MEP 27 - The New Feature that never happened

[DGSketcher]

Can someone from Graphisoft please step up and own the current abject failure to deliver the renewed MEP Modeller?

Today I joined the many others who have had to return to using AC26 in order to deliver on our MEP commitments.

We all pay out for GS to deliver improvements to AC, yet here we are 7 months later with a key feature broken & software we can't use. Can someone at least tell us what we can expect in terms of delivery of fixing this MEP debacle and when?

It's bad enough struggling with the 3D screen "grey outs", and the disappointment of new features that suddenly became experimental, but finding a fundamental tool is no longer useable... 🙄

[Balint Kezer]

Ok, that is what I have thought as well. We are focusing on the 2D representation and documentation for the 2.0 update. But we are also researching how can we make the workflow better with other "branching" elements, but this will come later.

[DGSketcher]

@Balint Kezer Pain point advice please - On plan I want to move the vertical pipe & bend at the bottom. How do I do this if marquee doesn't work? Do we have to resort to 3D editing?

[DGSketcher]

@Balint Kezer Couple of Bugs:

1. Adding a second branch to a pipe run can result in the previous branch disconnecting.

2. The branch offset value has been fixed at 250mm, this can be too long in some situations. Either make all lengths adjustable or work to a real world minimum dimension, not an arbitrary value that suits the programmer.

Wish: We should be able to form a branch connection in the 3D window?

[Balint Kezer]

Hi Trevor,

To the modelling challenge you described above, currently 3D editing is your best bet.

To the other points you raised:

1. Could you provide a bit more information about this? Is this happening when you are trying to place two branches close to each other? I guess the pipes where this happens are sloped one, right?
2. Actually you can predefine this currently from the branch element. If you open up the Branch Tools Settings, you can see that it is unlocked and the minimum amount is based on the Length of the main pipe. 

Could you elaborate on the 3D branch connection, as I might not understand what you want to do.

[DGSketcher]

Hi Balint,

Thanks for the response.

1. Let me come back to you on the two branch bug (I am pressed for time just now). It isn't a close proximity issue, it happens even on a long pipe. It happens with sloped branches connecting to a sloped main pipe. When it happens the branch fitting is removed and a single node is left at the branch meeting point.

2. What you describe isn't entirely true. The branch offset value (C) is locked. I can understand the angle being locked, but the (A), (B) & (C) values needs to be adjustable. This applies to all the branch objects.

Making a 3D branch connection isn't always possible. It does work, I have just tested it, but sometimes dragging the end of a branch to connect with the main pipe doesn't highlight the main pipe base line and the hammer doesn't appear. I have a feeling this has more to do with the fundamental operation of AC rather than the MEP development.

[thesleepofreason]

Regarding the branch offset. It is possible to adjust in the default setting for the branch tool which then is used when creating a branch using the route tool.... smooth right?  

[thesleepofreason]

It is also possible to adjust it in a placed unconnected branch (drag copy) IF you first open and close the settings dialog once..... and you cant really reconnect the branch as all branches without three connections disappears.....

[DGSketcher]

Confirmed. Well spotted!

So work around for now... Drag branch copy : open settings : close settings : open settings : edit : close settings : transfer setting with syringe to update placed branches. 

[DGSketcher]

@Balint Kezer So branch connections... I guess this is a policy decision tied to scheduling, but why do we need all the different branch fittings if we are moving to generic pipe modelling with arbitrary connection angles? The assessment of branch fittings other than quantity & length becomes pointless in this arrangement. I personally don't see it as a problem, I would rather get my pipes drawn quickly than worry too much about branch connection angles. Trying to emulate the digital twin at this level of modelling is pointless. Bear in mind, until AC added the OOTB MEP tools, many of us were just drawing drain runs with 2D lines or mocking them up with columns & beams etc.   

There appears to be two different connections e.g. a straight wye and a radius sanitary. Given the single wye can auto generate to any angle, why can't the same happen with multiple branches provided they all join at the branch connecting node? You can then simply update the pipe system settings to include branch settings for the connecting radius dimension (0.00 = straight) & a minimum length for straight pipe beyond the modelled junction. These setting would be used for the branch connecting to a Main pipe.

The "Combination" pipe branch option is in my view not required if you adopt the above suggestion. It is only a straight wye with a bend.

One final point: Do you think there may be a case for establishing a priority system to differentiate a branch from a main run? I think this may be why some editing is messy when branches auto heal with a bend where there was previously a branch connection.

[DGSketcher]

Think I just repeated this idea in a bit more detail. 🙈