TheSwamp
CAD Forums => Vertically Challenged => Land Lubber / Geographically Positioned => Topic started by: dfarris75 on June 16, 2008, 08:52:24 AM
-
We have a possible project on the table in which the files must be in Microstation format. It will be a second phase of a project we did a few years ago. I did a lot of the drafting in Ms for phase one, but merely basic drafting. I would like to be able to utilize C3D for this round in terms of design and such if possible, but I need to get around the back and forth conversion of files as with phase one I fumbled my way back and forth due to scaling and coordinates. I would export the .dgn to .dwg, open it, do work, and then re-open in Ms to find things were a bit shifted, rotated, scaled, and whatnot on top of the confusion of linetypes, polylines, etc. not always working.
Surely there is a smoother way to work between the two to minimize these sorts of issues. Any Ms users who can give some direction here?
-
MEP 08 has a command called DGNEXPORT which allows you to export directly to MS V8. Not sure if the other verticals have it or not. Sadly, I can't obtain a network license of C3D right now to verify. :-(
-
We have a project that HAS to be done on MS... we arent allowed to do any work on AutoCAD, it is to do with the way the "powers that be" have set up the working area in Microstation. (something to do with the curvature of the earth has been factored into the jobs working grid)
One part of our design team tried to work in acad, but had problems with scaling etc when they tried to re-insert their work on top of the jobs grid. We never figured out a way round this problem.
-
One part of our design team tried to work in acad, but had problems with scaling etc when they tried to re-insert their work on top of the jobs grid. We never figured out a way round this problem.
The difference in the drawing scales makes all the difference in the world. I drew objects in 1:1 / 12:1 / 25.4:1 and various other permutations. I could never get a decent scale out of it either. I finally resorted to scaling in MS to make it fit.
-
The future is looking a bit dim for this project at the moment. :|
-
MEP 08 has a command called DGNEXPORT which allows you to export directly to MS V8. Not sure if the other verticals have it or not. Sadly, I can't obtain a network license of C3D right now to verify. :-(
This is available in Civil 3D along with an option to export to MS V7. I would not in any way expect the trip to be without surprising turns and challenges however.
-
Our experience has led us to: If the deliverable is MSta, do it in MSta, if AutoCAD, do it in AutoCAD.
-
Surely there is a smoother way to work between the two to minimize these sorts of issues. Any Ms users who can give some direction here?
I would never use the word "Surely" in this instance. Sad but true.
-
Yes quite sad. :cry: After all these years you would think someone out there has figured out a way for the programs to seamlessly exchange data. I guess it's not that big a deal to do the work in Ms as we're just doing the drainage.
-
After all these years you would think someone out there has figured out a way for the programs to seamlessly exchange data.
why?
-
After all these years you would think someone out there has figured out a way for the programs to seamlessly exchange data.
why?
I hate to say it, but I agree with Randy here. Oh, how I wish the two were 100% accurately interchangeable, but why not build in a little 'job security' into the data so that the next guy will need my software to read it as well? If I had a choice, I would never work with Microstation ever again, but I might change my tune once the upgrades are installed. To be fair, I think that about 1/3 of the reason why I hate Microstation so much is because of the clients and the jobs we have to use it for.
-
After all these years you would think someone out there has figured out a way for the programs to seamlessly exchange data.
why?
So you could do your work in AutoCAD and deliver it as MSta.
-
After all these years you would think someone out there has figured out a way for the programs to seamlessly exchange data.
why?
Oh, how I wish the two were 100% accurately interchangeable, but why not build in a little 'job security' into the data so that the next guy will need my software to read it as well?
I would consider building 'job security' into the data so the next guy will need my software to read it as well to be a scumbag move.
-
After all these years you would think someone out there has figured out a way for the programs to seamlessly exchange data.
why?
So you could do your work in AutoCAD and deliver it as MSta.
Why would I do that? Look a couple of posts back, if the deliverable is Msta, use Msta.
"Gee I wish this paint was grey and green that way I could paint that house grey and it would really be green." ???
-
After all these years you would think someone out there has figured out a way for the programs to seamlessly exchange data.
why?
Oh, how I wish the two were 100% accurately interchangeable, but why not build in a little 'job security' into the data so that the next guy will need my software to read it as well?
I would consider building 'job security' into the data so the next guy will need my software to read it as well to be a scumbag move.
Why? Do you think Chevys are scumbags because their alternators won't fit Toyotas??
-
It were were at all possible it would be only as primitive AutoCAD objects a one way trip to MS. The Civil 3D data would not be salvageable for future work. It is not even possible for the Civil 3D objects to make the trip from C3D 2008 to C3D 2007 and remain viable. It would require a complete reconstruction for the project from XML data and even then there would be some things that would not survive.
-
After all these years you would think someone out there has figured out a way for the programs to seamlessly exchange data.
why?
So you could do your work in AutoCAD and deliver it as MSta.
Why would I do that? Look a couple of posts back, if the deliverable is Msta, use Msta.
"Gee I wish this paint was grey and green that way I could paint that house grey and it would really be green." ???
You can do what you want. However if I a client imposed Microstation file formats on me I would certainly choose drawing in AutoCAD and saving to Microstation over purchasing the new software, learning it and generating all my drawings.
-
After all these years you would think someone out there has figured out a way for the programs to seamlessly exchange data.
why?
Oh, how I wish the two were 100% accurately interchangeable, but why not build in a little 'job security' into the data so that the next guy will need my software to read it as well?
I would consider building 'job security' into the data so the next guy will need my software to read it as well to be a scumbag move.
Why? Do you think Chevys are scumbags because their alternators won't fit Toyotas??
Great analogy slick. Turns out you can use a chevy alternator in a toyota (http://www.toyotaoffroad.com/Articles/Projects/Chevy_Alt/Chevy_Alt.htm). This analogy is stupid on so many levels. An alternator is a physical object and as long as it meets the requirements of the device it is intended to replace (physical dimensions, power output, etc.) it can be swapped out. Just as I can replace a Square-D relay with an IDEC one as long as the socket pins, number of poles and contact ratings are the same.
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. A computer file is a end product, just like a print. You shouldn't need any special tool to extract data from it.
-
After all these years you would think someone out there has figured out a way for the programs to seamlessly exchange data.
why?
Oh, how I wish the two were 100% accurately interchangeable, but why not build in a little 'job security' into the data so that the next guy will need my software to read it as well?
I would consider building 'job security' into the data so the next guy will need my software to read it as well to be a scumbag move.
Why? Do you think Chevys are scumbags because their alternators won't fit Toyotas??
Great analogy slick. Turns out you can use a chevy alternator in a toyota (http://www.toyotaoffroad.com/Articles/Projects/Chevy_Alt/Chevy_Alt.htm). This analogy is stupid on so many levels. An alternator is a physical object and as long as it meets the requirements of the device it is intended to replace (physical dimensions, power output, etc.) it can be swapped out. Just as I can replace a Square-D relay with an IDEC one as long as the socket pins, number of poles and contact ratings are the same.
Now you'll need about 6" of flat bar stock to run from the top mount of the alternator to the stock upper bracket. Cut the bar stock to the length you need and mark where your holes need to be drilled. Then use the old bolt to mount the bar to the alternator and then just use a nut and a bolt to put through the bar and bracket.(For the new bolt just use your old one for size reference and use your best judgment for length).
Now for the wiring part of this install. On the back of the alternator where the harness plugs in there should be 4 letters(S,F/I,L,P). You only need to use S and F/I. On the old round harness that plugged into the old stocker there are 3 wires, one is a constant 12v or signal and you connect that to the "S" wire on the new harness. One wire is noticeably smaller and that runs to your idiot light. Connect that wire to a 12V switched power source (not the wire right next to it!) Then you have a switched 12v source left and you connect that to the F/I wire. This one is the most important since it tells the alternator to start charging.
Now take your new 10 gauge wire and run that from the post on the back straight to the battery. At this point you might want to remove the old post wire. That can be done easily by tracing it up to the little black box it runs into and unbolting it. You'll know what I mean when you open that box.
Plug in your new spiced in harness and put the power steering pump assembly and the distributor back in place.
Install your new belt and using a box wrench and socket wrench (along with a buddy to pry the belt tight).
Tighten the bar stock to the old bracket.
Tighten up all the loose ends and such and give it a go.
And with about the same amount of effort you can beat a DGN into a DWG, so there you are, just as compatible.
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.
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.
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."
-
After all these years you would think someone out there has figured out a way for the programs to seamlessly exchange data.
why?
So you could do your work in AutoCAD and deliver it as MSta.
Why would I do that? Look a couple of posts back, if the deliverable is Msta, use Msta.
"Gee I wish this paint was grey and green that way I could paint that house grey and it would really be green." ???
You can do what you want. However if I a client imposed Microstation file formats on me I would certainly choose drawing in AutoCAD and saving to Microstation over purchasing the new software, learning it and generating all my drawings.
And when the client opens the DGN's and has to deal with the resulting issues, what will you do for future clients?
-
After all these years you would think someone out there has figured out a way for the programs to seamlessly exchange data.
why?
So you could do your work in AutoCAD and deliver it as MSta.
Why would I do that? Look a couple of posts back, if the deliverable is Msta, use Msta.
"Gee I wish this paint was grey and green that way I could paint that house grey and it would really be green." ???
You can do what you want. However if I a client imposed Microstation file formats on me I would certainly choose drawing in AutoCAD and saving to Microstation over purchasing the new software, learning it and generating all my drawings.
And when the client opens the DGN's and has to deal with the resulting issues, what will you do for future clients?
Merry go round.
After all these years you would think someone out there has figured out a way for the programs to seamlessly exchange data.
-
After all these years you would think someone out there has figured out a way for the programs to seamlessly exchange data.
why?
Oh, how I wish the two were 100% accurately interchangeable, but why not build in a little 'job security' into the data so that the next guy will need my software to read it as well?
I would consider building 'job security' into the data so the next guy will need my software to read it as well to be a scumbag move.
Why? Do you think Chevys are scumbags because their alternators won't fit Toyotas??
Great analogy slick. Turns out you can use a chevy alternator in a toyota (http://www.toyotaoffroad.com/Articles/Projects/Chevy_Alt/Chevy_Alt.htm). This analogy is stupid on so many levels. An alternator is a physical object and as long as it meets the requirements of the device it is intended to replace (physical dimensions, power output, etc.) it can be swapped out. Just as I can replace a Square-D relay with an IDEC one as long as the socket pins, number of poles and contact ratings are the same.
Now you'll need about 6" of flat bar stock to run from the top mount of the alternator to the stock upper bracket. Cut the bar stock to the length you need and mark where your holes need to be drilled. Then use the old bolt to mount the bar to the alternator and then just use a nut and a bolt to put through the bar and bracket.(For the new bolt just use your old one for size reference and use your best judgment for length).
Now for the wiring part of this install. On the back of the alternator where the harness plugs in there should be 4 letters(S,F/I,L,P). You only need to use S and F/I. On the old round harness that plugged into the old stocker there are 3 wires, one is a constant 12v or signal and you connect that to the "S" wire on the new harness. One wire is noticeably smaller and that runs to your idiot light. Connect that wire to a 12V switched power source (not the wire right next to it!) Then you have a switched 12v source left and you connect that to the F/I wire. This one is the most important since it tells the alternator to start charging.
Now take your new 10 gauge wire and run that from the post on the back straight to the battery. At this point you might want to remove the old post wire. That can be done easily by tracing it up to the little black box it runs into and unbolting it. You'll know what I mean when you open that box.
Plug in your new spiced in harness and put the power steering pump assembly and the distributor back in place.
Install your new belt and using a box wrench and socket wrench (along with a buddy to pry the belt tight).
Tighten the bar stock to the old bracket.
Tighten up all the loose ends and such and give it a go.
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.
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.
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.
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. If I write something in english and hash it with SHA-1 you will be able to read it?
-
After all these years you would think someone out there has figured out a way for the programs to seamlessly exchange data.
why?
So you could do your work in AutoCAD and deliver it as MSta.
Why would I do that? Look a couple of posts back, if the deliverable is Msta, use Msta.
"Gee I wish this paint was grey and green that way I could paint that house grey and it would really be green." ???
You can do what you want. However if I a client imposed Microstation file formats on me I would certainly choose drawing in AutoCAD and saving to Microstation over purchasing the new software, learning it and generating all my drawings.
And when the client opens the DGN's and has to deal with the resulting issues, what will you do for future clients?
Merry go round.
After all these years you would think someone out there has figured out a way for the programs to seamlessly exchange data.
To which I asked Why, a question you, as yet, have not answered.
-
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'.
-
Q: Why isn't there 100% compatability between AutoCAD and MSta?
Top 5 reasons
A: Because there are 2 different development teams working to promote their own format.
A: Because Autodesk and Bentley are 2 different companies.
A: Because if you could create DWGs effectively with MSta, MSta users wouldn't buy AutoCAD.
A: Because if you could create DGNs effectively with AutoCAD, AutoCAD users wouldn't buy MSta.
And the mother of them all ...
A: Because neither company wants you to be able to do it.
-
And the mother of them all ...
A: Because neither company wants you to be able to do it.
Sounds like Bentley wants to.
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.
-
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.
-
Sounds like Bentley wants to.
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 . . . which is where this question started
We have a possible project on the table in which the files must be in Microstation format. It will be a second phase of a project we did a few years ago. I did a lot of the drafting in Ms for phase one, but merely basic drafting. I would like to be able to utilize C3D for this round in terms of design and such if possible, but I need to get around the back and forth conversion of files as with phase one I fumbled my way back and forth due to scaling and coordinates. I would export the .dgn to .dwg, open it, do work, and then re-open in Ms to find things were a bit shifted, rotated, scaled, and whatnot on top of the confusion of linetypes, polylines, etc. not always working.
Surely there is a smoother way to work between the two to minimize these sorts of issues. Any Ms users who can give some direction here?
-
Meh. If I had only known what would've happened with this thread... :oops:
It was simply a question and statement of something I would think would be in some way possible after 25 years, especially with the development of gis tools and the like. 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.
Oh well.
-
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.
-
Sounds like Bentley wants to.
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!! :)
-
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'.
-
Sounds like Bentley wants to.
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.
-
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.
-
Why should they?
To make their customers happy with glee of course. :-D Why else?
-
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 (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=23468.0)?
-
Why should they?
To make their customers happy with glee of course. :-D Why else?
hmmm... but not their stockholders.
-
Just FYI
http://www.theenvisiongroup.net/tips.html
-
Gracias... and screw the stockholders!
-
Gracias... and screw the stockholders!
You're welcome and ... without stockholders you'd be drawing with a pencil ... ... and have nothing to draw.
-
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:
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
Autodesk and Bentley are not in the business of selling dwg and dgn files, they are in the business of selling design software. The file format is just a container for holding data, nothing more.
-
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).
And a DWG produced by a seat of AutoCAD purchased from Avatech is fully compatible with a DWG produced by a seat of AutoCAD purchased from eCad. But just as the charger manufactured for your Blackberry probably won't work with your Razr, A DWG manufactured for AutoCAD won't work with Microstation, nor will it work with Word or Notepad.
-
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.
Autodesk and Bentley are not in the business of selling dwg and dgn files, they are in the business of selling design software.
Well there's your problem. You're horribly confused about why they are in business. They are NOT in business to sell design software AT ALL, they are in business for one reason and one reason only, to make money. Using an open format limits that capability, at the very least it does NOTHING to improve that capability.
The file format is just a container for holding data, nothing more.
And Bentley has chosen a different container than Autodesk has chosen, one is not compatible with the other. No biggie, no problem.
Here's the bigger issue, if you really need open format containers in which to store your data, YOU screwed up. Why in the world did you spend all that money on an application that does not fit your needs?
-
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.
Autodesk and Bentley are not in the business of selling dwg and dgn files, they are in the business of selling design software.
Well there's your problem. You're horribly confused about why they are in business. They are NOT in business to sell design software AT ALL, they are in business for one reason and one reason only, to make money. Using an open format limits that capability, at the very least it does NOTHING to improve that capability.
I'm not a simp, I know their primary objective is a profit. However you are being very presumptions when you say an open format will limit that capability, have you ever heard of something called a "happy customer". Perhaps you're too nearsighted to understand the value of an open drawing format, but I and others can certainly see the advantages. However Autodesk doesn't care, they have the CAD industry by the short and curly's and they know they can abuse that to lock end users into using their software to access their own data.
The file format is just a container for holding data, nothing more.
And Bentley has chosen a different container than Autodesk has chosen, one is not compatible with the other. No biggie, no problem.
Was it even an option for them?
Here's the bigger issue, if you really need open format containers in which to store your data, YOU screwed up. Why in the world did you spend all that money on an application that does not fit your needs?
First and foremost you can save your caps for someone else as I didn't screw anything up. We use AutoCAD for several reasons. One being we have a team well versed in it but mainly because it is what is dictated to us by our customers. If I had to estimate we currently issue 70-90% of our customer transmittals in DWG format by contract. The rest are distributed as either prints or PDF files. I would estimate that roughly 0.0001% of our drawings have to be issued in DGN format.
More importantly we ensure important drawing data, such as BOM data, is written out to an external database to later be collected by other processes such as our ERP system which in turn purchasing and manufacturing demand. However this method has points of failure that could be eliminated if our drawings could be read in real-time when the manufacturing release was executed.
I'm sure we aren't the only company in the world with these issues.
-
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).
And a DWG produced by a seat of AutoCAD purchased from Avatech is fully compatible with a DWG produced by a seat of AutoCAD purchased from eCad. But just as the charger manufactured for your Blackberry probably won't work with your Razr, A DWG manufactured for AutoCAD won't work with Microstation, nor will it work with Word or Notepad.
I was merely pointing out that your analogy was off base. I'm well aware of the fact that the same product from different vendors will be interoperable.
-
I'm not a simp, I know their primary objective is a profit. However you are being very presumptions when you say an open format will limit that capability, have you ever heard of something called a "happy customer". Perhaps you're too nearsighted to understand the value of an open drawing format, but I and others can certainly see the advantages. However Autodesk doesn't care, they have the CAD industry by the short and curly's and they know they can abuse that to lock end users into using their software to access their own data.
... and there you have it ... Autodesk's first concern is profitablility, that being said, it is in their best interest to "lock end users into using their software". That is likely part of their business plan, the same as any other business entity. If you have a captive audience, they have to buy from you.
Was it even an option for them?
If Bentley had wanted to utilize the DWG format, they could have. The DWG file format was already reverse engineered by the time Bentley was on the scene, in fact, Bentley had DWG support in 1990. Clearly, had Bentley wanted to follow the DWG format, they could have, except since DWG was an Autodesk implementation, Bentley had further problems with the changing format and translation of AutoCAD objects into Microstation objects. Nevermind that Microstation was designed for a niche market.
-
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.
Maybe it's time to slow down a little. The market has gotten spoiled by technology. It's like that frog in the boiling pot of water. Things keep moving faster and before we know it...
-
I agree.....not that I know what is going on......oops.
Sorry cadaver, I have been told you like to debate for debatings sake, and that is great by me....after all, I am only a newbie here.
dfarris75, I have seen that sig before over at CADTutor, I just can't recollect who you are, do you mind telling me?
-
rustysilo. remember?
-
Gotcha...cheers mate. Thanks.
-
I was merely pointing out that your analogy was off base.
NO different than AutoCAD and Msta, but you call them scumbags for their effort.
I'm well aware of the fact that the same product from different vendors will be interoperable.
And different products won't be.
-
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.
Autodesk and Bentley are not in the business of selling dwg and dgn files, they are in the business of selling design software.
Well there's your problem. You're horribly confused about why they are in business. They are NOT in business to sell design software AT ALL, they are in business for one reason and one reason only, to make money. Using an open format limits that capability, at the very least it does NOTHING to improve that capability.
I'm not a simp, I know their primary objective is a profit.
And according to all scorecards they are doing quite well with their current format.
However you are being very presumptions when you say an open format will limit that capability,
If owners of Msta or Intellicad can seamlessly open and save DWGs, Autodesk will not be selling AutoCAD to those individuals or anyone else that buys <downloads> those products. If you think otherwise, I'll question your opening statement in this post.
have you ever heard of something called a "happy customer".
Autodesk has thousands with their current format.
Perhaps you're too nearsighted to understand the value of an open drawing format, but I and others can certainly see the advantages.
Name two advantages to Autodesk for opening their format? .... other than losing sales to other applications.
However Autodesk doesn't care,
They care about their profits, just as I do for my business and any other business owner for his. Open format will reduce those profits.
they have the CAD industry by the short and curly's
You are quite free to use any other application out there for your data.
and they know they can abuse that to lock end users into using their software to access their own data.
Abuse?? How is that abuse?? They are somehow bad guys for being successful? How the heck does that work? Are you successful? If so you're a scumbag if you don't share your work product with me?? Bull.
The file format is just a container for holding data, nothing more.
And Bentley has chosen a different container than Autodesk has chosen, one is not compatible with the other. No biggie, no problem.
Was it even an option for them?
At the time the Bentley brothers developed their application, they were aiming at a level of compatibility with their sugar daddy corporation (Intergraph). Autodesk's DWG wasn't on their radar until they realized it had sucked the lion's share of the PC CAD market out from under them while they were focused on a niche market. Only THEN did the whining about open formats start.
Here's the bigger issue, if you really need open format containers in which to store your data, YOU screwed up. Why in the world did you spend all that money on an application that does not fit your needs?
First and foremost you can save your caps for someone else as I didn't screw anything up.
If you 'NEED" an open format for your data, and YOU chose a closed format in which to keep YOUR data, You indeed SCREWED UP. If you didn't screw up, then you don't really NEED your data in an OPEN fopmat. Make up YOUR mind.
We use AutoCAD for several reasons. One being we have a team well versed in it but mainly because it is what is dictated to us by our customers.
Then the format is your customer's choice, they are the scumbags.
If I had to estimate we currently issue 70-90% of our customer transmittals in DWG format by contract. The rest are distributed as either prints or PDF files. I would estimate that roughly 0.0001% of our drawings have to be issued in DGN format.
Then open formats would do little for you except reduce the development income of your application.
More importantly we ensure important drawing data, such as BOM data, is written out to an external database to later be collected by other processes such as our ERP system which in turn purchasing and manufacturing demand. However this method has points of failure that could be eliminated if our drawings could be read in real-time when the manufacturing release was executed.
Then maybe the issue is your BOM format, or your manufacturing application or your ERP system, which OPEN formats are they?? What format is the data exchange of your BOM?? What are the points of failure?? What part of any of this is Autodesk's fault??
I'm sure we aren't the only company in the world with these issues.
If the application doesn't fit your needs you are quite free to chose something else, just as many other company's do.
Profit Envy?
-
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.
Maybe it's time to slow down a little. The market has gotten spoiled by technology. It's like that frog in the boiling pot of water. Things keep moving faster and before we know it...
Then my client's competitors hit the market first with their product and my client is out of business. Not good for either of us.
-
I agree.....not that I know what is going on......oops.
Sorry cadaver, I have been told you like to debate for debatings sake, and that is great by me....after all, I am only a newbie here.
No apologies required. Everyone needs a hobby, and as a devout capitalist I enjoy discussing these topics with those who wish to punish success for no other reason than they are successful.
"Lets tax the "windfall profits" of the oil company's", even though their profit margins are less than those of bottled water or coffee. Where were these guys when the bottom dropped out of oil in the early '80's?? Oh yeah, they were loaning federal funds to Dodge, while oil suppliers went out of business.
"Oh look at the stock options of these horrible executives, the dogs." But it's their company and their work product, why shouldn't they reap the benefits?
"Autodesk is a scumbag for not sharing their work product with wannabe-come-to-the-party-late upstarts", but where the heck were they in '82 when the guys from Autodesk gambled on breaking into the PC CAD market?
But hey that's just me, I may be wrong, just point it out and back it up.
-
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.
Autodesk and Bentley to advance AEC software interoperability
[ http://www.csemag.com/article/CA6576592.html?desc=topstory ]
At a joint press conference on July 8, Autodesk Inc. and Bentley Systems Inc., two providers of design and infrastructure software, announced an agreement to expand interoperability between their portfolios of architectural, engineering, and construction (AEC) software
-
Interesting ... I'll take a wait and see attitude
-
Me too.
Right now, Autodesk can't even maintain compatibility between successive versions of Civil-3D, and that's not even considering compatibility with other Autodesk products like Revit. But hopefully, it will make it at least marginally easier to work with the Bentley users.
-
With the industry move to 3D and BIM, both Autodesk and Bentley are looking at the 'Big Dogs' <Intergraph, Aveva, Tekla> starting taking market share in the plant design arena, collaboration may be a strategy to protect what they have. I'm real curious what will happen with Bentley and PDS in the next few years.
-
http://www.aecbytes.com/buildingthefuture/2008/AutodeskBentleyAgreement.html