Topic: Project 3D to 2D with AutoCAD?

[Matt__W]

Thanks for the other references as well.
With MEP I get the usual AEC Object warnings as well.

What about the regular export command or AECTOACAD?

[KewlToyZ]

I used it after getting that message.
It didn't hurt the objects or appearances thankfully.
I have actually integrated -ExportToAutoCAD with most of our project setup routines.
The formatting of BIM is so various from Clients that 80-90% of the data is utterly useless.
Except to the authors.
It doesn't pay to bog down projects with it.
Also it can invariably cause doubling issues in XREF display at times.

[CADaver]

seems like a lot of work to break something ....



sorry, I can't help it

[MP]

Not if a client is paying you $$$ to do it.

[MickD]

Randy, and with all due respect, when you can show me how to get from the model to the detail drg as shown easily I'll be all ears.
Creating views straight from a 3d model may well work for some disciplines and it makes a lot of sense but for detailing you need to pull things apart somewhat to make things easier to make. Even Inventor does the same thing only it does have a 'live' link from the model to the details which is very good.

[KewlToyZ]

Well in the case of having multiple disciplines working on a very large project, one file isn't going to function for the half dozen people trying to work on it at once. File separation is a necessity in that respect.

I redesigned a manufacturing facility using 3D in R14 back in 1997.
It was dreadfully slow and the interface became very clunky back then.
But there are aspects of complexity that 2D just can't communicate when you try to virtualize the ergonomics in redesigning a manufacturing process to fit into a building half the previous size.

Exporting the 2D layouts of the views generated back then would have saved a considerable amount of time for production plotting and sharing files with contractors.
3D has came a long way since then.
But the type of design I look at now is more schematic than raw mechanically critical detailing.

[CADaver]

Not if a client is paying you $$$ to do it.

Whether you're getting paid or not, its still a lot of work just to break something

[CADaver]

Randy, and with all due respect, when you can show me how to get from the model to the detail drg as shown easily I'll be all ears.
Creating views straight from a 3d model may well work for some disciplines and it makes a lot of sense but for detailing you need to pull things apart somewhat to make things easier to make. Even Inventor does the same thing only it does have a 'live' link from the model to the details which is very good.

First off there are much better tools for detailing, but if you're still sticking with autocad, viewports and layer control can do that quite nicely, we did it for years

[CADaver]

Well in the case of having multiple disciplines working on a very large project, one file isn't going to function for the half dozen people trying to work on it at once. File separation is a necessity in that respect.

Not at all "necessary", in fact it then becomes less useful.  Xrefs allow for dozens of people to access the same models at the same time.

I redesigned a manufacturing facility using 3D in R14 back in 1997.
It was dreadfully slow and the interface became very clunky back then.

We executed several full refinery projects using 3D in R14, with an increased productivity of over 20% over the same projects executed in 2D.  We also saved nearly 35 of the total installed cost of the project in vastly improved clash avoidance

Exporting the 2D layouts of the views generated back then would have saved a considerable amount of time for production plotting and sharing files with contractors.

A few subs balked at first, but quickly saw the benefits.

3D has came a long way since then.
But the type of design I look at now is more schematic than raw mechanically critical detailing.

"True" schematic type work, electrical or instrument schematics or process flow diagrams will always remain a 2D source file (although P&IDs and PFDs may move 3D eventually).  But anything with physical size and location that requires measured materials benefits from 3D, and automated production of drawings means they are merely a report from the 3D model along with material reports and any other intelligence you care to embed in the modeled components.

[KewlToyZ]

Good points CADAVER.
Granted I was using 3D design on nearly everything back then.
My points were machine time during that period, and the benefits did outweigh those hours waiting.
But it was often long hours in the evenings to make it pay off.
Comparativley now things can still become quite daunting.
The volume of data that can be associated and used from todays packages has distinct advantages.
The equipment is much more capable as well as affordable to reach those tasks in reasonable production time.
2D can never expose design flaws as readily as 3D.
BIM is one augmentation to 3D that became a reality.
It may not be perfect of course.
Human flaws abound will bring as much chaos as it does ingenuity at times.

It is a just a question of scope where it poses the most uses.
Eventually nearly everything in terms of documentation will be schematics generated from the 3D simulated virtual objects.
Parametric design has came a very long way the last 15 years.

[James Cannon]

Randy, and with all due respect, when you can show me how to get from the model to the detail drg as shown easily I'll be all ears.
Creating views straight from a 3d model may well work for some disciplines and it makes a lot of sense but for detailing you need to pull things apart somewhat to make things easier to make. Even Inventor does the same thing only it does have a 'live' link from the model to the details which is very good.

First off there are much better tools for detailing, but if you're still sticking with autocad, viewports and layer control can do that quite nicely, we did it for years

I call bull.

Autocad sucks at presenting the model in a layout to make connections and pieces show right.  They can't even handle line-display hierarchy decent enough to know not to show beams that are under other beams.

I've gotten the reply from Autodesk techs saying "Oh yea, I see what problem  you're having.  Sorry, I get it too, and there's no solution.  Maybe next release..."

Example for illustration purposes: I have one angle crossing atop a W-beam, in a top view, for example, it'll show the w-beam top flanges OVER the bottom leg of the angle.

For detailing things like this, I -often- resort to showing "flattened" or "solprof'd" views because it works.  I often have to create -disassociated- 2d geometry from my nice, neat, accurate 3d-model, to get the job done.

Because in the end, that's what it's about... getting the job done, not maintaining some Holy Order of the CAD File.

[KewlToyZ]

I am curious, does Revit handle these 2D details any better?
I'm not talking about the Kool Aid, I have had enough.
I really wonder if it handles 2D detailing any better in its format?

[CADaver]

Randy, and with all due respect, when you can show me how to get from the model to the detail drg as shown easily I'll be all ears.
Creating views straight from a 3d model may well work for some disciplines and it makes a lot of sense but for detailing you need to pull things apart somewhat to make things easier to make. Even Inventor does the same thing only it does have a 'live' link from the model to the details which is very good.

First off there are much better tools for detailing, but if you're still sticking with autocad, viewports and layer control can do that quite nicely, we did it for years

I call bull.

Call it anything you like, it won't alter the fact that we produced piping design drawings, piping fabrication iso's, structural design drawings and steel fabrication drawings from 3d AutoCAD models for years quite effectively  I think there may be samples somewhere on these boards.

Autocad sucks at presenting the model in a layout to make connections and pieces show right.  They can't even handle line-display hierarchy decent enough to know not to show beams that are under other beams.

Just cuz' you haven't figured out how to do it yet, doesn't mean it can't be done.  Hiding 3D models in viewports is really very simple, dunno about LINEs though, haven't drawn a LINE in nearly ten years.

I've gotten the reply from Autodesk techs saying "Oh yea, I see what problem  you're having.  Sorry, I get it too, and there's no solution.  Maybe next release..."

Well there's your problem, which "Autodesk tech" did you ask about detailing steel?? 

Example for illustration purposes: I have one angle crossing atop a W-beam, in a top view, for example, it'll show the w-beam top flanges OVER the bottom leg of the angle.

Did you try HIDE??  Haven't had the problem since R13.  R14 and R2000 had some issues with cylinders not plotting correctly sometimes, but that's been a while.

For detailing things like this, I -often- resort to showing "flattened" or "solprof'd" views because it works.  I often have to create -disassociated- 2d geometry from my nice, neat, accurate 3d-model, to get the job done.

Waste of time, and only works for SOLIDs, won't work on blocks (or anything else), meaning you have to waste even more time during the initial build.

Because in the end, that's what it's about... getting the job done, not maintaining some Holy Order of the CAD File.

Its not about any order of the cad file, its about productivity, or in the case of the scenario above the lack of productivity.  With the "stepped on " "stupid graphics", you've divorced the drawings from the model destroying any intelligence in the model, doubling the work required to maintain the files and quadrupling the chance of screwing something up, and then revisions have to be nearly completely re-built from scratch.  Sorry that's just not productive, at least it isn't for us.

I love it when people tell us its impossible to do the stuff we've been doing for nearly a decade.

[CADaver]

I am curious, does Revit handle these 2D details any better?
I'm not talking about the Kool Aid, I have had enough.
I really wonder if it handles 2D detailing any better in its format?

Dunno, we by-passed Revit and went straight to Tekla for Steel modeling and drawing production.  Modeling the initial structure is waaayyy too easy, and once your connection catalog is designed, fully detailing to components is a snap.  Drawings are then automatically produced and annotated from template presets as true reports.  Married with FabTrol and tied to the warehouse inventory, we can also control shop material usage much more efficiently.

[James Cannon]

Randy, and with all due respect, when you can show me how to get from the model to the detail drg as shown easily I'll be all ears.
Creating views straight from a 3d model may well work for some disciplines and it makes a lot of sense but for detailing you need to pull things apart somewhat to make things easier to make. Even Inventor does the same thing only it does have a 'live' link from the model to the details which is very good.

First off there are much better tools for detailing, but if you're still sticking with autocad, viewports and layer control can do that quite nicely, we did it for years

I call bull.

Call it anything you like, it won't alter the fact that we produced piping design drawings, piping fabrication iso's, structural design drawings and steel fabrication drawings from 3d AutoCAD models for years quite effectively  I think there may be samples somewhere on these boards.

I even bolded what I was specifically replying to, and you still managed to take my reply into a whole context I never intended.  I don't care what you did, or what you say "you" did.  I spoke specifically about Autocad's competence in displaying 3D models in viewports.

Autocad sucks at presenting the model in a layout to make connections and pieces show right.  They can't even handle line-display hierarchy decent enough to know not to show beams that are under other beams.

Just cuz' you haven't figured out how to do it yet, doesn't mean it can't be done.  Hiding 3D models in viewports is really very simple, dunno about LINEs though, haven't drawn a LINE in nearly ten years.

I said "line-display" as referring to the lines it generates from the model to visually represent the 3d objects on pdf/paper/plot.  Sorry if that was unclear.  I wasn't talking about a line object specifically, but thanks for the arbitrary trivia.

I've gotten the reply from Autodesk techs saying "Oh yea, I see what problem  you're having.  Sorry, I get it too, and there's no solution.  Maybe next release..."

Well there's your problem, which "Autodesk tech" did you ask about detailing steel?? 

Didn't talk to anyone about detailing steel.  I talking to some of the techs who had intimate knowledge of the visualization programming about conflicts in object display in various visual styles, including 'hidden'

Example for illustration purposes: I have one angle crossing atop a W-beam, in a top view, for example, it'll show the w-beam top flanges OVER the bottom leg of the angle.

Did you try HIDE??  Haven't had the problem since R13.  R14 and R2000 had some issues with cylinders not plotting correctly sometimes, but that's been a while.

Probably best I ignore that question.

For detailing things like this, I -often- resort to showing "flattened" or "solprof'd" views because it works.  I often have to create -disassociated- 2d geometry from my nice, neat, accurate 3d-model, to get the job done.

Waste of time, and only works for SOLIDs, won't work on blocks (or anything else), meaning you have to waste even more time during the initial build.

Gotta send out drawings.  When faced with "finish the job" or "don't finish the job" I found the choice quite simple.

Because in the end, that's what it's about... getting the job done, not maintaining some Holy Order of the CAD File.

Its not about any order of the cad file, its about productivity, or in the case of the scenario above the lack of productivity.  With the "stepped on " "stupid graphics", you've divorced the drawings from the model destroying any intelligence in the model, doubling the work required to maintain the files and quadrupling the chance of screwing something up, and then revisions have to be nearly completely re-built from scratch.

Yea, well, I guess I'm just good.  Funny, how stuff even got built before computers were even around, when -everything- was divorced from eachother.  I managed to do just fine as well.  

  Sorry that's just not productive, at least it isn't for us.

Want a cookie?

I love it when people tell us its impossible to do the stuff we've been doing for nearly a decade.

Another arbitrary bit of trivia, or are you replying to something I missed?