Jeffrey W Ouellette

John, The window and door objects have an ID bubble built into them, you just have to turn it on by selecting the "On Schedule" option. Then you can control the ID number and the style in which it is drawn (bubble, box, etc.). For the Space object, you can manage the Label/Tag from the Settings... dialog. For custom Labels/Tags, you can create your own and then use those.

Yes. Unless someone else comes up with another completely open, international, standard file format/data structure that is robust enough, logical enough, extensible enough, and flexible enough, that is OPEN, then IFC is it. If Autodesk wants to "give" .rvt up to be an international standard, fine, so be it. But I'll bet after an hour of examining the file format, as it exists today, in any detail, everyone will be resigned to going back to using IFC because it doesn't really fit the bill.

Chris, You are making the exact same arguments for IFC by claiming the HTML analogy. IFC -> BIM = HTML -> Internet Development appears slow from your end, because any software development, at this scale, is hard and time consuming. I forsee that the development of BIM software will follow a similar arc to the development of Web tools. We're just starting to pick up the pace 10 years later than the WWW explosion.

But Chris, Part of the problem is defining the workflows for such roundtripping to be used. Where? Why? What are the consequences? How is it managed? Who is sending the data? Who is receiving it? Why is it being used? All these questions are important to answer. I think that the exchanges and workflow demonstrated with the DC Riverside project address this in a meaningful way. The exchange of model data between disciplines is meant for referencing the work of one discipline (e.g. architecture) while the the other discipline expert does their work and adds their data (e.g. structural engineer). In the US, at least, these are two completely separate domains with different responsibilities and liabilities. As such, there is a need to segregate data and representation in a way that prevents "cross contamination". The case for using a single platform/file format for editing, like Revit, doesn't hold up without a significant amount of work done to negotiate the reach and responsibilities of modeling, data entry, and editing between each of the design disciplines. A project in which every designer and the contractor use a platform like Revit (or ArchiCAD) means that somewhere a LOT of rules need to be created about who makes what and who changes what, and when it happens, AND someone needs to be responsible for enforcing these rules across ALL participants. Talk about a hornet's nest... With the file-based model exchange workflow, using IFC as the format, meaningful data can be exchanged with more control over who gets what and when and in what format. Every player retains control over their native data and editing, yet benefits from more complete reference data.

Then post the bug. While I have notified the engineer about the concerns of this list, there needs to be some input and documentation from your end, too. This is a regression, if this is the case. The user-defined radius option was implemented because it was a oft-requested feature, at the time. The implementation was suppose to give users the flexibility of having BOTH options by using entering either a radius value, as desired, or entering "0" (zero) to get the original tangent arc behavior. We had this working. If this is not working, then it is a bug and a regression, at that.

Christiaan, If you read the documentation about the other workflows, you can see that by using Callouts, with the 'Placed as Keynotes' option and the Keynote Legends, users can have a great deal of control over their databases AND the display of Callouts.

Why would you want manufactured objects to be parametric? After all, they manufactured that way. A particular item is manufactured with specific parameters and resulting performance data. Changing any other parameter invalidates the entire data set or specifications for the object. Besides, the transfer of parametric values in IFC is entirely possible. Some applications do it today in order to make some objects at export able to be "reconstituted" at import in the same app. Not an ideal, or even real workflow, but a trick worth noting. Eventually, when we get past the new Certification of all the major apps for IFC, we will see movement on developments (implementation agreements) which will guide all the software vendors, and manufacturers, toward supporting the exchange of data in an IFC file will allow some objects to be easily translated into native application objects, with consistency. buildingSMART has never claimed that IFC was intended to be used in this method (roundtripping), or that users should expect any of the sort today. Over time, with end user and vendor support, we may see development, though, that can make some small, but important headway in this direction... But users better align their expectations with some cold, hard realities.

Yes. With the new Space object (2011) you can create custom Space Label symbols that have these different text and graphics classed differently, but in the same place/symbol. I believe that there is one of the default Space Labels that does this. Then in the sheet layer VP, just control the visibility of the different info with classes.

Well, Autodesk may want IFC to die, but they are towing the line... http://www.iai-tech.org/developers/certifying-ifc-implementations/ifc-certification-2.0/ifc2x3-cv-v2.0-certification/ifc2x3-cv-v2.0-certification-summary#software

Matt, You can make a duplicate of one of the Title Blocks, rename it, and edit it to your heart's content. If you merely re-arrange the text, and remove the linked text and replace it with the text strings you want, you are half way there. The next step is to edit the Record Format associated with the Title Block. I would duplicate the default, rename it and then edit it to the desired information, then relink the info in the custom Title Block, where appropriate.

John, Take a look at this thread: http://techboard.nemetschek.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=23837&Number=111911#Post111911 Another user had questions about database worksheets and we worked through an example. Also, the BIM in Practice projects have a number of different kinds of worksheets in them for you to review and use.

ED, With Vectorworks 2010, improvements were made to the Callouts, Keynote Legend and Notes Database to enable this across documents and across sheets in a document. Essentially, you create a Notes Database file, as Miguel indicated. This can be modeled after the default Notes Database found in the application file. When placing Callouts, you would then select the 'Place as Keynote' option and select the Keynote Legend they are subscribed to. The Keynote Legend can be placed on any Design or Sheet Layer. In your case, I would place the Keynote Legend on a Design Layer and then create a viewport that is placed in the desired spot of the title block. This viewport can be duplicated so it appears on the title block of each sheet layer. When using the Callout as Keynote option, the display attributes of the Callout are controlled by the Keynote Legend. There you can set the way the Legend and Callouts display, such as the desired "06160.b" instead of just "1, 2, 3, etc."

Nicola, Something important to remember; with Vectorworks solids ARE truly analogous solids, not merely "watertight" joined surfaces (like SketchUp). In order to see inside a cube, the cube must be composed of 6 surfaces, not a six-sided solid.

Post the file, if you can, or send it to me.

Chris, Can you send me the file?

Chris, Have you tried adjusting the handles to locate the ends of the returns where you want them?

Bohdan, Sorry, in 2009 you can't, but in 2011 you can. Prior to 2011, the wall components didn't have there own unique data structure, they were just graphic components embedded in the Wall. In 2011, they are now embedded unique data structures that have their own 3D geometry and rendering characteristics, as well as database entries (functions) that are exposed to the user (=COMPONENTAREA, =COMPONENTNAME, =COMPONENTVOLUME).

You ARE able to query each component. This was built in to the new 3D Wall Component functionality. Take a look in the Help documentation! Look in the VW2011 Help index under: Worksheets > functions of Scroll down the table and you will find that the components of any wall style can be queried by: =COMPONENTAREA =COMPONENTNAME =COMPONENTVOLUME

Justin, If you want an example of IFC usage in a workflow with structural and mechanical, look at the new BIM in Practice project, DC Riverside Office Building . That is the purpose of the project. Besides the documentation and models currently available, we're working on further documentation of the details of the workflow as a paper/booklet. The reason I create these demonstration projects is because so few of our users have completed any themselves, or have refused to share anything they have done. They are out there, but it seems every time they come forward, they get jumped on by their peers on the Board. My point is trying to get our users to understand that if they are using Vectorworks Architect and all the tools and PIOs, as designed, and using database worksheets, then they are doing BIM, on their desktop. Learning how to use IFC in Vectorworks is the next step to moving beyond the users' own desktop and sharing data with others. This is where BIM really counts. Revit DOES support IFC. The quality of its support may not be perfect, but depending on the workflow that may not be a real problem. For clash detection, you have an option to use Navisworks, or better yet, Solibri Model Checker . Solibri also gives you more options to leverage the data in the IFC file beyond clash detection.

Thanks for the heads up mar. I'll see if we can have engineering look into it ASAP.

Also, realize that it is not "just" a label. The Space object is a BIM object, containing a great deal of data as well as geometry.

justin, Some of the other BIM in Practice projects have examples of drawing with more detail. I just don't have the time, budget, or resources to trick out a set of CDs with every project. That is NOT their purpose. I'm sure there are plenty of you peers who can show you examples of their BIM-based CD's in Vectorworks, if you ask. Or you could search the Board for previous posts. Our interoperability with IFC works very well, with applications that correctly support IFC. Autodesk's idea of interoperability is to use Revit, but only if you use a Autodesk Revit product. There are NO other applications that write .rvt files. All Revit "interoperability" is done through pluig-ins and COMs NOT file exchange.

Francois, Again, SU -> simple 3D modeling, Vectorworks Architect -> BIM. Not the same animal. The number of users is not an issue. That's NOT the point. Workflow and resulting product is. IF all you need are pretty, simple 3D sculptures with rendering, fine, use SU to your heart's content. If you want to really do virtual prototyping, construction simulation, scheduling, interoperability with other BIM applications, then use Vectorworks. If you want better UI for Vectorworks, fine, but it will never be as simplistic as SU, because it will always do more, be more, and have more depth and complexity than SU.

Chris, All the structural engineering was done using Scia Engineering 2010, by another party (not me or any other Nemetschek Vectorworks employee). The documentation of the structural elements is NOT within the scope of this part of the project. Nemetschek Scia may choose to release examples of their documentation for the project, if you check with them. The purpose, if you read the PDF on Interoperability, was to demonstrate using IFC to exchange domain reference models between disciplines, instead of just 2D DWGs. This allows design/coordination to occur between different users in a more robust way. There will NOT be any more details, unless I choose to pursue a LOD 400 model of some component (like the solar shading devices). The documentation is NOT meant to replicate a CD set. Don't have the time, resources, or need to do so.

Fran?ois, I will tell you that I have learned, first hand, from the developers at Google, that SketchUp is NOT, nor meant to be, a BIM tool. They insist on being a simple 3D polygon modeler that is basic and easy to use for a general audience, NOT a professional tool on the level of AutoCAD, Revit, MicroStation, ArchiCAD or Vectorworks. They want to provide an application to pros that works with us, but not in competition to any of us. Even with the most recent improvements to SU8, the .skp file format does NOT have the capacity to handle sophisticated data attributes), geometry, and relationships that a BIM tool does (yes, even us Christiaan). Any work done to replicate BIM functionality has been undertaken by third parties, at their own peril. But, SU can be a valuable part of a designer's workflow, if one recognizes it limitations and how it fits in a bigger picture. I think for our users SU is fine for a conceptual modeling option, that then gets imported into Vectorworks as a background for developing a true BIM. By using this workflow, the user limits the amount of modeling they do in SU (too much detail is utterly wasted), and moves into getting real modeling and documentation done in Vectorworks, when the time is right. Again, SU is able to pull off some of the tricks that is does because it is so simple comparatively. Comparing SU to Vectorworks is like comparing a 19th century sloop to a 21st century nuclear-power battleship. They both get you on the water, but one got REAL power.