Part Builder : Any good tutorialz out there ? Where to start ?

[cyberflow]

Hi all,

Was gona start redoing our catalogue and wanted to have a good base on Part Builder.

Anyone knows a good tutorial or reference to start with ?

And is it me or Part Builder seems a lot like Inventor ?

If i learn Inventor, am i good for Part Builder ?

TIA

[Cadguru42]

Part Builder is nothing like Inventor. It's its own environment within C3D & was designed in the early 2000s to do parametric modeling in C3D. It's got some bugs, the help files are no help, and Autodesk has basically abandoned it. But, you can still create/edit parts with it. Just do a YouTube search for Civil 3D part builder and you can get an idea on how to use it. 

You can also use Infrastructure Parts Editor to create pipe catalogs and export to C3D, but there are limitations on trying to use custom templates. IPE is Inventor based and comes with some predefined templates, but if you need customization then you'll have to purchase a separate license to get Inventor since Autodesk doesn't deem C3D users as needing Inventor even though they release a product that is uses Inventor. 

I don't know how much has changed with IPE with pipe catalogs, but last I recall there are problems with trying to use custom templates with custom data associated with the parts. If you stick with the OOTB templates then I believe you'll be fine. @MikeEvansUK might know more about that than I. 

[samir.rezk]

Hi @cyberflow 

The attached resource has been my go-to reference for so many years, It's a very old but awesome Autodesk University Handout.

Hope it helps,

[brian.strandberg]

This is an area where AU could use more content.  I know there are a couple other part builder classes out there, but it has been a while.  https://www.autodesk.com/autodesk-university/search?query=civil+3d+part+builder

[cyberflow]

Thanx for the share @samir.rezk  !
@brian.strandberg I did that to and came across several hand outs.

@Cadguru42  10 4 - Thx for the input


I know in the help file there's an exercice on the help site of Autodesk :
Autodesk Civil 3D Help | Exercise 1: Defining the New Part in the Structure Catalog | Autodesk


And i've came accross this gem, an old blog but has a lot of content in it : 
Part Builder « from Civil to Inventor (wordpress.com)

[MikeEvansUK · Accepted solution]

Thanks, @Cadguru42 for the prompt. Sorry I've been in a Tent for a few days.

I've not really used IPE / Inventor since the Beta stage and am aware a lot has changed but the basic principles are the same.

OTB PartBuilder is not as good and simple for modelling as Inventor but it's part of the Main product.

The PB testing tools are geared for use in Civil3d, IPE is not and was more developed for testing Infraworks. So IPE C3d testing leaves a lot to the imagination and needs a good understanding of PB and how C3d uses data in structures.

• IPE does not work with lists and requires tables but you can however, secondary hack the part by having a dimension pointing to a list. This needs to be done post export in the xml so a knowledge of PB is required for this stage.
• IPE is OTB for combining parts and libraries but for custom parts you need to purchase and learn Inventor. So there is a large money commitment for training and software needed.
• IPE uses multiple components, in my opinion a waste of time and more agro than necessary. Sometimes getting custom parts to join is a nightmare and often leads to multiple instances of each possible dimension being created. Leading the user to have to manually hack the Xml to remove. Knowledge of PB needed.
• You must have a Surface Structure and UG structure, cover is not necessary. You can create a null Surface Structure with hidden geometry to trick when you don't want the top section (storage structures).
• IPE once you have it running is great and produces good solids but I have also used PB and created the same solids.
• Management of IPE parts is a nightmare, they are berried in the templates folder named with GUID names. IPE does not give you the location so you need to manually hunt and find this. Very unhelpful.
• Often with the Beta the parts connection points would become inverted or move around needing to be corrected and recompiled, may now be fixed.
• IPE Size tables are difficult, you can add/edit in Excel but if the GUID name changes you need to do it all from scratch.
• Sometimes (in the beta) the part templates became corrupted and needed to be rebuilt. The method the Dev team gave was to erase the template folder then restart Civil3d, it would copy everything over but you would need to manually reimport each custom template into IPE for it to recognise it.
• Sharing of IPE files is not easy, you need to copy the templates from one PC top another. Unless you know where each one is located you will need to copy everything and not forgetting you also need to copy the Part folder where the XML is.
• Naming of the Xml is a pain, its exported as GUID name which is hard to read and not helpful when looking for a part to change, edit the xml file or just copy across to someone else.
• IPE doesn't like specifying dims inside out so you need to work backwards or hack and correct the calcs in the XML file.

Part Builder has its own issues.

• Swept curve extrusion was broken in 2018 and remains so to this day. Apparently we shouldn't be using the OTB products anymore?
• Drawing parts is not easy with constraints but my advice is to draw everything incorrectly then constrain to get the right shape/rotation.
• PB does not allow custom pipe connection locations but you can always manually move the pipes SP/EP.
• PB has a hide feature useful you would expect when you create object not directly connected to / related to ground level (Storage structures) problem is even when hidden they still appear in 3d.

From my experience with both, I would start using PartBuilder and once you have harnessed that and understand adding custom contexts to sort problems or allow additional bits you can enter Inventor and see how you get on there.

BTW: my original feed back to the Dev team at the time was that it would be better to have a structure which didn't require separate parts (like we have in Partbuilder) to simplify things.

It went over to Infraworks shortly after which I don't use so couldn't be a part of.
The IPE/Inventor method is great and when you've tried it Vs PB you'll be jealous, We don't have enough seats to justify purchasing it and I don't have enough time to struggle with combining parts and hack xml's to get what we need.

Mike

[cyberflow]

Thanx @MikeEvansUK !
Wow, what a post - Really sums it up !

Thanx all !

[mh9QRER]

What are peoples thougths on the "Infrastructure Parts Editor". It's an extension from InfraWorks.

I have never used it myself but I'm strongly considering looking more into how to strengthen the level of detail of structures.

[matt_anderson_pe]

PB is old tech.  The next generation was supposed to be IPE, but then InfraWorks isn't where everyone starts projects...  pipes remain a Part Builder function for C3D.  Culverts only InfraWorks... 

Its a confusing mess.

[Cadguru42]

---

@mh9QRER wrote:

What are peoples thougths on the "Infrastructure Parts Editor". It's an extension from InfraWorks.

I have never used it myself but I'm strongly considering looking more into how to strengthen the level of detail of structures.

---

IPE is designed for InfraWorks and based on Inventor. It has an export to C3D feature for both pipe and pressure catalogs. However, there are many limitations that aren't documented about how it actually exports. I.e., for a pressure network you cannot have double quotes in the part name, like 3" DIP for a 3 inch ductile iron pipe. You can use two single quotes to mimic it, though.

There is a bug where if you start with reducing tees for a family and you put the same values for all 3 branches that it'll completely change your part template to the equal tee without telling you. This has been an issue since beta, but Autodesk refuses to fix it.

In order to make custom parts that aren't in the OOTB templates it will require you to purchase a license of Inventor as Autodesk doesn't deem anyone in AEC worthy of having it, even though the two largest civil software packages they offer use Inventor templates. 

As @MikeEvansUK stated earlier, for pipe catalogs there are also issues. 

Autodesk hasn't really fixed or updated the pipe system in almost 20 years & pressure catalog system in over 10 years. They've stated they're going to work on a new system, so no matter what we end up doing now it won't matter in the future. 

I wouldn't bother spending time making detailed structures as the time involved usually isn't worth it. If you need that kind of detail, just create a 3d solid and block(s) of that to represent a structure.

[matt_anderson_pe]

The double quote for inch is a problem because Civil 3D uses a LandXML format to handle much of the data.  Double quote is a control character in XML. 
Its been some time, but editting the XML manually would be required to add the correct XML coding such that " appears correctly.   I dont remember if its "" or &quot was the solution or not.   PB is temperamental.
http://cse.unl.edu/~reich/XML/syntax.html

[MikeEvansUK]

Sorry, I'm not sure I fully agree with this.

A "New system" will probably still need to work with the legacy stuff (PB) and as you rightly point out we don't qualify for Inventor (I note we have Revit for some odd reason 🙂 ) so it's worth learning the only tool we have in the bag.

It's (PB) really not that difficult to use and yes it has it's own issues but we have a dedicated team finding workarounds, hacks and fixes since 2005 in this forum.

Mike

[mh9QRER]

In Denmark there's a larger demand to enhance the level of detail on projects. Pipes and structes are lacking behind the level of detail that Revit and other software can provide.

It seems to me that OpenRoads has it's upper hand in Denmark as it's easier to provide the required LoD. I've had several requests asking if I would be willing to swap to OpenRoads. I'm actually considering it even though I have 11 years of experience in C3D. I'm missing out on projects as some customers require OpenRoads to be used.

[MikeEvansUK]

I would partly agree with LOD but the only bits I see Open roads having abilities that we cannot do (with PB) are textures and I bet they can use curve sweeps in their 3d models.

Looks like the builder software is available OTB and not a separate package.

Not really sure that textures are important for Bim and if you were really worried you could create a 3dSMax document with materials on the faces.

Otherwise I note OR has chambers with internal voids, you can do that with PB using subtract in solid editing.

The example I watched has a detailed 3d grating on the top, too much irrelevant detail in my view and would slow the user down. Note, this would be possible in PB using multi planes but still not worth it in my view due to complexity of models.

Not used OR but as a different environment it would be starting from scratch but I can see some benefits.

We use IFC to share our Bim models with Revit, using Property sets gives the details of the parts and assists in coordination.

From a BIM perspective, this is all we're after. A 3d model which represents the type, shape and space an object takes up so that others can avoid placing their elements there.

I would say that PB is more limited in pipes as you can only have one profile in the part.

It would be nice, in the case of channel drainage or dual pipes to be able to detail multiple profiles with geometric controls. 

You could then show the true extents (concrete bedding etc) in the Bim Model. 

Mike

[jameshitt]

@MikeEvansUK @Cadguru42 

Thanks for the excellent information on the overall state of pipe/structure modeling.

I have to say, it all leaves me very dispirited.

[matt_anderson_pe]

@MikeEvansUK OpenRoads catalog is nicely integrated with the Haestad calculations.  The parts are cells, and the combination of cells.  While I havent had to build one yet, the control is significantly easier to manage with the grips appearing on snap to inside edge of walls (TxDOT parts).  

OpenRoads is slower than Civil 3D but a simple reference brings the underlying data.  No need for data shortcuts.