Best process to implement in a studio that uses both 2d and 3d workflows

[ThePODguy]

Hello I have recently been contracted to help develop an architecture / interior design studios processes. I am experienced with delivering 3d projects but having arrived at the studio I discovered that most of the office are using 2d. some of the "safe" things I intend to initiate are automated schedules, class structures and project sharing. Has anyone been in this predicament before and can recommend the best process to implement that would work for both 2d and 3d? or should I just have two seperate processes? Or should I just battle for 3d? any advice would be appreciated. James

[Jeff Prince]

It’s not practical to do 100% 3D delivery with Vectorworks, you are always going to need some 2D detailing, especially for interior finishes, food, and window details.

[twk]

As @Jeff Prince mentioned, come up with a 2D/3D Hybrid.

I'm curious you mention your experience in delivering 3D projects, is this with Vectorworks? and how has this workflow been for you in the past?

[Jeff Prince]

2 hours ago, Jeff Prince said:

It’s not practical to do 100% 3D delivery with Vectorworks, you are always going to need some 2D detailing, especially for interior finishes, food, and window details.

Autocorrect got me… food = door apparently:)

[ThePODguy]

@Jeff Prince @twk Sorry I did not communicate clearly. My 3d work flow has been to construct a 3d model > generate views on to sheet layers then annotate. And of course 2d construction details. The issue is 90% of the office are still drafting 100% 2d and are not open to learning 3d. I am trying to find ways to help the company processes that caters for both 2d workflow and 3d workflow

[Jeff Prince]

That’s not a software issue, it’s an HR / management one.

Edited August 27 by Jeff Prince

[Tom W.]

6 hours ago, ThePODguy said:

Hello I have recently been contracted to help develop an architecture / interior design studios processes. I am experienced with delivering 3d projects but having arrived at the studio I discovered that most of the office are using 2d. some of the "safe" things I intend to initiate are automated schedules, class structures and project sharing. Has anyone been in this predicament before and can recommend the best process to implement that would work for both 2d and 3d? or should I just have two seperate processes? Or should I just battle for 3d? any advice would be appreciated. James

 

If some of them are already working in 3D it begs the question why the rest of them aren't. It's a bit hard to comment without knowing more. Is there a good reason for them to be divided into two camps? Is there no collaboration between them? Are they working on completely different projects? More importantly what is the direction they've suggested they want to go in when they contracted you to 'develop processes'? Do you get the impression the 2D people would be keen to move towards working in 3D?

 

If they want to remain the way they are with most of the office working completely 2D + the rest 3D then I'm sure there will be workflow improvements that could be applied to both camps plus others which are specific to the 2D people + others to the 3D people. It's a bit hard to comment further when the question is so general. A 2D workflow could mean drawing entirely using the 2D drawing tools or it could mean using Walls, PIOs, etc (a '2.5D' workflow). The fact you say you intend to initiate worksheets + class structures suggests there is plenty of room for improvement regardless of whether they are working in 2D or 3D.

[ThePODguy]

@Tom W. 

 

When I landed the gig I had no idea 2d was so ingrained. In the initial workshop some of the old-timers sounded angry when I suggested 3d but having been here for a couple of days its clear that some other people were using 3d processes before coming to the company and have been forced back to 2d.

 

There are people that have been working here for 15+ years, designing projects for the same retailers. Within the 2d projects I have found the wall tool being used but everything else is 2d. Some things are drawn on layer planes while others on screen planes (bit of a mess to navigate). there seems to be a seperate file for each sheet that reference back into a file, this is so that multiple users can work on the project at the same time but if a wall moves every file has to be adjusted. 

 

Every member seems to have a different process for file structure which makes collaboration a big headache, the files have endless lists of unused classes, symbols are different in every file, all the schedules / reporting is manual. some users are annotating in design layers while others on sheets. 

 

PLAN

 

I plan to intend to introduce a numbered class structure so that if they bring in work old objects with classes attached (and don't clean them) then they will shoot to the bottom of the list and not affect other users.

 

I plan to introduce common symbols with reporting

 

more sophisticated templates

 

I am hoping to transition to 3d but I will have to do this slowly and possibley set up the models and sheets prior to them working on them. then let them draft on sheet layers to start.

[shorter]

Slowly, Slowly, catchee simian.

 

Introduce small wins, incrementally.

 

It often takes years to bring about change, but showing how small changes using 3D and BIM tools, even in 2D only to start with can bring about small advantages, soon all will feel that the tools they use are part of the everyday.

 

We changed, for example, 2D feasibility studies using lines, polygons and excel, to using walls and spaces in 2D first, then 3d and shaved the time it takes to produce a feasibility study and the optioneering that comes with, from 3 days to 3 hours.

 

I would not go from 0-60bim in as short a time as possible.  Errors and disappointment is inevitable.

 

Edited August 27 by shorter

[twk]

As others have suggested, this is more or less a HR issue.

But your plan is a good start, and take on others' advice on here as well. Also don't change for the sake of changing, if something is working for the timeframes and bottom line, leave it be. Fix and upgrade workflows on a have-to basis. And most of these would also be due to software changes (think the new Data-vis, Viewport Styles, etc features)

 

I have been in a similar position, where implementing new workflows is never applauded. And understandably, you're (we are) basically disrupting existing workflows.

What I had done was to take on a project solely, and implement my workflows to show that my way's are faster, more efficient and scalable and transferable. (The last two being the more important aspects).

 

Purge unused classes, hatches, line styles (any and all resource types). Document class structures, resource structures, etc.

Edited August 27 by twk

[shorter]

We assist with this sort of thing on a daily basis.

 

Have a plan.  Do not make it piecemeal.

 

I would not recommend trying to implement something without some sort of plan as to how to implement it and unless you are in a position to say 'my plan is best and you should all work this way', you will have difficulty proving your way is best.

[Jeff Prince]

15 hours ago, ThePODguy said:

Hello I have recently been contracted to help develop an architecture / interior design studios processes

I’m curious, how long to you have to achieve your plan?  Why did they contract it out instead of developing internally?  What are you co contractually obligated to deliver?  How do you intend to get the support of the current staff?

[VIRTUALENVIRONS]

There really is not a solution for this.  The brunt of architects still work in 2D.  Of those who use 3D only a segment fully embrace it.  Even HR can't fix this if the person can't get a handle on 3D.  

 

Having gone through this, one of the things we did was combine old and new.  The old have the knowledge, the young have no fear of technology.  So, the old did the designs as they always did and the young transferred segments of that knowledge to 3D, renderings at first, but then slowly 2D drawings.

 

Time is the only solution you have here outside of dismissal.

[Jeff Prince]

2 hours ago, VIRTUALENVIRONS said:

There really is not a solution for this.  The brunt of architects still work in 2D.  Of those who use 3D only a segment fully embrace it.  Even HR can't fix this if the person can't get a handle on 3D.  

 

Having gone through this, one of the things we did was combine old and new.  The old have the knowledge, the young have no fear of technology.  So, the old did the designs as they always did and the young transferred segments of that knowledge to 3D, renderings at first, but then slowly 2D drawings.

 

Time is the only solution you have here outside of dismissal.

This is not even close to accurate in the AEC space and filled with some ageist presumptions.

[E|FA]

We worked successfully and profitably in 2D for many years. There was no way my business partner was going to transition to a 3D workflow, so the transition to 3D modeling only happened after he retired. Basically, if the key personnel are unwilling or unable to change their workflows, I think trying to change things will be a disaster, unless the business owners force a decision and are willing to live with the difficult transition, with the resultant problems involved in personnel, training, and reduced productivity during the transition. 

[GregG]

On 8/27/2024 at 10:44 AM, Jeff Prince said:

This is not even close to accurate in the AEC space and filled with some ageist presumptions.

 

Agree with Jeff

 

FYI 3d + 2d combination workflow from 1999

A little bit of showing off 🙂 

 

Every place has it's microclimate.

You just need to find one that suits you best.

Edited August 28 by GregG
...

[BartHays]

Hey James, 

I stepped into a similar situation a few years ago, albeit in a museum/exhibit design role. 

The designers were creating the exhibits in Adobe Illustrator and handing them to an ACAD detailer to make construction docs.

 

I brought VectorWorks to the team as a solution that could bridge the two types of 2D design and, eventually, integrate 3D design processes.

We started with Layer/class standards to let the designers keep working the way they wanted ( on layers and the None class) and the Detailers could use (mostly) Classes to do their work. 

Then I introduced Project sharing so that the teams could begin to see how collaboration can work with more "real-time" updates.

The cultural leap here was coaching people to remember to save and commit on a regular basis, but we got there.

 

Then, for the willing, we introduced 3D design workflows on layers set up for that work, we were able to "model" a 3D-to-2D workflow using the collaboration process they had just become comfortable with.

 

The Layer/Class standards had to evolve with the workflow. It wasn't perfect, but after about a year some of the old-school 2D designers were open to exploring the 3D workflow and one even claimed "I see the future of design, and it's 3D!"  On top of that, new hires could come in wherever they were comfortable. 

 

So, FWIW, I'd suggest starting with some shared CAD standards. Then, work into Project Sharing, and finally 3D workflows. 

 

Bart

 

 

[ThePODguy]

Thanks for the input.  (I'm on a 10 week contract to speed up processes)

 

During the work shop I proposed;

File collaboration, hybrid symbols, structured class system, automating schedules and 2d / 3d workflow.

 

after proposing the file collaboration (project / Working files) the objections were that they  have lots of files as the files get quite large, has anyone experienced any issues with having everything in one global file even if its on the heavy side? the other concern was that sometimes they have to collaborate from two different studio locations so they fear they would have speed issues?  and some people take there work home.

 

 As for the class system I'm struggling to find one that the old timers will adopt but that will also be future proof for 3d vis.

 

After proposing the 2d / 3d workflow (The workflow I proposed is a basic 3d model with sheet layer viewports in which the less able users can 2d draft over). The  main objection I was faced with is not the people who work in 2d is that when they work on elevation views in the model space they are constantly referencing other elevations and sections and sharing details between them. Is there a simple work around for this?

 

Its pretty critical I get them to agree to 2d / 3d workflow as it means I can implement lots of new time saving goodies if not they will just have an expensive title block

Edited August 29 by ThePODguy

[twk]

8 hours ago, ThePODguy said:

after proposing the file collaboration (project / Working files) the objections were that they  have lots of files as the files get quite large, has anyone experienced any issues with having everything in one global file even if its on the heavy side? the other concern was that sometimes they have to collaborate from two different studio locations so they fear they would have speed issues?  and some people take there work home.

Yes, we've had issues with project sharing for this. Sometimes user's work would not get committed. Even though they said they did. We also had an aging network cabling system in the office that also needed replacing. So it was hard to determine what was causing the fail-to-commit of these files, as it could be our network, it could be the project sharing implementation. The other headache being, trying to help people understand the concept of a working file, versus a project sharing (master) file, versus a normal vectorworks file. (vwxw, vwxp, vwx). So that route would introduce another new concept (read headache) to get across mindsets.

 

If they are used to 2D symbols etc, this workflow can still be leveraged by having these 2D symbols referenced in, from a vwx symbol file.

 

8 hours ago, ThePODguy said:

After proposing the 2d / 3d workflow (The workflow I proposed is a basic 3d model with sheet layer viewports in which the less able users can 2d draft over). The  main objection I was faced with is not the people who work in 2d is that when they work on elevation views in the model space they are constantly referencing other elevations and sections and sharing details between them. Is there a simple work around for this?

'Simple' is a very relative term. It all depends. Sounds like the old guard need to be 'shown' the new workflow. I understand and emphathize with those who have for years have something work trying to understand why things need to change. So you really have to be robust with the reasonings for your changes.

For me, 9 times out of 10 the reason would've be the software changes. Somehow I've become accustomed to the saying "the only constant is change". now embracing new things, tried it, broke it, fixed it. rinse, repeat. But I've also had to be very careful implementing change doesn't affect the timeframes, etc.