<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic MVparts or Fabrication ITMs for Equipment? in Fabrication CADmep Forum</title>
    <link>https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/fabrication-cadmep-forum/mvparts-or-fabrication-itms-for-equipment/m-p/7038382#M2377</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;If utilizing Fabrication (between 4 Departments - Estimating, Engineering, Detailing and Production/Fabrication), what would best practices be regarding the use of MVparts vs Fabrication ITMs for equipment (VAVs, GRDs, Fans, etc...)?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Musts at any given stage:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1) Equipment Takeoff/Reports (including Model Numbers, Dimensional data, Equipment/Schedule number, etc.)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2) Association with a service/service layer, for ease of isolation by service (i.e. if one needed to create a supply service plot &amp;amp; a return services plot...associated equipment would isolate with the duct/fittings.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Our company has an extensive MVpart catalog utilized by 1 department only. &amp;nbsp;Should other departments move to MVparts, or should MVparts be replaced with fabrication ITMs?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Apr 2017 16:32:23 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2017-04-24T16:32:23Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>MVparts or Fabrication ITMs for Equipment?</title>
      <link>https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/fabrication-cadmep-forum/mvparts-or-fabrication-itms-for-equipment/m-p/7038382#M2377</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;If utilizing Fabrication (between 4 Departments - Estimating, Engineering, Detailing and Production/Fabrication), what would best practices be regarding the use of MVparts vs Fabrication ITMs for equipment (VAVs, GRDs, Fans, etc...)?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Musts at any given stage:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1) Equipment Takeoff/Reports (including Model Numbers, Dimensional data, Equipment/Schedule number, etc.)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2) Association with a service/service layer, for ease of isolation by service (i.e. if one needed to create a supply service plot &amp;amp; a return services plot...associated equipment would isolate with the duct/fittings.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Our company has an extensive MVpart catalog utilized by 1 department only. &amp;nbsp;Should other departments move to MVparts, or should MVparts be replaced with fabrication ITMs?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Apr 2017 16:32:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/fabrication-cadmep-forum/mvparts-or-fabrication-itms-for-equipment/m-p/7038382#M2377</guid>
      <dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-04-24T16:32:23Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: MVparts or Fabrication ITMs for Equipment?</title>
      <link>https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/fabrication-cadmep-forum/mvparts-or-fabrication-itms-for-equipment/m-p/7039700#M2383</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I am not extremely familiar with AutoCAD MEP other than the fact that I've been hoping the parametric part builder becomes part of Vanilla AutoCAD's dynamic block system&amp;nbsp;someday.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I will say that if your doing sheet metal then Fabrication should be the superior software. I am not a sheet metal guy, but I can tell you that every sheet metal person I've ever worked with (on the construction side) prefers Fabrication over just about any competing product. I can also tell you that everything on you bullet list should be entirely possible through Fabrication and would not work through using a hybrid of MVParts with Fabrication; your in an all or nothing situation for sure.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Fabrication parts can hold as much custom data as you want; for various tags and specs you might want to track.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Worksheets could theoretically fully dimension a printout of the equipment you build through parametric ITM's. Note that you won't like the output of a "CONVERT3DMODEL" version of them and that building content from scratch in Fabrication is often a long series of poking and prodding until you get it just right.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;If an object is added to a specific service and it has a unique service type, you can then manage that unique service types layer through the Service Setup&amp;nbsp;and Fabrication standard SL1 command would isolate the&amp;nbsp;duct with the equipment if its on the same Service.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I sense you have some AutoCAD MEP hold outs and your out&amp;nbsp;fact finding. Both packages do have some cool features, but unification to make all departments produce similar output&amp;nbsp;looks professional and should be&amp;nbsp;what all companies should be attempting to do. I think the 1 vs 3 says it all right there and you just need to focus on getting the AutoCAD MEP hold outs trained on Fabrication properly; eventually they will probably thank you for the switch.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2017 06:42:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/fabrication-cadmep-forum/mvparts-or-fabrication-itms-for-equipment/m-p/7039700#M2383</guid>
      <dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-04-25T06:42:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

