AutoCAD MEP Wishes

[#1]

Pete & Jason, I was thinking yesterday as I was talking to one of our
engineers about ABS and what Pete showed me. I see the future of ABS as
something really great AND let me tell you a one of the ideas I am
toying with. I know it will be tough (or at least I would think) and
there are many, many variables that would have to be worked out. I see
though having ABS & ADT/Revit for that matter, tie into the various
codes, i.e. UPC, UMC, International, etc. when you set up a project you
also set whatever code is applicable. Then as you are designing the
building or the systems there of if you deviate or go outside the
boundaries of that particular code then it would let you know. Something
like the CAD standards reactors. Is this something that would be
possible? I also think you could take this idea farther and apply it to
various other aspects or parts of the building model. I would appreciate
any input you might have on this.
Thanks
Rob Davis

[#2]

Hi Rob -

We have spent a lot time thinking about that one. Our thoughts to date is
that Autodesk really shouldn't be coding in engineering judgment into the
systems you are drawing. The problem is that a lot engineering judgment
goes into a design which we can't anticipate when developing the code to
implement features. Instead, we have tried to create the ability for users
to make their own engineering tables, data, and even calculations wherever
possible. Ultimately, the design responsibility lies on the engineer who
has a lot of non-code related resources (such as experience) to rely on.

For example, I created the "Standard" fixture unit table definition in the
shipping version. When I did it, I had the Uniform Plumbing Code - 2000
open on my desk. But, did my interpretation meet what your interpretation
would be? I am not so sure, at least when I was trying to match ADT toilets
to the various table entries, for example.

Clearly the model created by you using Autodesk Building Systems contains
information that would be very useful in engineering analysis. The key is
to make that information available to the tools that you use today rather
than developing our own functionality that polices your activities in a
semi-adequate (and probably very irritating) way.

Am I making sense?

"Rob Davis" wrote in message
news:3F2104E0.70002@nospam.bgark.com...
> Pete & Jason, I was thinking yesterday as I was talking to one of our
> engineers about ABS and what Pete showed me. I see the future of ABS as
> something really great AND let me tell you a one of the ideas I am
> toying with. I know it will be tough (or at least I would think) and
> there are many, many variables that would have to be worked out. I see
> though having ABS & ADT/Revit for that matter, tie into the various
> codes, i.e. UPC, UMC, International, etc. when you set up a project you
> also set whatever code is applicable. Then as you are designing the
> building or the systems there of if you deviate or go outside the
> boundaries of that particular code then it would let you know. Something
> like the CAD standards reactors. Is this something that would be
> possible? I also think you could take this idea farther and apply it to
> various other aspects or parts of the building model. I would appreciate
> any input you might have on this.
> Thanks
> Rob Davis
>

[#3]

Pete, you are making sense. I talked to Jason about this after having
posted this. I also talked to him about static regain calcs. It WOULD be
very nice if something to do these were implemented (I think) what are
your thoughts on this?

Thanks
Rob

Peter Terwilliger [Autodesk] wrote:
> Hi Rob -
>
> We have spent a lot time thinking about that one. Our thoughts to date is
> that Autodesk really shouldn't be coding in engineering judgment into the
> systems you are drawing. The problem is that a lot engineering judgment
> goes into a design which we can't anticipate when developing the code to
> implement features. Instead, we have tried to create the ability for users
> to make their own engineering tables, data, and even calculations wherever
> possible. Ultimately, the design responsibility lies on the engineer who
> has a lot of non-code related resources (such as experience) to rely on.
>
> For example, I created the "Standard" fixture unit table definition in the
> shipping version. When I did it, I had the Uniform Plumbing Code - 2000
> open on my desk. But, did my interpretation meet what your interpretation
> would be? I am not so sure, at least when I was trying to match ADT toilets
> to the various table entries, for example.
>
> Clearly the model created by you using Autodesk Building Systems contains
> information that would be very useful in engineering analysis. The key is
> to make that information available to the tools that you use today rather
> than developing our own functionality that polices your activities in a
> semi-adequate (and probably very irritating) way.
>
> Am I making sense?
>
> "Rob Davis" wrote in message
> news:3F2104E0.70002@nospam.bgark.com...
>
>>Pete & Jason, I was thinking yesterday as I was talking to one of our
>>engineers about ABS and what Pete showed me. I see the future of ABS as
>>something really great AND let me tell you a one of the ideas I am
>>toying with. I know it will be tough (or at least I would think) and
>>there are many, many variables that would have to be worked out. I see
>>though having ABS & ADT/Revit for that matter, tie into the various
>>codes, i.e. UPC, UMC, International, etc. when you set up a project you
>>also set whatever code is applicable. Then as you are designing the
>>building or the systems there of if you deviate or go outside the
>>boundaries of that particular code then it would let you know. Something
>>like the CAD standards reactors. Is this something that would be
>>possible? I also think you could take this idea farther and apply it to
>>various other aspects or parts of the building model. I would appreciate
>>any input you might have on this.
>>Thanks
>>Rob Davis
>>
>
>
>