M5d

I think it's autodesk's commitment to make Revit platform neutral.

Do they provide their mac v windows user base figures anywhere?

It's been discussed in previous threads, they will not be supporting GBXML. I'm guessing that should have read Nemetschek Archicad.

Thanks Tobias

Yep, it would be good if the heliodon gained both the emitter and the soft shadow options, but I guess it was created primarily for sun studies.

Heliodons are simple lights that don't have emitter settings. HDRI colour and brightness are image based. You can adjust the saturation (Not Hue) and brightness of HDRIs in the resource browser. Only lights created with the light tool and have the emitter settings on will be effected.

Yes it is. It seems to me, the quality assurance and efficiency of a lossless proprietary software environment across disciplines is not something IFC will be able to match. It's translation verses integration, so I expect it?s always going to be a more complex, inefficient and perilous BIM workflow to the alternative. That?s if IFC becomes a viable workflow at all, it?s not a pathway to consultants currently. Even though Revit supports IFC, IFC hasn?t gained support or even acknowledgment on the ground (in my backwater at least) from the growing RVT universe. Nemetschek?s software portfolio looks to have been about acquiring market share not technology. Given they?ve demonised proprietary formats on these boards and elevated IFC into an exclusive dogma, I?d say the chances of them consolidating technology and evolving a comparable suite of proprietary connected applications is very slim.

From the Just CADDING email: We have introduced three new tools in version 2012, for managing electrical, plumbing and site services in your drawings. These tools use custom developed symbol libraries based on Australian practice, and will make the production of services drawings faster and more consistent. The tools are quite clever in the options they provide and can work in 2D only, or 2D and 3D. They can also easily accept custom data such as make, model, rating, cost, colour, etc, and so be used to produce custom schedules. ----------------------------------- Just watched the overview video again, they're excellent tools.

New Services Tool WinDoor with AS1428.1

^^Ha, he did say good. The most compelling reasons I've seen for upgrading are Ozcad's AS 1428.1 circulation spaces addition to WinDoor and their new services tool that gives you the ability to customise electrical symbols.

The webinar link below is being advertised on architosh and sounds interesting but who is citrix online? Is this a Nemetschek / Maxon sponsored event? https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/424384154

Tested a couple VW2008 files, everything seemed ok.

Sorry for taking this OT: Jeffrey, does GBXML belong to "legal standardisation"? The Australian Building Codes Board recognises GBXML as a spoke in the BIM wheel. In another thread I repeatedly attempted to elicit confidence from you that the established energy analysis vendors were going to embrace IFC for data exchange, that was the impression you were giving a year ago as you portrayed GBXML in a very negative light, but now you avoid comment. Regardless, when Bill referred to AutoCAD & Revit as the "industry standard" we all know what he meant.

The database page will not load. When V1.0 of the Simergy GUI arrives (date?) is it likely to be a tool consultants will pick up? And internationally? Will it be able to export the imported IFC data to GBXML? That would at least provide a pathway to GBXML. It says NV has 450,000 users in the notes about the new database, so why haven?t the existing energy analysis vendors added IFC support to their products? Surely you have been lobbying them with your user base, what are they saying? If IFC isn't going to gain wide spread support for energy analysis from the industry and energy analysis vendors, NV needs to fold and support the industry standard that has already been adopted for energy analysis. I understand that we?re the pawns you?ve got positioned around IFC, you want to move a better standard forward, but locking us out of an essential part of the existing established BIM workflow is only viable when you have in place an evolved equivalent to what you?re competing with. That?s the game Autodesk plays and it?s their strength, but the tactic doesn't make sense if you haven?t developed an equivalent in parallel. You?re not locking us into your preferred ?BIM? workflow you?re locking us out of the only available ?BIM? workflow for energy analysis. Isn't it a little ironic that the inclusive open ideology behind IFC is being used in this way?

A single format is obviously the ?ideal? NV is seeking. Is it happening? Is Biplab Sakar implying NV is doing something to make it happen?

That would be disappointing. I ask because in previous threads ( 22/9/2010, 6/6/2011 ) Jeffrey Ouellette has said they?re working with other vendors and that the lack of IFC options ?in the not to distant future may well change?. Every time this topic crops up, a vague carrot is held out but nothing substantial has come of it. Jeffrey Ouellette?s arguments about IFC?s superiority and the poor quality, ?horror? even of the GBXML standard, don?t appear to have shifted the industries embrace of GBXML for energy analysis. Why isn?t there movement to IFC, and why hasn't NV?s long rejection of GBXML pulled at least one vendor across to supporting IFC? As it stands, this ?Open BIM? paradigm we?re stuck in, means after modelling a building you cannot export some or all of that geometry to the existing recognised standard energy consultants are currently able to support. Regardless of the many faults alluded to with GBXML, consultants appear to make good use of it, both quoted turnaround times and costs differ substantially for projects provided with a GBXML file. Who cares which standard, all we need to know is that either the mountain is coming to Mohammed or Mohammed is going to go to the mountain. If however, NV has no solution to their standards standoff they should communicate it clearly. This is not about design or simplistic frontend tools for architects, they?d be interesting, but most if not all are well versed in passive design. It?s about communication with consultants for assessment, refinement and code compliance and about preventing duplication when duplication may not be necessary.

Architosh ? In answer to a question about whether NV would build or acquire an energy software package, Biplab Sakar said, ?we will do energy analysis using Open BIM (IFC)?. Does ?we will do energy analysis? mean, one way or the other as it was put in the question, NV now has a separate software package in the works to address the absence of IFC energy analysis software? Or is ?using Open BIM (IFC)? an evasive way of saying NV is not doing anything to address the current situation, which I assume is why the question was asked the way it was.

In the VW preferences dialogue you can optionally choose an alternate location for storing your user data. If the OS is now making the default location less accessible, would there be any drawbacks in redirecting and locating your user data in the documents folder?

The roof tool is an anaemic plugin that often fails trying to model even simple roof forms, it's not surprising that it's failing on that polygon. It's still useful however, try separating the base poly into 2 or 3 simpler forms the roof tool can handle then convert them to roof faces for editing into the roof you want. The aspects causing it to fail or crash VW are not always what you'd expect, long wings off of a main body (like the one on the rear right of your polygon) are often problematic. I'm not sure how you want the curved section to connect, either as a separate flat roof or with a valley against the next section, but it's also likely a problem as it is.

Yep, I definitely agree, improvements and fixes need to get priority before new features are added. Ever since NVW moved to a 12 month release cycle, the quality of each edition at release has progressively deteriorated and the number of SP releases required before major problems are resolved has been increasing. With VW 2012 about to come out and 2011 about to get left in the dust with significant bugs still persisting, bugs that affect productivity daily, it feels like we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. It's as though they've fallen a full edition behind the release cycle in terms of their own QA. I also suspect NVW's ever growing beta cycle problem has become a vicious cycle we're inevitably contributing to, because you can't confidently shift work to the next edition without an expectation of major problems at release, SP1, SP2 or even SP3 so you don't. The icon sits in your dock, you watch these boards and you wait for the SPs to chock up while continuing to use the previous edition. I'd happily upgrade even if the next edition was simply called "2011 Bug Free" but of course, that's not going to happen.

Yes, it's the same in 2010 & below.

We're still waiting for SP4 in Australia, do you have it?

I have transitioned to 2011 but would like to see 2010 get an update to be compatible with Lion because of the new render engine. A detailed VW 2010 file can require a significant amount of reworking in 2011.

The iMacs only have 4 Physical Cores + 4 Virtual Cores (hyper-threading). The virtual cores only bump the speed of the i7s by about an extra 10 to 15% of a 4 Core machine without hyper-threading. Your equation may not be an accurate way to gauge performance. Also, I think, the new indirect lighting in Renderworks 2011 is said to perform better than the use of the older ambient light setting. It could be worth testing the indirect lighting option for speed, if not the quality of the rendering, and turning the ambient light setting off.

The Text Style Pulldown Menu that's available with the Text Tool would be a good addition to the Callout Tool.