Jump to content

gester

Member
  • Posts

    655
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by gester

  1. there's one more thing, though: all of the revit-imported elements are not only on one design layer and in the same 'none' class. they are all 'revit entities', without any differentiation, and without any ifc assignment.
  2. i've just made a test import from my consultants' hvac design. everything (4135 objects) lands on one design layer, and in the none class. the initial rvt file size is slightly over 12 mb, the resulting import into a new vw file is over 650 mb. do you see any editing use for this?
  3. no, i'm collaborating without sharing the same model. and a design consultant's model is his responsibility, not mine, i'm not supposed to change anything in it, and the same in the opposite direction. what you're proposing is the autodesk propaganda. otoh, ifc is the right direction, both non-editable for delivery, and editable for design changes made in-house.
  4. i still don't know what rvt import is good for (and facing the upcoming editable ifc design transfer view)? i'm not supposed to edit anything coming from my design consultants, so is it just to please architects' lust for moving things around in the 3d space, even not in their project's scope? rob
  5. for my projects i am also collaborating with design consultants working with revit mep and structure. the only trouble is the setting of the common project origin, as the first ifc imports from them were with a remarkable offset from the x and y axes, only 'z' axis was right. and make sure they design all their elements and objects in the right storeys. we have now the non-editable reference view in the vw v2017, the editable design transfer view is still missing. rob
  6. another thing: we have in v2017 ifc4 functionality with a reference view export, the editable design transfer view export is still missing. and one remark on free-form objects with ifc data: we are still not able to model such walls with many components (we don't even have slanted walls), and marionette's abilities have borders where standard objects are at their limit - we can't combine the ones with the other ones. i still see the free-form world separated from shapes created with standard building tools. rob
  7. yes, we have to be able to assign ifc data to anything. but the thing is that architects are lazy and sometimes high-nosed people (although i'm one of them), forcing them to assign manually anything is a bad way to start bim. bim should be advertised as a pleasant way of designing, not as a programers' job. that was my point.
  8. assign all alphanumeric data to any building element, and model as long as possible generic things. saturate the data while consulting with all other stakeholders, also with the construction company representatives. and convince the owner to have more time for macro bim and try to get him focus on the overall target cost, and how bim and ipd may help him maintain it.
  9. and i've given the advice: switch to bim completely for all projects, especially the smallest ones, just to practice it. and after a few years it'll profit. what else do you want to hear?
  10. i'm doing it for a living, too. but i'm not talking about 'now', 'currently' nor 'at the moment'. i'm talking about the future, which is close by the door, not light years away. you are still living in 2d world, sorry.
  11. this is an adesk sponsored article, not a single mention of ifc in it. useless for vectorworks' users. rob
  12. and another thing: the level of detail should be schematic as long as it's necessary. there's no need to model that much, and in the end parts of the model will be replaced with the workshop models by manufacturers and suppliers. don't get that obsessive about exact 3d geometry. it may change the next day you've modelled the presumably last version of it.
  13. @lineweight the 2d view is like a camera view in a film - it's only important what's within it, and it doesn't matter how you achieve it. if it's patching, so be it, but at the end of the day the plans go to workers on the building site or the factory. you all (thomas wagensommer, too) still seem to be thinking in 2d. the future is the modelling where you can calculate the schedules, materials, and energy. 2d plans are only for dimensions. the people at the building site don't care about the beauty of the plans, they care for their correctness and exactness. rob
  14. @Thomas Wagensommererbim is a paradigm change. you can't compare it with simple drawing desk change from analog to digital. better get along with it before it's too late
  15. you've got he answer from peter cipes referring to the walls' joints. nobody said it'd be easy, no other app is flawless, either. on the other hand: the faster you can cope with 3d the better off you are. in 5-7 years 2d will be a scarce minority. rob
  16. @lineweight for a usual, traditional edifice you don't need anything outside of the standard building palette. if you're designing something organic it may be the case, but it's maybe up to 5% of the market (if really that high). how many such buildings have you designed recently? but, of course, lacking slanted walls is a huge drawback. rob
  17. the only case where manual properties' manipulation is still necessary is for the free-form created objects. that's why starting bim with them is a bad idea. i hope marionette objects and their convertion to native ones will bridge the gap between the free-form objects and standard native elements. rob
  18. coming back to ifc it's not as bad as it seems to be, i mean the assignment of the entities and fiiling in the properties. many of them are getting populated via the oips, and the interaction between the internal database of the software with ifc is improving from release to release. even facing the fact that ifc is present in vw only from v2009 sp4 on. manual handling of ifc psets is the last thing that is necessary for proper data saturation in the project file. vectorworks is now a full-fledged bim software, and stronger database basis of the likes of revit and archicad is getting irrelevant with ifc exports, where all data is present for further evaluation. rob
  19. @zoomer, lineweight 3d solids is a bad way to start bim. you have to use standard elements, and only in extreme cases when it's not possible you use _your own_ solids, and not some ifc imports - it's just crazy, especially from applications that have their constant troubles with ifc. as for the walls, you can model in 3d everything, it's just the 2d view where you have sometimes to use patches, i've done it also for archicad some 5 years back - the model is a model, the 2d documentation is its result. for this i have my own 3d layers that are invisible in 2d documentation, but they complete my model. i think you're still focused on 2d output, not bim.
  20. is the mouse for 3d modelling exclusively, or can you use it for architectural drafting in top/plan view, too?
  21. samuel, thanks for the hint on annotations' possible ifc export. i'll have to test it myself. as for 2d or 3d elements they are set up to appear in the right position on the plans or in the models: for the models 2d layers are switched off, and for the plans all 3d layers that would mess up the 2d floor plans' appearance are switched off, too.
  22. there is hardly any mentioning of vectorworks in all their newsletters, neither in the int'l one, nor in the localized one here in poland. everything is about revit and autodesk seek, although they claim to be aware of the vw deal with them from last year. the results are but pretty meager, except for the library itself, where the number of vw objects is growing. without broader advertisement you don't really notice them, though.
  23. i think the most important thing is the energos data entry for all architectural elements in the oip's, especially the 2nd level space boundary definition and elements assignment (building envelope), when the edifice is properly rendered with data, the systems' calculations in the energos module are already pretty easy.
  24. i put all my 2d elements for floor plans for each storey in separate design layers, which will be then switched off and invisible in the model exports (they don't get selected in the storey layout of the ifc export at all). the sections and elevations get annotated in the slvp's. i also put additionally modelled 3d elements in separate design layers, and this time those elements get exported and selected for ifc storey layout. i've noticed that the data inserted for standard elements in their oip get exported to further psets of ifc entities (beside the application-generated ones), so the native model is more or less interactive with the ifc model.
  25. no, bim execution plan is something different. you can view the examples from the indiana (simpler) and penn state (more elaborated) universities on the net. e.g. here: BIM Execution Plan - Indiana University Bloomington
×
×
  • Create New...