We recently received a question about our latest Experts Weigh In article about the Autodesk and Bentley interoperability agreement in place.
One of our readers had this to say:
"I am using Civil 3D 2009 and working with civil engineering Sr. staff with a MicroStation (and Caltrans – roads standards in California) background.
Recently, I have been working with the National CAD Standards (NCS) packaged with Civil 3D 2009 and can see the benefit of having a NCS layering convention for consistency among other divisions, new employees, outside consultants, and other specialties. It has good bones anyone can adapt to and it is headed in the right direction for consistent communication. However, senior staff keep going back to the “way we always did it” or “this is the way industry does it”. Inevitably the old way is an evolved version of the Caltrans via MicroStation layering – nothing to do with NCS or Civil3D moving forward.
My two questions to you guys are:
1) Where does Bentley MicroStation see its layering convention/standard going in regards to the NCS which Autodesk Civil, etc. has already adopted?
2) Does Bentley recommend or support the NCS? [If not, what is recommended moving forward?]"
From our experience, the layer/level naming has always been up to the agency that required the use of Bentley products. It is less of an issue of Bentley adopting NCS, but the agencies using Bentley products adopting it, such as CalTrans. Maryland State Highway (SHA) uses a level naming convention that was revamped and adopted with the release of Microstation V8. According to their website, “SHA’s V8 level naming convention is based on the guidelines set forth by the National CAD Standards, with changes as needed to accommodate a civil transportation workflow: MAJR-MINR-SUBM.” I believe that prior to V8, the levels were numbered only.
Hope this helps, and let me know if you need any more information.
Jeff Gravatte
(
1 comment
total )
15 Dec, 2008 01:45 PM
We recently received a question about our latest Experts Weigh In article about the Autodesk and Bentley interoperability agreement in place.
One of our readers had this to say:
"I am using Civil 3D 2009 and working with civil engineering Sr. staff with a MicroStation (and Caltrans – roads standards in California) background.
Recently, I have been working with the National CAD Standards (NCS) packaged with Civil 3D 2009 and can see the benefit of having a NCS layering convention for consistency among other divisions, new employees, outside consultants, and other specialties. It has good bones anyone can adapt to and it is headed in the right direction for consistent communication. However, senior staff keep going back to the “way we always did it” or “this is the way industry does it”. Inevitably the old way is an evolved version of the Caltrans via MicroStation layering – nothing to do with NCS or Civil3D moving forward.
My two questions to you guys are:
1) Where does Bentley MicroStation see its layering convention/standard going in regards to the NCS which Autodesk Civil, etc. has already adopted?
2) Does Bentley recommend or support the NCS? [If not, what is recommended moving forward?]"
Topic: Ask the Editor / Question for our Experts
From our experience, the layer/level naming has always been up to the agency that required the use of Bentley products. It is less of an issue of Bentley adopting NCS, but the agencies using Bentley products adopting it, such as CalTrans. Maryland State Highway (SHA) uses a level naming convention that was revamped and adopted with the release of Microstation V8. According to their website, “SHA’s V8 level naming convention is based on the guidelines set forth by the National CAD Standards, with changes as needed to accommodate a civil transportation workflow: MAJR-MINR-SUBM.” I believe that prior to V8, the levels were numbered only.
Hope this helps, and let me know if you need any more information.
Topic: Ask the Editor / Question for our Experts