former Revit user

So that's why you're the moderator. Bringer of calm, giver of renewed inspiration. Hold on to your hat VG, we're still docking!

uh....? are you joking? That quote is a strike on an individual? have you actually read anything in context as it is posted or do you prefer to piecemeal the conversations according to your whims? don't worry, that's it, I'm signing off, canceling my account, actually can you? or is this message going to be misinterpreted?

Sorry Pete. My tone is one of frustration. Frustration that I've spent the last 2 months trying to learn a program that IMHO, is not as good, or not targeted well at designers than a program (you know the one) that I've worked w/ for about 1 1/2 years. No, not much time at all. But certainly enough to make a comparison. Now, you might say, gosh, 2 months isn't very much at all. You're right. But there are many similarities between the programs which prevented me from having to re-learn stuff twice. And, using this helpful forum (thank you all) to find answers to questions much quicker than muddling through them on my own. Context: Residential. 5,000-10,000 sqft. As for the quoted material. It is Mr. Anderson's white paper on VW and how it fits in to BIM. Found on NNA's website.

I never said forum, I said VW, meaning the software, or, the people behind it. I should have said the official NNA website? would that be appropriate? read the posts first You responded to the other one about acad and simply pasted in some official NNA rhetoric, that wasn't what the conversation was about, I don't mean to petrify the situation w/ mean comments, I'm sry.

what? so you're telling me mr. anderson doesn't speak official NNA rhetoric? http://www.nemetschek.net/architect/bim.php mr. anderson's white paper

Wait, so you can't work between acad and vw? When I import a dwg it maintains all the info. I don't need to retrace over acad lines or anything? are you talking about dimensions, or the layers? they don't translate? VW is a fine CAD platform, no arguments there. Graphically, very mac and all fine... ACAD and Revit are two completely diff. programs though. The nice thing about revit is that it was designed from day 1 as a parametric modeling program. It wasn't a cad drafting program w/ years of shoe-horning to try and be something else. It didn't work w/ autocad. They have architectural desktop, among others, that are all expensive add-ons to acad that bring a 3d architectural, or engineering, or..., aspect to it. It is slow and cumbersome and being phased out w/ revit as the replacement. The same problem vw seems to be having. Maybe nna should go out and find a revit to swallow?

It's on your website, NNA? I followed the BIM link from the forums, posted by a moderator. I understand that they are marketing strategies, just a little frustrating when trying to figure out the truth, which happens to be subjective anyway so... or.... a sack w/ wheels? now that's an idea!

I've spent the past 2 months trying, in vain, to believe. It is a very hard sell, especially when it runs so slow.....

Hey Tom in PA, You should give Revit a try! Oh btw, don't listen to any of the horse **** being thrown around by VW: You do not need a third party drafting program such as cad to do any drafting whatsoever. The built in drafting commands are quick, efficient, and all that are needed. I started out thinking it wasn't as quick as cad, but soon realized it was just as quick if not quicker. The drafting overlay (annotation views in VW) can be locked (constrained) to those objects and move when they move. The extensive documentation is a good thing! Having a rigid work flow/environment is also a good thing. It is simply a framework for a new user/employee to 'jump' in and know, based on this framework, how the project is co-ordinated, structured, organized. These are some of the cons to using Revit posted on the VW website, all horse ****!!!! and sry, nna, just one man's opinion! and let me finish by saying that Revit has its own set of issues and difficulties to work around, it is just a few releases (unkown) years ahead of VW. That's all, hauling rocks w/ a sack compared to using a wheel. wheel, or sack, that is the question.

deflated, defeated, signing off...

Sigh, sigh, dbl si... It can do it... It can't do it... It can do it... It can't do it... Hmmm... A bunch of nothing...

Thanks again for the help/advice/direction. So Mike, you aren't having difficulties with the size of the BIM file? That was the core of my original post, "Why is the flagship BIM file/model so heavy and clunky, this doesn't seem right, or am I misinterpreting?" My insistence with this might seem a little anal, but I'd like to help my office move towards an integrated BIM approach, (the way one is forced to work in Revit, although as you say Petri, the flexibility in VW is tantamount.) and I don't want to push for a workflow that will be no more productive than traditional "dummy drafting" When I open up the, not so large project, BIM sample/example file, it scares me. It is slow, and there isn't that much stuff there! BTW, I hate drafting! I hate having to rotate elevations and line them up w/ my plan and "figure out" sections. I've already done that! Why do I have to keep doing it! over and over and over, One model, one time! "But 3d takes longer" ! Having to make the same change 5 times takes longer!

Thanks again for the time, I was reading through some of the past WGR posts and am trying to wrap my thoughts around this "new" (to me) way of organizing the building information. I guess one of the primary concerns, workaround, issues, is working on an isolated plan in a file, w/out being able to see the other pieces. How about editing an elevation when you can only see one level at a time? How would one do this? Let me outline a scenario: File 1: I draw some guides for my property line, setbacks and restrictions, then start drawing the floor slab and walls for my first floor plan. File 2: Then I want to start in on my 2nd floor but I can't see my first floor? I have to WGR my 1st floor file to my 2nd flr file so that I can see what is going on below. File 3: Roof File 4: Basement (Master) File 5: I have all my separate files that I now want a complete model of. I open a new file, set up a Model layer, then WGR all of my individual files/specific layers and Link them. So.. When I WGR say, my 2nd flr file in to the "master" file, will there be extra WGR's (ie. bigger file size) because there are "imbeded" layers in that file (the first floor file)? So I am redundantly linking my 1st floor file: separately, then imbeded in the 2nd floor file? Work with me here, sry for the verbosity, So when you say several master's this is because there is a redundancy in referenced files? And obviously there are many ways to do this, I'm just using this as one viable scenario. (or not?)

So you build in pieces and then assemble, similar to say, Solid Works? Do I have my annotations for each level in those files, or in the master file?

? I'm not following... So let's start w/ an example: I have a simple 2 story house w/ a pitched roof. The 3d geometry of the 1st flr, including windows and doors, would be it's own separate file? Then the 2nd flr. Then the roof. Then I would have another separate file (master) where I WG reference each of those three files so that I can have a completed 3d model that I can get views of and so forth. This is how you do it?

So....has any one looked at the file in question? Does anyone have difficulties constructing the entire 3d model in one file and then referencing views and annotating in separate files? The reason I keep asking is that I would like to work in a more integrated 3d, 'BIM' environment. I work in an office where several people will need to be working on the same project at the same time. Currently they are simple drafting their way through. Let's take a 10,000 sqft. residential house as an example. I could build the complete model in one file: site topography, windows, doors, walls, roof, trim, interior millwork, etc. and shouldn't have a file size issue? Or is there a workflow where the 3d model is broken down into separate files? I thought the PIO's and symbols, 3d&2d are separate files?

Sry for the confusion, (that's me, i'm confused!) All that being said, why is the 'ideal' BIM best practices model so large and clunky? It doesn't seem to be that big of a project. There isn't too much extra info (in the way of structural layout, electrical, notes, etc.) all that would presumably reside in separate files. Yet it is a big slow file. I guess what I'm getting at is that if that is the Flagship example, it seems a pretty poor one. And/or those working with VW have just gotten used to dealing w/ large slow files? Excuse me if this is ignorant, i'm just learning.

But the entire 3d digital geometry is contained all in one file? If not, how do they do it?

Has anyone tried downloading this (perhaps there is a previous thread for this issue?) file from the NNA's website? I have several questions concerning it. It's about 70 mb after extraction and is pretty clunky. I realize that it says a single file, single user organization, but shouldn't it be set up differently? I thought the 'ideal' work-flow, small or large, is to build a comprehensive 3d model of the project, w/ PIO's, walls, roofs, geometry, etc. and then have separate files that reference the master model. On these plan, section, elevation files one can annotate and layer 2d information and complete the CD set. Is this correct? Or is the 3d model broken up and referenced? Thanks for any help, I seem to have a mental block wrt this concept!

WOW, settle down, If it would slow down considerably the program, then it isn't worth it. The program that I learned to do this in, it wasn't a problem, it didn't slow it down. There isn't a huge amount of complexity involved. Simply applying the detail to the object. One plane/layer. It is projected through so that wherever you cut, you can see it. Not that difficult, not that complex, nothing to get worked up over. Like I said, not every nail, just a bit further than Petri showed. There are still more details that need to be added after cutting the 'simple' section. Degrees of complexity. This brings me to another point. I downloaded the 'BIM Best Practices' file from the NNA website. It ran incredibly slow. And there wasn't even any structural info in it. Is this file intended to be broken down and referenced multiple times (WGR), or is that it, a large clunky file? Am I missing something? Here are my cpu specs using VW 12.5.2 Machine Name: Power Mac G5 Machine Model: PowerMac7,3 CPU Type: PowerPC G5 (2.2) Number Of CPUs: 2 CPU Speed: 2 GHz L2 Cache (per CPU): 512 KB Memory: 1.5 GB Bus Speed: 1 GHz

Well thanks for the link Petri, So if that expands the functionality for the cabinets, WinDoor does those, Can you post any other useful plug-ins? thanks

Hey no problem Pete, I assumed the same thing. I'm new to the modeling conventions of VW and wasn't sure if it was simply my inexperience. Still on the cabinet: Is there any way to insert user-defined panels. I need to break it apart into 3 equal pieces and put a V groove between them. Or to adjust the spacing of the drawers. Let's say I want a base cabinet of 4 drawers, but I want the top drawer a little bit thinner than the rest. Thanks again for the help

I'm not sure if VW can do this yet, but it isn't/shouldn't be too hard to get the image on the left to look more like the image on the right, w/ minimal extra time put in. Simply imbed the higher-level detail in the object. So whenever, wherever you cut through that object, there is the corresponding detail. There is still some extra 'connection' work to be done, this method just gets you that much closer.

Ahh, finally, an informed answer! lol And you were able to provide it w/out insulting me, my country, my ethnicity, or my lack of VW knowledge. Thank you Robert, that helped a lot. Let me clarify that what I think is happening is happening: I seem to be unable to map textures properly to the M.Extrude object. However, when I use the chamfer/fillet tool it converts the M. Extrude to a (chamfer object?) which I can then map using the perimeter setting. It is disappointing however, that one cannot apply textures to a PIO w/out having to dumb it down. Unless I've misunderstood something here?

oh, and.... Let's say I have a PIO, such as a cabinet, and I don't need to add any more details or options that aren't inherent in the 'palette' meaning that I DO NOT need to ungroup. Is there any way to assign diff. materials to the diff. pieces?