Topic: Bentley Structural

[Chuck Gabriel]

My employers want to move from 2D CAD to a Building Information Modeling product.  They seem to be leaning toward Bentley Structural, and I was wondering if anybody here could provide any insight into the pro's and con's of the product.

We are currently and have always been an AutoCAD office, and I'm not particularly keen to switch to a Bentley product.  However, we are going to lose our knowledge investment in AutoCAD regardless of what BIM product we decide on, and that makes switching to Bentley less of an issue.

[pmvliet]

I would take a gander that the reason for this is that Bentley purchased both Ram and Staad (two of the structural analysis sofltware packages).

our company uses Bentley Structural but I don't work with it so I can't comment.

Pieter

[Chuck Gabriel]

I believe the purchase of RAM International is figuring prominently in the decision making process.  We use it for design and analysis, and it doesn't integrate with Revit Structure (Surprise!).

[deegeecees]

All I know is Bentley products are extremely robust, and so are the training pricetags.

[Dent Cermak]

Pro's: It's Bentley
Con's: It's Bentley
 

[Chuck Gabriel]

One big (in my mind) con is that it is not a stand-alone product like Revit.  You have to buy a Microstation license to run it on.

The only real (again in my mind) pro I'm aware of is that there will probably some kind of integration with RAM Structural System in the near future if there isn't already.  However, that is mitigated by the fact that RAM has an SDK that I can use to integrate it into whatever BIM software we choose to use.

[Bob Garner]

I can't comment on Bentley products but supposedly, the structural engineering industry is going from producing drawings to producing BIM's which will go directly to fabricators (or whoever).  The fabricators will produce shop drawings directly from the BIM's.  Right now, we model and analyze the structure in 3-D, then prepare 2-D drawings for the customer.  Going to the BIM will eliminate a step and get us away from liability for drawing errors, which I sadly admit are all too frequent with engineering firms.

Bob

[Chuck Gabriel]

I'm fairly well convinced of the value of BIM, but I don't want to make the mistake of letting marketing hype lead me to choose the wrong tool.

I'm no Autodesk fanboy.  In fact, I have serious problems with their business practices.  On the other hand, I've been using their software since about 1989, and I find their approach to user interfaces very intuitive.  It's a love/hate relationship.  I love their product, but I hate their executives, marketers, and bean counters.

Then there is Bentley.  I haven't had much exposure to Microstation, but I haven't liked what little I've seen.  I have heard good things about their approach to customer relationships, but I have also heard bad things about their licensing practices (see Ed Foster's GripeLog).  There have also been some negative comments made here and elsewhere about the stability and technical quality of their software.

[pmvliet]

it will be interesting for an A/E firm or structural firm to send a 3D BIM model directly to a fabrication shop.
There are always little things that are not exactly in there right location or at the correct spacing.
These firms are going to have to tighten their drawing practices because now, what they draw, will be what gets built... 

Pieter

[Keith™]

I started using V8 just recently working for an unnamed company ... I must admit that the learning curve is not nearly as difficult as I had previously envisionsed ... I still find it difficult having to key in certain commands, but alas, I am working on a fresh install with absolutely zero customizations. A truely horrifying experience ... but finally after 2 weeks I am able to draw a few lines, create cells, and manipulate the elements. It takes a bit of getting used to though ....

[Chuck Gabriel]

Thanks Keith.  That does help me gauge what my own learning curve might be.

I've been doing some research on microstation over the past couple of days, and it's beginning to look like I may actually like it.

[deegeecees]

Thanks Keith. That does help me gauge what my own learning curve might be.

I've been doing some research on microstation over the past couple of days, and it's beginning to look like I may actually like it.

Just forget (most) of what you know about AutoCAD, and you'll tighten that learning curve up a bit.

My halfacent.

[Skint Subby]

One big (in my mind) con is that it is not a stand-alone product like Revit.  You have to buy a Microstation license to run it on.

Agreed, It's not a stand alone product, but you can run it using AutoCAD as the platform rather than Microstation.

http://www.bentley.com/en-US/Products/AutoPLANT+Structural+Modeler/Overview.htm?market=Plant

I used it with ACAD 2002, and it works fine, once you get used to it. At least, if you have a reasonable knowledge of AutoCAD, the transition is easy

Pro's - Transition is easy. Lot's of tools (CoG, Total paint area, Total weld types/lengths, plus many more) Increase in productivity

Con's - Not sure, As I haven't used many other Structural packages to compare it against.

We used it for Oil and Gas / Petrochem process Skids / Modifolds. Not sure how it help you as I know nothing about Building / Construction industry.

IMHO I liked the product, it was easy to use and you could create "specials" and new shapes easily, However, There's not much you could do (modeling wise) with Rebis, that you couldn't do with Vanilla CAd and some minor mod.

Mark

[Chuck Gabriel]

Thank you very much Skint.  I didn't realize it could be used with AutoCAD.  I'll check into that right away.

[edit]
Correction.  We aren't talking about the same product.  Look here

Thanks anyway though.
[/edit]

[Skint Subby]

I'm not 100% certain, but I think it's the same product, but for different platforms.

[MickD]

Skint, Chuck is talking about Triforma which is native Bently AFAIK. I had a demo of it a while ago and found it to be quite good as the objects created were 'smart' objects in that they stored valuable info on the objects whereas std 3d objects are simple volumetric structures. I don't think it had any automatic connections etc but modelling was pretty similar to AutoCAD if not easier. Apparently the word was at the time that AutoCAD was the best for 2d and Bently was better at 3d, while I didn't get time to fully use Triforma and MS (the learning curve used up all my demo time!) I did find 3d ok and 2d was 'awkward' after AutoCAD.
I did like the way you could create 2d details from the model into 2d files that were linked to and from the model, that was neat.
I think I still have a demo disk here somewhere, I'll have to have another look

[Chuck Gabriel]

Some time in the very near future, we are going to have a web demo / conference call with Bentley, after which we will get a demo of the software to test drive for a month.  That should give us enough information to at least make some sort of intelligent evaluation.

[MickD]

I just had a look at the ets site that has some demo's to look at once you register, very smart! Have a look at the Building section and the structural demo's in there. The 2d/3d two way capability is probably one of the best features.
I forgot all about accudraw, I quite like the way it worked in 3d how you could flip the ucs with a key press etc.
I'm actually doing some work for a company at the moment who are pushing me to using MS as that is their clients' prefered format, their client is 'very' big in the mining and plant feild and could be the source of a lot of my future work!

From memory, I think Triforma was only about 25% more cost than vanilla V8, this is very good value for a smart product.

It will be interesting to hear your thoughts after the demo.

[MickD]

Chuck, have you had a chance to have a look at this yet? I'd be interested in your opinion, I filled in an info request but have had no response as yet!

[Chuck Gabriel]

They did a webex demo for us a couple of weeks ago, but it didn't go well.  Throughout the demo, we all kept wondering why the guy demonstrating the software couldn't seem to understand our questions.  Then we found out he was not a structural engineer (not even close).  He was an architect, and he had no idea what kind of information we would be likely to want to show on our drawings.

They are trying to schedule another demo with their (apparently only) structural person, but his availability is pretty limited, so it might be a month or more before we can get it set up.

I did manage to garner a little information from the demo, though.  It looks like the software is very powerful, and fairly flexible, but also extremely complicated.  It's fairly obvious to me that it will do what we want it to do, but I think it is going to take a very long time to learn how to be productive with it.  The user interface is extremely complicated, but if you could ever master it I imagine you could really crank out the work.

[MickD]

Thanks Chuck, after quite a bit of tracking down I found the last Australian distributer for Bentley who will be organising a trial cd for us.
After what little I've seen I also think it would be a good thing and I was very impressed with 2d drawing production but I've yet to see any steel detailing type production from it and wonder how it will fair (i.e. ortho views and sections of assemblies).
It has also jumped up a bit in price and with a bit of work I can get Autocad to do what I need... but then I also need time!

[Chuck Gabriel]

We finally had our demo with the structural guy from Bentley yesterday.  I went much more smoothly than the previous demo, but the outcome seems to be that the software isn't going to offer us enough benefit to justify the expense and training down time.  It's funny because my boss was the one who was all excited about this and he ended up being the one to poo poo it in the end.  I think he made the right decision, but it's still funny.

[Kerry]

Heh Chuck, at least the man was prepared to think outside the box a little .. kudos for that.

[Chuck Gabriel]

His thinking typically involves convincing the box that, for the type of work it is expecting us to do, it really should be paying us more money.  Some might call him a schemer. 

[diarmuid]

if i were you i would investigate Speedikon industrial, its very powerfull and is compatable with autocad, bently structural as far as i know is a microstation based product.  and you dont want to go down that road

hth

[Bob Wahr]

I've always compared using Microstation vs AutoCAD to using a standard vs. RPN calculator.  They'll both do exactly the same thing, you just have to think differently to get there and the one you are used to is a much better system.  I would be extremely wary of running any Bentley verticals in AutoCAD.  Based on my experience doing it with Civil SelectCAD and AutoCAD, the thing that Bentley is best at getting AutoCAD to do is crash.  It could be smoke blowing by adesk marketers but RAM is supposed to work with Revit Structure in the near soonness.  I hope so anyway.

I started using V8 just recently working for an unnamed company

It must be hard for them to do marketing.

[Maverick®]

It must be hard for them to do marketing.

 

[jtbworld]

On the topic: http://jtbworld.blogspot.com/2006/07/structural-steel-cad-software.html

[Chuck Gabriel]

Funny thing.  My boss recently started talking about this again.  I think maybe he is anticipating having some down time where we could do some training without interrupting real work.

I'm still not completely sold, but it would nice to not have my skills become completely outdated.

[Chuck Gabriel]

On the topic: http://jtbworld.blogspot.com/2006/07/structural-steel-cad-software.html

Thanks Jimmy.  I have actually seen Tekla Structures as well.  An independent detailer who was doing the detailing on one of our projects was using it and was so excited about it, he wanted to show it to us.

I was very impressed with the software.  However, the pricing wasn't even in the same ballpark as Revit or Bentley Structural, and you have to pay extra for additional modules if you want to get the full range of functionality from it.