eTransmit for Navisworks projects

[Wish List System]

Summary: I would like to be able to export my entire Navisworks project and all it's associated files (possible links?) DWG, DNG, etc... The utility exists for AutoCAD and Revit why not Navis as well.


Description: Need to be able to export (Output) all associated file in a ZIP or compressed format. Folder even with a transmittal option to apply password etc...

Product and Feature: Navisworks Manage - Output

Submitted By: Gabe Hernandez on 10/09/2014

[Wish List System]

eTransmit for Navisworks projects

Summary: I would like to be able to export my entire Navisworks project and all it's associated files (possible links?) DWG, DNG, etc... The utility exists for AutoCAD and Revit why not Navis as well.


Description: Need to be able to export (Output) all associated file in a ZIP or compressed format. Folder even with a transmittal option to apply password etc...

Product and Feature: Navisworks Manage - Output

Submitted By: Gabe Hernandez on 10/09/2014

[nole]

Hello Gabe!
You can do that by saving to NWD format.

[Wanderer]

Hello Gabe!
You can do that by saving to NWD format.

Hmm, Gabe specifies dwg, dgn, etc, so I'm sure he needs editable source files instead of an NWD.

(As someone coming from the owner's side, my contracts specify editable files, DWG or RVT. If my gc wants to wrap up all of the files he and the architect and engineers have been coordinating with in Navisworks, why shouldn't it be possible within the software to make it easy for them?)

[apitcher799568]

You will run into file path issues on the receiver's side with an NWF. This is why Navisworks models are sent as NWD's.

The only thing this would do is save the sender time by putting all of the editable source files in the same folder to zip and send. As a GC, I only do this once per project during turnover, and I am sending many unassociated files as well. My owner's also request 3D DWF's or NWD files because they do not wish to invest in Navisworks Simulate or Manage to read NWF's. They would rather use a free reader like Navisworks Freedom.

[Wanderer]

You will run into file path issues on the receiver's side with an NWF. This is why Navisworks models are sent as NWD's.

The only thing this would do is save the sender time by putting all of the editable source files in the same folder to zip and send. As a GC, I only do this once per project during turnover, and I am sending many unassociated files as well. My owner's also request 3D DWF's or NWD files because they do not wish to invest in Navisworks Simulate or Manage to read NWF's. They would rather use a free reader like Navisworks Freedom.

Interesting. Do you know how your owners are using those?

We never did use Navisworks, never saw a need, but, I worked post-construction and no one during the project management process/design/construction used any 3d files. It was just us on the engineering team that needed them during operations, but, obviously, we needed to be able to edit the files for our work, so navisworks would've been useless.

[apitcher799568]

Interesting. Do you know how your owners are using those?

We never did use Navisworks, never saw a need, but, I worked post-construction and no one during the project management process/design/construction used any 3d files. It was just us on the engineering team that needed them during operations, but, obviously, we needed to be able to edit the files for our work, so navisworks would've been useless.

It really depends on the client, but we have several that are using BIM 360 Glue to take the models that we hand over into the field. Once again, that requires an NWD and not an NWF. It allows their maintenance staff to quickly and easily see what's above ceilings or behind walls without having to hunt through paper or PDF drawings looking for equipment locations. For their field personnel, that means less time searching, less time moving furniture, less time going up and down ladders, and less time cleaning up all of the dust and debris that falls down when they needlessly remove ceiling tiles. Some clients let their models languish on servers, but others are really excited about the possibilities that having a 3D plan set brings. Personally, I wish more clients would go the route of having their building data embedded into their models, but most would rather see someone else establish an effective process and show an ROI before they invest any money into it.


Even for post construction, Navisworks Simulate can be a useful tool. It doesn't have the clash detection of Manage, but it has everything else and isn't a basic viewer like Freedom. You can us it to create and edit hyperlinks to PDF's, training videos, maintenance tracking documents, or many different other things from model objects that are more effective than what you will find in Revit or AutoCAD. Both Revit and AutoCAD require you to have a computer capable of running them in the first place, and their object hyperlinks are a little hard to edit. Revit's are also very glitchy and usually don't work. Navisworks is also much more geared towards viewing your models than Revit and AutoCAD because the models are restructured in a way that optimizes them for viewing instead of editing.

[Wanderer]

It really depends on the client, but we have several that are using BIM 360 Glue to take the models that we hand over into the field. Once again, that requires an NWD and not an NWF. It allows their maintenance staff to quickly and easily see what's above ceilings or behind walls without having to hunt through paper or PDF drawings looking for equipment locations. For their field personnel, that means less time searching, less time moving furniture, less time going up and down ladders, and less time cleaning up all of the dust and debris that falls down when they needlessly remove ceiling tiles. Some clients let their models languish on servers, but others are really excited about the possibilities that having a 3D plan set brings. Personally, I wish more clients would go the route of having their building data embedded into their models, but most would rather see someone else establish an effective process and show an ROI before they invest any money into it.


Even for post construction, Navisworks Simulate can be a useful tool. It doesn't have the clash detection of Manage, but it has everything else and isn't a basic viewer like Freedom. You can us it to create and edit hyperlinks to PDF's, training videos, maintenance tracking documents, or many different other things from model objects that are more effective than what you will find in Revit or AutoCAD. Both Revit and AutoCAD require you to have a computer capable of running them in the first place, and their object hyperlinks are a little hard to edit. Revit's are also very glitchy and usually don't work. Navisworks is also much more geared towards viewing your models than Revit and AutoCAD because the models are restructured in a way that optimizes them for viewing instead of editing.

That's very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

Personally, as we were advanced enough to have an engineering department capable of using RMEP in-house, we also had a rather robust CMMS. All equipment records resided there, and that data was typically more vital to our mechanics than seeing something in 3d, and being tied to the work order and preventative maintenance orders.

The crafts stayed using 2d documents to track things down (the mepfp data from each project was copied onto a composite plan set for each trade, so they only have to look in one place, irrespective of project, obviously, with renovations, sometimes the most recent information didn't have all of the systems information anyway, usually just the newest modifications and tie-ins), and the engineering team would use the models for building troubleshooting and design improvements, which almost always involves editing.
There were only two workstations with rmep and amep on them (better graphics cards and more ram than standard), the rest of the viewing stations and computers had trueview and design review on them because they're just looking for data, not modifying it like the engineering team.

I don't specifically oppose having data embedded into the models, but, programs like Maximo and Archibus are, at this point imho, so much better at manipulating/importing/exporting/reporting on/managing the vast amounts of data needed to well maintain a facility. If it can be a two way street, where I can take my existing data and seamlessly import it into a model, that's great, but, if i'm going to keep it any one single place where the most people can access it, it's going to be my IWMS, not Revit MEP.

Unless I'm so far advanced I've got a complete and totally accurate master model(s) of the campus. But, that takes years of transitions, just as the switch from paper to CAD did, and FM budgets don't typically stretch that far (though renovation budgets are always there and must bear the burden). From 2009-2013, I'd say our campus was about 15% RMEP and 15% AMEP, with the remainder still in CAD. SO, Maximo it was for handling the data.

Obviously, every owner, and every stakeholder within that facility, is going to have different thoughts on the matter, which is what makes this all so fun.

[apitcher799568]

That's very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

Personally, as we were advanced enough to have an engineering department capable of using RMEP in-house, we also had a rather robust CMMS. All equipment records resided there, and that data was typically more vital to our mechanics than seeing something in 3d, and being tied to the work order and preventative maintenance orders.

The crafts stayed using 2d documents to track things down (the mepfp data from each project was copied onto a composite plan set for each trade, so they only have to look in one place, irrespective of project, obviously, with renovations, sometimes the most recent information didn't have all of the systems information anyway, usually just the newest modifications and tie-ins), and the engineering team would use the models for building troubleshooting and design improvements, which almost always involves editing.
There were only two workstations with rmep and amep on them (better graphics cards and more ram than standard), the rest of the viewing stations and computers had trueview and design review on them because they're just looking for data, not modifying it like the engineering team.

I don't specifically oppose having data embedded into the models, but, programs like Maximo and Archibus are, at this point imho, so much better at manipulating/importing/exporting/reporting on/managing the vast amounts of data needed to well maintain a facility. If it can be a two way street, where I can take my existing data and seamlessly import it into a model, that's great, but, if i'm going to keep it any one single place where the most people can access it, it's going to be my IWMS, not Revit MEP.

Unless I'm so far advanced I've got a complete and totally accurate master model(s) of the campus. But, that takes years of transitions, just as the switch from paper to CAD did, and FM budgets don't typically stretch that far (though renovation budgets are always there and must bear the burden). From 2009-2013, I'd say our campus was about 15% RMEP and 15% AMEP, with the remainder still in CAD. SO, Maximo it was for handling the data.

Obviously, every owner, and every stakeholder within that facility, is going to have different thoughts on the matter, which is what makes this all so fun.

I can identify with that. There is a massive amount of data associated with a single building, and even more so with a campus. All of that should always be handled in CMMS (models were never intended for that), but models can act as peripherals populated by that information. Think of a data embedded model not as a database substitute, but as a 3D front end interface (like in Jurassic Park).

What most of our clients want to see someday is a marrying of CMMS and their 3D models (Think augmented reality for maintenance). A lot of what we hand over are "dumb" models that are strictly geometry and used for field locating hidden equipment. What we see as the future is smart models that are linked to a CMMS and can update object information with data from the latest database records (the seamless importing you were talking about). Navisworks has tools in it to enable such links, but hardly anyone uses them and there's no industry pressure for Autodesk to make them more user friendly. It's up to industry (GC and A/E along with software vendors) and owners to find effective ways of leveraging those tools to create living and useful products.

COBie is a step in the right direction. COBie facilitates the collection and tracking of information for objects throughout the building using the models used during design and construction, but it also facilitates the transition of that information from the A/E and contractor to the owners CMMS. Since it is derived from the models, every object's GUID is recorded as well as it's O&M and warranty information (and everything else that goes into COBie like size, voltage, etc). Instead of just belonging to a database record representing a real world object, that data is now tied into a virtual representation of the real world object also. That GUID can become the link from a model viewer back to the CMMS database and each object's live information held within it. All that's needed is something like Navisworks' DataTools to query the database and bring back the data for viewing. Establishing such relationships is definitely not an easy task (yet) and will be a very long transition, but it will get there someday. One of the biggest obstacles is simply data collection and entry on our end to get the information into a COBie format. As automation and things like bar coding and QR coding of equipment become more mainstream, that level of data collection will become much easier and cheaper on our side. After that, it would be up to owners to a) request or require such information and data collecting, and b) establish a process to maintain the model. After that, all of your information is stored, managed, and maintained in one location (CMMS), but it can be easily accessed and utilized in the field through a 3D interface (augmented reality). In our models, we create viewpoints for each room from it's doorways. If our clients had live database links to their CMMS, their field staff would hardly ever need to visit workstations. They need only physically go to the room and click on the room's viewpoint on their iPad to have a virtual 3D map of everything around them (imagine this with Google Glass!), above ceiling and in wall, as well as (hopefully) the most current information on all of equipment they're looking for or at straight from the CMMS.

All of the tools necessary for this to work already exist. The only real hangup is that no one wants to take the first steps and be on the bleeding edge (which is funny, considering some of our clients) because of the risk and cost involved. Once more people start trying to make this happen, the process necessary for it will become more and more refined, and it will become common place like CAD and now BIM.

[Wanderer]

I can identify with that. There is a massive amount of data associated with a single building, and even more so with a campus. All of that should always be handled in CMMS (models were never intended for that), but models can act as peripherals populated by that information. Think of a data embedded model not as a database substitute, but as a 3D front end interface (like in Jurassic Park).

What most of our clients want to see someday is a marrying of CMMS and their 3D models (Think augmented reality for maintenance). A lot of what we hand over are "dumb" models that are strictly geometry and used for field locating hidden equipment. What we see as the future is smart models that are linked to a CMMS and can update object information with data from the latest database records (the seamless importing you were talking about). Navisworks has tools in it to enable such links, but hardly anyone uses them and there's no industry pressure for Autodesk to make them more user friendly. It's up to industry (GC and A/E along with software vendors) and owners to find effective ways of leveraging those tools to create living and useful products.

COBie is a step in the right direction. COBie facilitates the collection and tracking of information for objects throughout the building using the models used during design and construction, but it also facilitates the transition of that information from the A/E and contractor to the owners CMMS. Since it is derived from the models, every object's GUID is recorded as well as it's O&M and warranty information (and everything else that goes into COBie like size, voltage, etc). Instead of just belonging to a database record representing a real world object, that data is now tied into a virtual representation of the real world object also. That GUID can become the link from a model viewer back to the CMMS database and each object's live information held within it. All that's needed is something like Navisworks' DataTools to query the database and bring back the data for viewing. Establishing such relationships is definitely not an easy task (yet) and will be a very long transition, but it will get there someday. One of the biggest obstacles is simply data collection and entry on our end to get the information into a COBie format. As automation and things like bar coding and QR coding of equipment become more mainstream, that level of data collection will become much easier and cheaper on our side. After that, it would be up to owners to a) request or require such information and data collecting, and b) establish a process to maintain the model. After that, all of your information is stored, managed, and maintained in one location (CMMS), but it can be easily accessed and utilized in the field through a 3D interface (augmented reality). In our models, we create viewpoints for each room from it's doorways. If our clients had live database links to their CMMS, their field staff would hardly ever need to visit workstations. They need only physically go to the room and click on the room's viewpoint on their iPad to have a virtual 3D map of everything around them (imagine this with Google Glass!), above ceiling and in wall, as well as (hopefully) the most current information on all of equipment they're looking for or at straight from the CMMS.

All of the tools necessary for this to work already exist. The only real hangup is that no one wants to take the first steps and be on the bleeding edge (which is funny, considering some of our clients) because of the risk and cost involved. Once more people start trying to make this happen, the process necessary for it will become more and more refined, and it will become common place like CAD and now BIM.

Too true, too true! The pieces are there, but, it has to become so ubiquitous that it's smoother and less time-consuming to initiate.
For now, the contractors resist cobie because it means more setup time (and so our pms resist it as well), and our budgets resist forking out for another program aside from the ones we already need and use on a daily basis.

I was just getting into mobile workforce implementation when I left my old employer. IT had saved money on their wireless system by not covering any of the facilities spaces (boiler plant, equipment rooms, shops), so we had big holes in our tablet testing. Ah well, job security.