Topic: AutoCAD + Microstation

[Dinosaur]

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.

[tjr]

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.

[tjr]

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. 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.

[CADaver]

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. 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."

[CADaver]

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?

[tjr]

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.

[tjr]

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. 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?

[CADaver]

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.

[CADaver]

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'.

[Keith™]

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.

[Mark]

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.

[Keith™]

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.

[Dinosaur]

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?

[dfarris75]

Meh. If I had only known what would've happened with this thread...

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.

[Mark]

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.