57 PM »

dfarris75

  • Guest
Re: AutoCAD + Microstation
« Reply #38 on: June 17, 2008, 03:59:11 PM »
Gracias... and screw the stockholders!

CADaver

  • Guest
Re: AutoCAD + Microstation
« Reply #39 on: June 17, 2008, 05:53:30 PM »
Gracias... and screw the stockholders!
You're welcome and ... without stockholders you'd be drawing with a pencil ...  ... and have nothing to draw.

mjfarrell

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 14444
  • Every Student their own Lesson
Re: AutoCAD + Microstation
« Reply #40 on: June 17, 2008, 06:18:17 PM »
Gracias... and screw the stockholders!
You're welcome and ... without stockholders you'd be drawing with a pencil ...  ... and have nothing to draw.

Not True, I started drawing with pencils, and there was stuff to draw. :lmao:
Be your Best


Michael Farrell
http://primeservicesglobal.com/

dfarris75

  • Guest
Re: AutoCAD + Microstation
« Reply #41 on: June 17, 2008, 06:43:57 PM »
Maybe drawing with a pencil wouldn't be so bad. I did a lot of hand drafting back in school and would you believe I never had any conversion problems between file formats? :-P

CADaver

  • Guest
Re: AutoCAD + Microstation
« Reply #42 on: June 17, 2008, 07:48:31 PM »
Gracias... and screw the stockholders!
You're welcome and ... without stockholders you'd be drawing with a pencil ...  ... and have nothing to draw.

Not True, I started drawing with pencils, and there was stuff to draw. :lmao:
There were also stockholders.

CADaver

  • Guest
Re: AutoCAD + Microstation
« Reply #43 on: June 17, 2008, 07:55:38 PM »
Maybe drawing with a pencil wouldn't be so bad. I did a lot of hand drafting back in school and would you believe I never had any conversion problems between file formats? :-P
I was a pencil designer for a dozen years, it took well over four times as long and twice as many people to get a product through fabrication to construction.  With the current market demands on schedule and cost, doing what we do in the time we're required to execute for these prices would be impossible with a pencil.

tjr

  • Guest
Re: AutoCAD + Microstation
« Reply #44 on: June 17, 2008, 08:45:31 PM »
And with about the same amount of effort you can beat a DGN into a DWG, so there you are, just as compatible.
With the exception of cutting the 6" stock most of the steps would be required to simply replace a chevy alternator with another chevy one. I didn't peruse the article but I assuming he is adding a new 10 gauge wire as the amperage off the new alternator is higher than the one he is replacing, common practice. The fact that both require work doesn't make it a  good analogy.
The same level of "force fit" is required for the Chevy alternator to fit the Toyota as making a DGN fit a DWG.  My question remains, does that make Chevy a Scumbag?  The adapter for my Verizon phone does not work with my Cingular phone, which of those is the scumbag, if either?  There are thousands of items that are incompatible with other like items, why would either be a scumbag?

build in a little 'job security' into the data so that the next guy will need my software to read it as well is more along the lines of everyone needing a pair of "HP decoder glasses" to read documents printed from HP printers.
You can print both DGN's and DWG's and they read quite nicely, no decoder glasses needed.
Missing my point entirely.
Oh no, I've read it hundreds of times before.  I'm quite familiar with Evan and his ODA.

A computer file is a end product, just like a print.
Not at all like a print, a print is a physical object, and you said above that was a stupid analogy.
Again missing my point entirely.
Nope, again.

You shouldn't need any special tool to extract data from it.
You don't, you only need to read the same language <format> in which it was written, "and as long as it meets the requirements, of the" format "it is intended to replace ", "it can be swapped out."
This doesn't make sense.
I just copied what you wrote about the alternator.  If it doesn't make sense, it belongs to you.

If I write something in english and hash it with SHA-1 you will be able to read it?
No, I wouldn't <without some level of effort translating it>, nor would I exect to, nor would you be a scumbag for doing so.  Just as if I wrote a file in DWG format, I would not expect a DGN decomplier to read it <without some level of effort translating it>, or bought an Chevy alternator for a Toyota <without some level of effort in translating it>.  None of that translates into 'scumbag'.
Alternators, cell phone chargers and almost all commercially available items are documented in terms of physical dimensions, power input, power output, etc. The market wouldn't stand for anything less. This makes interoperability between vendors possible.

I don't know enough about Chevy alternators or cell phone chargers to develop an opinion on whether they are scum bags or not. Coming from an OEM background I find them deliberately using parts that will not work with competitors unlikely. I would assume they buy out parts from sub-vendors and use whatever is cheapest and fits their design goals.

Also for the record neither Cingular nor Verizon are manufactures of cell phones, they are retailers. Before I purchased my BlackBerry I had no trouble using the cell phone charger from my girlfriend's Razr (purchased from Verizon) with my Razr (purchased from Cingular).