Topic: Pipes Catalog

[BlackBox]

Our enterprise catalog is lacking, and we're faced with either null structures for everything, which seems counter-intuitive for design & QTO, etc, or make our own. The latter is cost prohibitive, never mind the inherent deficiencies in Civil 3D's parametric modeling capabilities as compared to that of MEP, or Inventor.

I'm interested to know what others are doing with their pipes catalog... Specifically as to what degree of complexity regarding custom, or client specific parametric structures, etc?? Did you model parts in-house, hire someone, or just purchase a catalog???

[mjfarrell]

Many roll their own.

Some resort to purchase.

What sort of structures and properties for same are you after?

[BlackBox]

Primarily utilities - gravity and pressurized pipe networks, i.e., drainage inlets, endwalls, water, sewer, force main, electric, lift stations, pump houses, valves, tees, vees, wyes, concentric, eccentric, etc.

I can obtain a starting point for the drainage from my State's DOT C3D kit, but still lacking in the other areas.

[mjfarrell]

some of those items are best handled by MEP...didn't we have this discussion?
some are easily handled using 'optional' properties...and blocks instead of 3d model part bounding box in plan/profile views

[BlackBox]

We sort of discussed this before getting completely off topic; hence the new thread with a more specific question as to what others are using.

While I am hoping that this will change, MEP is not an available option for me. Am I the only one who is interested in using 3D parametric parts in lieu of dumb, 2D symbols (like land desktop)? It just seems strange to me that this is not a more prevolent topic, regarding the C3D catalog.

[Dinosaur]

I am not sure if Civil 3D is a viable option for you either.  At the time I left the program behind (r2008) Pipeworks was the most volatile part of the entire package and rarely worked well if at all even using OOTB parts from the catalog.  Partsbuilder was one of the functions notoriously unstable.  In general, the built in design functions for the program were used for public infrastructure and tended to end where the private service was connected.  I would expect to see numerous problems with regard to units and scaling unless your plans are converted away from architectural units and placed in decimal format which I suspect would not be a successful conversion for standard plumbing fixtures.
I did a couple projects with force mains but they were treated similar to the water distribution with nothing but the pipes drawn and null structures with labels for any structures or fittings.
All of these observations are a number of releases in the past, but for the entire time I used it, Piping seemed to be the bottom priority for any enhancement or even fixes for even basic program deficiencies so I would expect to see little if any change.

[BlackBox]

Thanks for the feedback!

It really sounds like I need to do my homework on AMEP, as having this application made available is sounding more and more like the simplest solution - We're on subscription, and have had the software since +/- last March (Corporately, just not being made available to users for testing, or production).

Apparently the discussion of corporately using AMEP/RMEP, nor the topic of viable, non-Null parts catalog(s) has not yet taken place - which I find alarming given the size of the company for which I work.

We will still require Civil 3D for the roadway/site modeling (perhaps even plans production), and separately require AMEP for our utility work (is what it sounds like to me), which is the primary focus of the group with which I am working now.

[mjfarrell]

The issue with part builder is similar to the one regard MAP not querying objects from the C3D model.  Most do not use or understand those portions of the application.
And much work nneds to be done to improve the Partbuilder interface.  I do not hold much hope that such changes are forthcoming.  As to many are want to apologize for autodesks shortcoming in this area, and not define it as a problem.  And we both know that if one defines the problem poorly one does not finf the solution to that problem.

Even if they do what they have for the sub assembly composer, I wouldn't expect to see it a part of the OTB product for several versions yet to be released.

[BlackBox]

Ugghh! - Sub Assembly Composer (SAC) - That's another thing that we're not allowed to have.

we've got to complete '20 questions' just to see *IF* they will consider our request for SAC, or the utility to be installed on user's computers.

[Dinosaur]

The issue with part builder is similar to the one regard MAP not querying objects from the C3D model.  Most do not use or understand those portions of the application.
And much work nneds to be done to improve the Partbuilder interface.  I do not hold much hope that such changes are forthcoming.  As to many are want to apologize for autodesks shortcoming in this area, and not define it as a problem.  And we both know that if one defines the problem poorly one does not finf the solution to that problem.

Even if they do what they have for the sub assembly composer, I wouldn't expect to see it a part of the OTB product for several versions yet to be released.

One reason most don't use or understand Part Builder is because it was one of the surest methods of experiencing a power exit or corrupting your installation if you were not wise enough to back up your parts catalog before embarking on the journey.  Part Builder was so unstable the year it was introduced that there was serious discussion among the testing group whether they should even include it in the package.

[mjfarrell]

Ugghh! - Sub Assembly Composer (SAC) - That's another thing that we're not allowed to have.

we've got to complete '20 questions' just to see *IF* they will consider our request for SAC, or the utility to be installed on user's computers.

truth is *most* of what one can do with the SAC can be done through use of generick links, and clever leveraging of helper corridors...however one must really leverlage good logic and problem solving methods to follow that path.  Not saying you don't have that ability, just that many don't, can't, or wont.

[bdough15]

We have built our own Pipe Catalog and sub assemblies for quite some time, the part Catalog once we got familiar with what we needed to trick to make it work seems to be effective for us, the only thing that is rough is spending the initial time to set it all up the way you want it to set up.  We went through our reseller for informaton first, then the lower level people at Autodesk and finally started working with the development team involved with pipes (three nice fellows) to work out our issues.  Since C3D 2009 we have not had much issue with the parts catalog.

We have started using the SAC quite often and it works pretty good as well once we got rolling with it.

With all your Corporate restrictions, you must work for Stantec!

[BlackBox]

With all your Corporate restrictions, you must work for Stantec!

What is a Stantec? 

[bdough15]

What is a Stantec? 
[/quote]

Stantec is a Canadien Company that I used to work for, a global Engineering Company.  They had so many Corporate restrictions that it made things difficult for the average user.  You could not change a layer color without three forms of approval first and a Writ of Heapus Corpus.

[BlackBox]

Stantec is a Canadien Company that I used to work for, a global Engineering Company.  They had so many Corporate restrictions that it made things difficult for the average user.  You soucl not change a layer color without three forms of approval first and a Writ of Heapus Corpus.

Sounds like a bunch of Vogons, if you ask me.