First, go to Workspace | Preferences and click on “Mouse Wheel” from the category selections.

Preferences dialog box

Under the “Set Mouse Wheel Preferences” section of the dialog box, you can specify which view functions you want associated with your mouse’s wheel by selecting an option from the drop-down menu.

Specify the view behavior by selecting an option from the drop-down menu.

You can also specify the view behavior when you hold down <Ctrl> or <Shift> and roll the mouse wheel. The behavior can be set to the following:

• Zoom In/Out: Move view closer in or farther out from where the cursor is located.
• Pan Left/Right: Move view to the left or to the right.
• Pan Up/Down: Move view up or down.
  Pan Radial: Move view at an angle – set in the “Radial Pan Angle” field – in relation to the location of the cursor.
• Pan with Zoom: Move view to where cursor is and zoom in or out on that area.

  Once you have defined the behavior of the mouse wheel, you can then specify the pan, zoom and radial angle values.

Have anyone of you try to put the DGN drawing into a powerpoint or word document? Instead of doing MDL load Oleserve, Oleserve viewcopy process?

By using the plotdriver “jpeg.plt” or “emf.plf” file driver you can easily cut and paste the plotfile product to office programs.

For plot driver “jpeg.plt” don’t forget to change and edit the jpeg.plt background color “pen(0)=/rgb=(254, 254, 254)” using notepad or a text editor of your choice. Hope this tips helps.

In V8 Microstation Manager, before opening a dgn file,
the ‘Show File Icons’ can be selected to show which
Dgn files are V8 and those that are Microstation J.

V8 files will have V8 Icon.
Microstation J files will have the Bentley Logo Icon.

1. Go to MicroStation’s Workspace | Configuration menu.

   

2. Find the MS_DNGAPPS configuration variable.

   

3. Click the <Edit> button on the “Configuration” dialog box. Ensure “Edit Mode” is set to “Append” and then add the following line to the “New Value” field in the “Edit Configuration Variable” dialog box: $(AXI)fixer\autochk.ma

   
   
   

4. Then, click <OK> and click <OK> again on the “Con-figuration“ dialog box. Click <Yes> when asked to save changes to the configuration file. The next time that MicroStation is started and you close or change a design file, AutoCheck will check for corruption and immunize the file.

Note: the graphics and descriptions in this article were done using MicroStation V8 2004 version 08.05.01.25. If you are using an earlier version, the look of the settings dialog boxes will be somewhat different, as will some of the available options.

MicroStation V8 2004 offers the ability to open and translate files on a “one-file-at-a-time” basis — using the “MicroStation Manager”, “File|Open” and “File|Save As” dialog boxes — or in batch — using the “Batch Converter…” accessed from the “Utility” pull-down menu. Since the basic translation control options are the same in both approaches, we will stick to “one-file-at-a-time” translation in this article.

In essence, there are two main groups of settings used to properly translate the CAD files. One group has to do with importing (or opening) an AutoCAD DWG file and the other group has to do with exporting or saving a V8 file to the AutoCAD format. In both cases, knowledge of these particular settings is imperative to properly handle the results of the file translation, due to the data format differences of the two programs.

Before we dive in, here are some reasons why these settings are important. For starters, MicroStation supports eight views of any model, where each view can display different levels and other view attributes. In AutoCAD, you can only adjust the view to see different angles of a design; there are no multiple view windows.

Another example is the difference between cells in MicroStation and blocks in AutoCAD. Block definitions in AutoCAD are always unique and stored in the drawing itself, very much like shared cells in MicroStation, but most MicroStation files predominately use regular cells. With regular cells, the cell definitions are stored in an external source, and when the cell is placed in a design file, all the graphic elements are included in the placed cell itself. Because of this, two cells could end up with the same name, but include different graphics. This could cause a problem during the translation to AutoCAD unless the export settings are adjusted properly.

Accessing the settings when opening a file
To access the settings to import AutoCAD files, go to “File|Open” and select the file or open the file through the MicroStation Manager. From either dialog box, click on the <List Files of Type:> drop-down and select “AutoCAD Drawing Files [*.dwg]“. This makes the <DWG Options> button selectable. Click on the button to open the “DWG Open Options” dialog box.

Select the DWG file to open.

Set open options for the DWG file you selected.

Accessing the settings when saving a file
To access the export settings to convert a DGN to a DWG from the “Save As” dialog box, click on the <List Files of Type:> drop-down and select “AutoCAD Drawing Files [*.dwg]“. Then, click on the <Options> button, which gives you access to the “Save As DWG/DXF Options” dialog box.

To save your DGN file as a DWG file, select the “AutoCAD Drawing Files [*.dwg]” option.

To modify export settings, change any of the available DWG export options

Categories and changes
The first category in both settings groups is labeled “Basic”. You can differentiate a category (group of settings) from a setting by the little box that has a plus (+) or minus (-) sign in it to the left of each category. Clicking on the plus or minus sign expands or contracts the category to show or hide all the settings and sub-settings, just like in Windows Explorer. A setting will show its value in the column to the right. The “Basic” category handles things like: determining the working units to use when importing an AutoCAD file, whether to save the AutoCAD model to a 2D or 3D file, which seed file to use and more. To change a value for a setting, highlight the setting and then click on the value of that setting. Depending on the type of setting, one of the following may appear: a list of predefined choices, a file selection dialog box, a check box or a field that allows the user to type in a value.

Understanding what each setting does and how it will impact the translation process takes a good understanding of both MicroStation and AutoCAD. Make sure you spend some time playing around with these settings to see how making changes will impact your translations. Enjoy!

This is the specimen we are working with, two overlapping multi-lines:

Below are pictures showing you what the seven types of multi-line joints look like:

Closed cross joint

Merged cross joint

Open cross joint

Closed tee joint

Open tee joint

Merged tee joint

Corner joint

Any joints you create using these tools are not permanent, because even after you create the joint, you can manipulate the multi-line as it was before you created the joint. This means that if you are not satisfied with the location of a joint you have created, then you can just select the multi-line you want to reposition and make the joint again. However, if you delete any part of the multi-line using any of the tools that partially delete multilines, then those partial multi-line deletions would be permanent, unlike the joints.

In a recent thread on the Bentley newsgroups, we came across some confusion about the differences between an International Foot and a U.S. Survey Foot. We thought it would be fun to shed some light on what these “feet” are and how much measurements would deviate due to the difference in unit length.

History

According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Web site (an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department’s Technology Administration):

“The U.S. Metric Law of 1866 gave the relationship one meter = 39.37 inches. From 1893 until 1959, the yard was defined as being exactly equal to 3600/3937 meters, and thus the foot was defined as being exactly equal to 1200/3937 meters. [Editor's Note: This definition of a 'yard' and a 'foot' was set down in the 1893 document entitled 'Fundamental Standards of Length and Mass'.] On 25 June 1959, the definition of the yard was changed to bring the U.S. yard and the yard used in other countries into agreement (National Bureau of Standards made it official in a document called ‘Refinement of Values for the Yard and the Pound’). Since then, the yard has been defined as exactly equal to 0.9144 meters and thus the foot has been defined as exactly equal to 0.3048 meters. At the same time it was decided that any data expressed in feet derived from geodetic surveys within the United States would continue to bear the relationship as defined in 1893, namely, one foot = 1200/ 3937 meters. The name of this foot is ‘U.S. Survey Foot,’ while the name of the new foot defined in 1959 is ‘International Foot.’ One International Foot [equals] 0.999998 U.S. Survey Feet exactly.”

Per the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Geodetic Survey (defines and manages the U.S. national coordinate system), the following are the accepted calculations for each of the feet: The U.S. Survey Foot is defined as 0.30480060960125017024227597156924… meters. This calculation comes from the definition of a “foot” as established in 1893 (1200/3937 meters).

The International Foot is defined as exactly 0.3048 meters. This calculation is verified by the following definitions: one inch = 2.54 centimeters and 12 inches = one foot. Therefore one foot is made up of 30.48 centimeters. Divide that by 100 and you get 0.3048 meters.

National Geodetic Survey also states, “these two conversion factors produce results that differ by 2 parts per million; hence for most practical work it does not make any difference to the average surveyor which one is used since [surveyors rarely] encounter distances [large enough for this to be a factor]. Converting a distance of 304,800 meters to feet using the two conversion factors, these are the results: 304,800 meters = 999,998 U.S. Survey Feet and 304,800 meters = 1,000,000 International Feet. A difference of 2 feet in one million feet.” [Editor's Note: A million feet is approximately 189 miles.]

As to the comments about the average surveyor not encountering distanceslarge enough to be a factor, please use appropriate caution when using State plane coordinate systems! USGS monument coordinates given in meters need to be converted to the “old survey foot” with the proper conversion factor (12″/39.37″), and on a computer calculator to as many decimal places as possible. Also, take great care in mixing the MicroStation conversion (by referencing by coincident world a metric drawing, for example) because it uses the international factor. The only reliable way to reference a metric drawing is to make sure it also lines-ups/snaps-to a similar point or alignment converted and displayed (in both the foot drawing and the metric drawing) by InRoads, because InRoads geometry transformation (feet-meters or meters-feet) employs the “old survey foot” factor.

Bentley does have a work-around for changing the settings in a MicroStation drawing, but it has to have been created by the surveyors or mapping company that way in the first place. Also, especially with the new 1983 datum, it is now even more important to “check in” at monuments after several miles, because the difference between the State plane coordinates and distances measured along the surface is more. The State plane coordinates now occur at elevations below 0 (zero) for most of the US.  Many agencies employ “project grid factors” that more closely relate surface measurements to the coordinate system, but that’s a whole other discussion.

We have seen entire photogrammetric areas done wrong after everybody went back to feet from meters. USGS monument info was being given out only in meters for a while. It started with just the one error, using the wrong conversion for the starting coordinate. From there they coordinated the photo target points, and then generated miles of mapping. Rather than running to the State, we met with them (the consulting company), and showed them what we suspected happened. They agreed, fessed-up to the State themselves, and had to redo it on their own dime.

Added 28 March 2006 – Response from Joe Feyder, PLS, CH2MHILL, Sacramento Office

Please refer to a passage, in the referenced MicroStation Tip Corner, that says, “…for most practical work it does not make any difference to the average surveyor which one is used since [surveyors rarely] encounter distances [large enough for this to be a factor]. Converting a distance of 304,800 meters to feet using the two conversion factors, these are the results: 304,800 meters = 999,998 U.S. Survey Feet and 304,800 meters = 1,000,000 International
Feet. A difference of 2 feet in one million feet.” [Editor's Note: A million feet is approximately 189 miles.]”

While in one respect you are correct, surveyors using EDM’s can not measure a distance to a precision of 2ppm (or 0.002′ in 1000.00′), but that is not the issue. The REAL issue is when this 2ppm is applied to State Plane coordinates in the N2,000,000 and E6,000,000 range! This 2ppm literally moves a State Plane coordinate position 4 feet by 12 feet, using the coordinate values listed.

With more and more projects being based on State Plane coordinates, this issue is going to be more and more prevalent. Working on projects in many States, we are well aware of the problems presented when users mix Survey Foot and International Foot units. In nearly all cases it is simply user awareness, or a project that has not been setup correctly.

Imagine you complete a design in rural California, using State Plane coordinates based on International Foot units, which is subsequently passed on to a surveyor for staking. Surveyors are aware that California uses Survey Foot units.

Many survey software packages convert Foot units on the fly. Then imagine (or have a nightmare!) that your design is being constructed 4′ x 12′ out of position! You would quickly come to the realization that 2ppm matters!

In our practice, this is a HUGE issue, and I would find it hard to believe it has not affected others similarly. This topic is hot enough that, in my opinion, it deserves clarification in your printed material.

Thanks for taking the time to read and consider this response.