Submit Your Suggestions for Viewpoint for Projects

Thank you Andrew, we'll have another look.

Hi all,

The latest release of VfP includes many improvements to the Naming Convention feature. Chris D, you can now configure and tailor your component values (add your own data types, disciplines etc) allowing you to stretch the standard approach where you need to. You can also disable the convention on parts of your folder structure should you need to. There's more detail here https://vfpdocs.viewpoint.com/Whats_New/c_whats_new_VFP_2018-01_1.html

Kind regards,

Andrew

Our project team has turned on the new feature... and now had to turn it off again! The list of Data Types is not expandable by the administrator! Viewpoint have provided a fixed list of Data Types which are not editable.

We don't use "DR" for all our drawings, we use "DP" for Plans, "DE" for Elevations, "DS" for Sections, "DD for Details, and "DV" for Views. The BS allows for this, but Viewpoint doesn't. Please fix asap.

We have trialled this module and are unable to use this in our business as the drop down for document types are not exhaustive enough.  BS1192 clearly states that the naming convention is an ACOP that should be used, not 100% prescriptive (for example in on only hvaing 20 different document types).  As such why are the drop down lists not customisable?  I challenge any business that is using VfP during the construction stage of the project as the EDMS element of the CDE to be able to use this module.  I would be interested to see if anyone has managed to get this to work for them.

Additionally, should the the system not be smart enough to be able to auto generate the last number, based on the previous data implemented.

Can you consider the naming convention tool when items are  being sent into Viewpoint for Projects via email drop boxes, i.e. Field View and project email addresses.   Items sent to Viewpoint for Projects from Field View creates a very long name via the API.  This needs some consideration. 

Being able to drill down and add part of the naming convention to a specific container will be a great benefit as it will promote consistency and have less info for user to input which ultimately will reduce errors.

The new development of the BS1192 naming tool is not ready for release - it looks like not tested by actual users. See attached comments. It must be aligned to the BIM container process. Why do we need to do this twice?

Needs to be a simple process, so when information is uploaded , the file name would be numbered following BS1192, it should auto populate the custom fields, if activated

Great Idea John - lets hope this is implemented soon

This will also be useful if we can create placeholders within a folder and pre-define the numbering and naming etc prior to the documents being ready for upload. Importing an excel file would be useful or batch upload without any associated files.

when is this going to happen? We have been talking about it quite a lot here at VINCI

Thanks for the feedback Matthew, in re-reading things I agree with your comment.  I've un-merged that item and will move it over to the Field View Suggestion Box area as FV-I-247.

I am unsure why the two suggestions were merged, one relates to document control, the other relates to the emails and forms that are sent out of FieldView.  Am I correct.  and will there be changes to the FieldView module. 

As we have an automated system managing the interface between FieldView and our record management system, which is hard because the FV emails don't include enough info, please advise what these changes are and when they will be implemented, BEFORE YOU IMPLEMENT THEM.

Thanks

This definitely needs to be a customisable tool, allowing admins to create their own fields and drop-down/radio button lists to build their required file name string. I have created an offline tool in Excel for building MoJ-specific BS1192 file names, so the ability to integrate this with Viewpoint would be excellent.

The existing interface for creating Custom Fields already has most of the required elements. Indeed, this could work very similar to a sequence of Custom Fields.

I am happy to be a tester if still required.

Is there any update on when this will be implemented?

Aligning BS1192 with standard fields is essential to align with our other processes.

not sure if this was specified but I see this feature as a Document Container feature.

I would add that although BIM level 2 seems like the only naming convention of note, the reality on the ground is that the naming convention may need to be customised to suit the needs of client's internal naming conventions. Therefore rather than a "BS 1192" naming validator, I would like a document container and file "naming validator" with a BS 1192 template applied to it. In the first instance I would be happy with basic validation of file identifiers ie. check that '-'s are used, check that the range of entries meets the standardised requirements... we cacn worry about more advanced checks later once the basic functionality is in place.

Thank you for the suggestion.  This project is currently in design and planned for delivery.  Our product owners would like to reach out to those voters who would like to validate our design and add input to it.

Attached is an example