Community
AutoCAD MEP Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s AutoCAD MEP Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular AutoCAD MEP topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Display Manager for Sistem Definitiion

34 REPLIES 34
Reply
Message 1 of 35
goyete
877 Views, 34 Replies

Display Manager for Sistem Definitiion

Hello, is it possible to filter the the display for sistems defintions? I have a system where I include hot water pipings and another system where contains cold water piping and fittings. I don't find where can I display only one of this systems or both at a time. Thanks!

34 REPLIES 34
Message 21 of 35
goyete
in reply to: Keith.Brown

Thanks thanks thanks! Smiley Frustrated AutoCAD options are infinite, my mind not...

Message 22 of 35
Tom_Eitelbach
in reply to: goyete

I may have to do a little bit of a retraction on my first post.

 

The reason I made the post was because I thought the only way to hide systems, and the effect of there breaks on other systems, was to use "Classifications" (Style manager<multi purpose objects<Classifications). That is the way electrical objects are controlled through the display manager. I thought I read that was how you can shut off a system and the breaks they create on other systems.

 

I have been trying to do this but cannot seam to. The drawing I posted earlier I actually used the 2 line display rep to simulate that that was happening. I know I can't control the way wires break wires on other systems, even after shutting off one system, but I thought it was different on Ducts Conduit and Pipe.

 

Not being able to hide the breaks in wires is the only reason I use separate drawings for Power,Light and Fire alarm. I am sure in a bigger office they separate them so multiple people can work on the same project at the same time. Other electrical systems are fine to co-exist. By that I mean having a "normal power", "life safety" or "optional standby" system in one drawing. Or if you break your Lighting or power drawings down by system voltage. 

 

As far as controlling labels through display reps, it can also be done through classifications. Everything can be controlled through classifications, although it might not be the best Idea. Just like everyone tries to avoid an object override. But if controlling it through classifications was that terrible, AMEP would not get shipped like it does, with every electrical device assigned one, and controlled through the display manager.

 

You can add a classification to any object that appears on the "applies to tab". I re-posted my drawing below with classifications applied to Labels and structural members. There are no style overrides, default overrides or any overrides of any type in the drawing, everything is being controlled through the display reps "MEP Med Gas" , "MEP Domestic" and classifications.

Message 23 of 35
Keith.Brown
in reply to: Tom_Eitelbach


@t.eitelbach wrote:

I may have to do a little bit of a retraction on my first post.

 

The reason I made the post was because I thought the only way to hide systems, and the effect of there breaks on other systems, was to use "Classifications" (Style manager<multi purpose objects<Classifications). That is the way electrical objects are controlled through the display manager. I thought I read that was how you can shut off a system and the breaks they create on other systems.

 

I have been trying to do this but cannot seam to. The drawing I posted earlier I actually used the 2 line display rep to simulate that that was happening. I know I can't control the way wires break wires on other systems, even after shutting off one system, but I thought it was different on Ducts Conduit and Pipe.

 

Not being able to hide the breaks in wires is the only reason I use separate drawings for Power,Light and Fire alarm. I am sure in a bigger office they separate them so multiple people can work on the same project at the same time. Other electrical systems are fine to co-exist. By that I mean having a "normal power", "life safety" or "optional standby" system in one drawing. Or if you break your Lighting or power drawings down by system voltage. 

 

As far as controlling labels through display reps, it can also be done through classifications. Everything can be controlled through classifications, although it might not be the best Idea. Just like everyone tries to avoid an object override. But if controlling it through classifications was that terrible, AMEP would not get shipped like it does, with every electrical device assigned one, and controlled through the display manager.

 

You can add a classification to any object that appears on the "applies to tab". I re-posted my drawing below with classifications applied to Labels and structural members. There are no style overrides, default overrides or any overrides of any type in the drawing, everything is being controlled through the display reps "MEP Med Gas" , "MEP Domestic" and classifications.


I do agree with using classifications to seperate systems as it is much easier to setup then using style overrides.  The major difference between the two is that you can set up the style overrides and never have to do another thing.  It will just work, but with the classificationi method you will need to manually assign classifications to the pipe.  Now, i will be the first one to admit that this is very easy and quick to do manually by using tools to select an entire system.  That being said I am one for complete automation of manual tasks.  Automatically applying classifications based on the system name is a trivial matter to do automatically with the .net language however so this does seem like a good solution for anyone with some basic programming skill.  

 

P.S.  I see my hangers that i created in the drawing that you posted!  Although you did modify them to have the square washer on the bottom instead of the top.  In reality i think there should probably be a washer and a nut on both the top and bottom but that level of detail is probably not needed.  How are the hangers working out for you?  I am currently developing a whole catalog of them for use.

Message 24 of 35
VitalyF
in reply to: Keith.Brown

Hi,

 

Keith, t.eitelbach,

 

Are you still in search of the proper ways in MEP?

But I have long found them - One system - One file!

We can return to this issue in a few years, when you agree with me... ))

Message 25 of 35
Keith.Brown
in reply to: VitalyF


@VitalyF wrote:

Hi,

 

Keith, t.eitelbach,

 

Are you still in search of the proper ways in MEP?

But I have long found them - One system - One file!

We can return to this issue in a few years, when you agree with me... ))


I am sorry Vitaly, I don't think i will ever agree with you.  To date, i have found no issues with working with multiple systems in the same file.  Until I do I have no plans to seperate them.  To be honest you are the first person that has ever mentioned this to me and I deal with hundreds of AutoCAD MEP users.  I am certainly not discounting what you have said and I have always said and believe that everyone should do what works best for them.  Personally using one system per file would never work for me as I deal with many systems at once and the headache of file management of those systems would surely out weigh any gains from putting them into seperate files.

 

Myself and customers spend all day in coordination meetings where the general contractor is expecting updates in real time and quickly also.  The amount of time switching between drawings and bringing all of the systems into one file and then converting into a navisworks file is just way to much.  And to be clear the general contractors will not accept that many files per model.  They are ok with breaking a floor down into different sections but breaking each system out into its own file and then breaking down those files into floor sections would be just too much for them.  

 

I am glad that you have something that works for you but that process would never work for me or most of my customers.  And again, until I find that placing multiple systems in a single file causes issues that I cannot deal with I don't see me changing at all.

Message 26 of 35
VitalyF
in reply to: Keith.Brown

Hi,

 

... Systems very much, so all in one file? Keith, I understand you correctly?

Agree, it's strange logic. I'll believe you when I see an example of such a project

At least a copy of DWF... Just for me

 

 

 

 

Message 27 of 35
Tom_Eitelbach
in reply to: VitalyF

P.S.  I see my hangers that i created in the drawing that you posted!  Although you did modify them to have the square washer on the bottom instead of the top.  In reality i think there should probably be a washer and a nut on both the top and bottom but that level of detail is probably not needed. 

 

 

 

 



Most of the time we only install one square washer on the bottom and a 1-1/4" fender washer on the top. If it is a rack with a few small conduits it would get 1-1/4" fender washers on both sides no square washers. I have heard that a square washer on both sides meets the seismic requirements of New Jersey where I work.  I don't know if that is true. I have also heard that square washers on both sides were in the job specs. I never saw that in any job I ever ran. Having square washers on both sides does make it easier to install.

 



How are the hangers working out for you?

 

 

 

 


 


They work great! I can't wait to use them again on the next big one.

I need to ask for help with a "strut tag". the one I use is good for the Style/length of strut/length of rod. I would like to have a toggle for the length of rod that will change depending on attachment type. An example would be change from automatic formula to a object based number for rod length. this would change between a list of Anchor, beam clamp or "u" clamp. The "u" clamp would always be zero for rod length. I will put together what I have  and start another post.

 

 

The last few jobs 3-D coordination was a requirement, but did not become a reality. I know the mechanical and sprinkler contractor did there shop drawings for fabrication in 3-D. The job I am currently working on in the field did not get it either, although it was supposed to. It is a single floor and all our large conduits are in the slab. I guess they figure if another trade has a hit with a light fixture it is there problem with the architects? I don't think the GC's were set up for it, and it is not a requirement of the mechanical contractor to take the lead. Either way the jobs were not that big and would not have taken long anyway.

 

The last big one had probably 300 hangers on each of the four floors. all the anchors were installed before the concrete was poured. I think it took two guys five days per floor to install the 600 anchors. It took the mechanical contractor a day and a half to do the same with a total station. Tekla's web site has a calculator to figure the cost savings of their total station. It would have come close to paying for itself on this job.

 

As far as the "single/multiple file" debate. during coordination I would definitely have all systems in one drawing. But at that point I am not worried about circuits or wires. later for as-builts I would separate the Power, lighting and fire alarm, only because I use wires to show circuit paths.

 

I attached a picture of one of the sheets I am working off of. You can see whoever did the drawings had all there systems in one file. They used wires to help annotate the circuits, and you can see all the breaks in the wires for apparently no reason. All the breaks are where they cross the power wires on the next sheet.

 

I recently had to clean up contract drawings (make separate sheets) for my boss. every system was in one drawing and on one sheet at 1/8" scale! I think it was done in vanilla Acad. there was power, lighting, fire alrm, security, nurse call, patient wandering and phone all on one sheet. I have never seen anything like it!

 

Message 28 of 35
VitalyF
in reply to: Tom_Eitelbach

Hi,

 

t.eitelbach wrote  I have never seen anything like it!

 

What does it mean? Did you like or not?

 

 

Message 29 of 35
Tom_Eitelbach
in reply to: VitalyF

I did not like it. The sheets were way to busy. It was not easy doing take-offs when they were estimating. It is not easy to read when you are working with them out in the field.

 

What should have been an easy fix, to separate the different systems onto different sheets, became very time consuming. 90% of the 2-D block devices were all on the E-Pwr-Devc Layer. So I had to separate all the devices onto different layers first. To make them stand out on there own layers, I want to use bright contrasting colors temporarily. Some of  the blocks were created on the E-Pwr-Devc layer so I had to block edit them first. Some of the blocks had their colors changed to something other than white even when they were on the 0 layer. Most of the devices just used a rectangle with an attribute, so I could not use select similar, to select all the pull stations for example, because all the devices would get selected.

 

The list of difficulty's goes on and on. To sum it up, it was just a pain in the @%#

 

Maybe if I knew AutoLISP it would have been easier.

 

Are you thinking that if they were in different files, that would have been easier too Smiley Happy?

Well that also would have solved the problem, but so would standard drafting practices.

 

I kept thinking that maybe this was done with other software and this is what happened when it got exported to DWG. But in the end I think it was all done in vanila Acad.

Message 30 of 35
VitalyF
in reply to: Tom_Eitelbach

Hi,

 

t.eitelbach wrote: Are you thinking that if they were in different files, that would have been easier too Smiley Happy?
Well that also would have solved the problem, but so would standard drafting practices.

For the answer I need an example.

 

How do you calculate the length of the wires?

 

 

Message 31 of 35
Tom_Eitelbach
in reply to: VitalyF

 


@VitalyF wrote:

Hi,

 

@t.eitelbach wrote: Are you thinking that if they were in different files, that would have been easier too Smiley Happy?
Well that also would have solved the problem, but so would standard drafting practices.

For the answer I need an example.

 

How do you calculate the length of the wires?

 

 


In AMEP I don't have to. I only use wires for As-Builts, to show the order of interconnection of devices from the panel to the last device.

 

Our fire alarm vendor is responsible for their calculations and plans. That is submitted for approval to the engineer and is also required to be left on site at the end of the Job.

 

Our feeders are scaled off of the plans when we have the route planed. That information is given to the switchboard/panelboard manufacture. they do a coordination study and we forward that to the engineer for approval during the submittal phase. If they do not like the settings they get corrected and re- submitted. We are required to have engraved plaques on the switch/panelboards with this information on it for future maintenance. not all the information but definitely the arc fault current so the proper protection can be worn.

 

we also use this 

http://www.greenlee.com/products/TAPE%2540dMEASURING-3%2540F16%2540andquot%253b-POLY-(21562).html?pr...

to measure the conduits so we can order the correct length of wire.

Message 32 of 35
VitalyF
in reply to: Tom_Eitelbach

Hi,

 

You did not try this tool to calculate the lengths of the wires in the MEP?

 

Wire lenth

Message 33 of 35
Tom_Eitelbach
in reply to: VitalyF


@VitalyF wrote:

Hi,

 

You did not try this tool to calculate the lengths of the wires in the MEP?

 

Wire lenth


No I haven't.

 

I tried this morning, in a quick temporary file.

I could not find the command that brings up that dialog box. I also could not find any out of the box property sets to go along with the panels, devices or wires.

I also brought Panels/devices in from the content browser, and they also did not have any properties attached.

I am not sure what property sets to make because I can't read the example.

 

Thank you anyway

I am not sure if I would ever need it because of what I use the software for.

Message 34 of 35
VitalyF
in reply to: Tom_Eitelbach

Hi,

 

This link to a free tool >> WiresNewCalculation2013.dll for MEP2013,2014,2015 version

 

This link to a MEP electrical sample project Complete Project (single system file))

 

 

Message 35 of 35
goyete
in reply to: VitalyF

Although in this post have been raised many good solutions, I think I agree with VitalyF that the best way to work (at least for me today) is to make 1 sub system on each file or construct. You have certain problems face to Isolate a portion of the referenced file but a priori I look neater. I also noticed that to connect to the connection points of construct referenced, load from zero, ie, if I reload the xref ignore sometimes the connection point and not connected correctly eg conduit between the construct work and xref.

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report

”Boost