Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
InfraWorks has already shown that it can handle storm pipes and structures. Now please add more utilities into the product including water, wastewater, ductbanks for electrical and communications, etc.
The utilities need parametric tools that allow for their placement and management without having to manage it at all times, like it is in Civil 3D. Sewer pipes should recognize they are part of a run which goes from a high point to a low point. Any crossing utilities, like water lines, should be recognized and then lowered or raised to make sure the sewer line maintains the seperation between the two.
Also I like James Meading's take on this as well where we don't always need pipe segments, but have an alignment and profile where we can specify where different types of pipes occurs. This is of note like above where it is avoiding a water line, one way to do this is to use a special case on the outside of the pipe. Having three pipes here would suck big time since I'd have to manage them seperately where in reality I have on slope of pipe and it needs to have a special condition for just a portion of it.
The best approach would be to pick your favorite utility and submit it as one idea or, if you can't pick one, submit a few as individual ideas.
Having a singular, "bite-sized" approach makes these things much more doable from a development standpoint and eaiser to discuss and support from a community support standpoint. As it is now, the development team has to consider all of these items at once and that makes fulfillment of this idea very challenging. Also, multiple ideas dillute and complicate the voting and discussion process.
It would also help if you included some specific characteristics you'd like to see for a given utlity. What kinds of parts, what kinds of behaviors, etc.
This is great, thanks for the idea(s). We are trying to determine which utilities to add next. You've listed a few (water, wastewater, electrical, etc). If these were separate ideas, like Eric suggested, we could discuss specific requirements for each, and prioritize them separately.
Thank you, Charlie. I've been visiting with some coworkers and others in my network to determine who needs what. Should I create the new idea as Option A or Option B:
Option A (two separate idea requests):
Add Water fittings and appurtenances that connect to pipes similar to currrent storm pipes and structures in InfraWorks 360. Additions would include items such as fire hydrants, gate valves, backflow preventer with box, meter with box, air release valve.
Add Water pipes including materials such as cast iron, ductile iron, steel, concrete, pre-stressed concrete, asbestos cement, pvc, non-rigid plastic, copper, and galvanized iron.
Option B (one idea request):
Add Water fittings and appurtenances that connect to pipes similar to currrent storm pipes and structures in InfraWorks 360. Additions would include items such as fire hydrants, gate valves, backflow preventer with box, meter with box, air release valve. Also add Water pipes including materials such as cast iron, ductile iron, steel, concrete, pre-stressed concrete, asbestos cement, pvc, non-rigid plastic, copper, and galvanized iron.
Why not incorporate the Plant 3D code to do water, steam, oil, and other similar utilities? It is already set to use SQLLite and needs a better UI for the civil applications such as slopes for the pipes. It also already has a ton of content already created.
Hi Tom, Sorry for the late reply... I think Option B is fine - since you'll need both the pipes and the fittings to complete a waterline workflow. I was thinking more along the line of which utility types are most important because you mentioned water, sanitary, electrical, etc. Based on a utility type we can discuss the workflows, requirements, parts and analysis for each type. Some types will have more similarities with others of course - so what we do, say for water, may also work well for another utility type (or at least parts of it). ...and once we do one doing another would be easier, but just helps to know where to start.
Chris, we'll definitely look at reimagining the workflows to get a good set of tools for design.
Has Autodesk ever considered that all utilities are the same in civil engineering?
You have a plan view alignment, you have a profile, like a road.
Then you decorate that with diameters for circ pipes, and rectangular or whatever shape for dry utils or as needed.
Structures also "ride" the profile, they do not contain elevation data.
We did this already, and have been modeling utilities in autocad, not even civil3d, using alignment data.
Its the simplest thing ever, as civil's have always designed pipes and things this way.
You can add subsets of constraints to things, like allowing a structure to edit the profile, but the idea that pipes are parts is not civil engineering, and will never be BIM.
Even the contractors doing shop drawings of steel pipe do not divide up pipes the way C3D and IW does.
Does Autodesk reject this idea because they have never bought a software company that does things this way?
It seems like that is their criteria, looking at how pipe networks came from softdesk, and corridors from Casie.
I can't sell my companies tools, but my approach has been done, and continues to actually work, and be updateable because real designers maintain alignments for pipelines. Use that data for the model, how much simpler can it get?
I agree "all utilities are the same in civil engineering" In regards to construction drawings both in plan and in profile, they are represented in somewhat the same manor. However the workflow and underlying data, properties and attributes are different for each utilitie.
In my opinion there are two main categorical differences, gravity pipes and non-gravity pipe.
So to "KISS".
Two functions
one to create gravity pipes with structures and
another to create non gravity pipes.
At a later date we can have specific design tools that will analyze the design, add fittings, valves, vaults, reducers, powerpoles etc. all depending on the type of utility, gas, water, electric, fiber optics etc. (similar to AUD)
I think I get what you mean, and I agree there are patterns of design criteria and structure types.
That should not govern the data structure of a pipeline though.
Real designers know they must have a gravity sewer flow downhill, at d/D of .5 or whatever.
Software makers must not approach things this way - with some workflow in mind that limits things.
They must allow you to have a pure horizonatal and vertical design like a road - with no constraints.
Then allow you to add structures that follow the profile, not controlling it.
Once you have that, allow users to have rules control things if desired. So you might say "no sewer inverts above 6ft cover", and work out how that affects all the ways a designer can try to edit the profile, and prevent them.
My experience is Autodesk gets some of those added things right, and some wrong.
The bigger problem is the underlying idea of pipelines being composed of "parts" how Autodesk is doing it, is completely wrong.
I watched them make the pressure pipe feature of Civil3D in horror. They just will not listen to those of us who make a living doing these designs, and then the even fewer that write their own tools to deal with the gaps adesk leaves.
For now, this idea will be archived, which means we may revisit this for future roadmaps.
This is a tough call, as this idea has so many votes. If we could move forward on all the ideas here, we would; but in this case, we have to focus on a few strategic things for now. That said, the need for utility design tools will always be there, so it wouldn't surprise me if we eventually come back around to this at some point.
Not having utilities in InfraWorks is just stupid in my opinion. When I think of Infrastructure that includes the water lines, sewer lines, force mains, electrical, communications, etc. both underground and overhead. I know I'm not the only one, either. Leaving out one of the most basic aspects of infrastructure means InfraWorks is mostly useless for a lot of people. There's two basic shapes, cylindrical and rectangular that are needed for piping. 3D software has been able to extrude basic shapes along a path for decades, but for some reason Autodesk makes this extremely difficult when it comes to utilities.
As @JamesMaeding pointed out, Autodesk doesn't design their products in the way that the designer thinks, which is why it's so frustrating to use Autodesk software for a lot of tasks. Doing a sanitary gravity sewer design in Civil 3D is a pain because if one structure needs the lowest invert changed then each individual structure's inverts and pipe slope has to be adjusted downstream. This is extremely time consuming when it should just be based on something like an alignment and profile, which is what has been done for decades. InfraWorks should have the ability to create a pipe run, either gravity or non-gravity, and just lay it out horizontally. Adjust a profile of it with some editable rules, such as 0.1' drop across a manhole (node), set minimum cover from a surface, and be done with it. Give the option to have the cylinder or box use the top or invert for the attachment location. The parts can just snap to nodes (or PIs) along the alignment/profile run. For pressure networks there is a huge catalog of 3d solids in a part catalog made for Civil 3D, using tech from another Autodesk software, for fittings and appurtenances that can just be inserted at the nodes of the alignment/profile, but for some reason this cannot be done.
If Autodesk can take an alignment with a profile and create a roadway corridor with curbs, asphalt, sidewalks, etc. that automatically daylights to a surface and cleans itself up at intersections in InfraWorks then why is it so difficult to have a cylinder extruded along an alignment/profile and have parts attached to nodes of it?
Autodesk has gotten so big it's like Google where there are a ton of individual divisions doing their own programming and no coordination between the different divisions of the same company. How else can you explain why Autodesk has multiple programs that do very similar tasks, yet each one is missing something that requires the others, such as Navisworks, InfraWorks, & BIM/Glue? Even basic functions such as navigation in these 3d programs is different for each one. Even within the same program Autodesk can't coordinate functions, such as Part Builder for pipe networks in Civil 3D and the Content Catalog Editor for pressure networks in C3D.
To sum it up, Autodesk just needs to listen to the users and actually study how civil projects are designed in the real world, not how they think it ought to be.
Keep in mind, half the problem here is Autodesk's decision to tie up data in dwg's.
They still make you open a dwg to edit or create anything, and no other interface can do anything with them.
That was and is a huge mistake, and a system done correctly using outside database system that all programs access is the way to go.
Sure, adesk can still have civil3d objects that hook to the data, like drefs but editable, but labels and things should directly access the data instead of hook to custom objects.
Until they fix that, civil3d will ever remain as a second class design program, as well as the other adesk products because designers do not have time to maintain all the exports and back and forth involved. In addition, they do not have time nor energy to take their real design contained in alignments and convert to part based utility models that have rules which you must know well to keep from biting you.
In the end, make your own prog that created 3d plines from alignments and profiles, and run the sweep command on them to get solids. Then save as fbx and pull into infraworks as a 3d model. Add some simple xdata to the 3d pline, like align name and profile, and you can have the thing update as needed.
We did that years ago, and it makes adesk utils irrelevent.
