BIM at what cost

[Guest clb]

BIM, BIM at cost of accuracy, decent tools and a bit of getting to current advancements of CAD ?

In CAD DETAILS.COM Article

Best of luck - looks like a money drainer and the guys sitting on the edges will have the benefits when R&D resources is done of the first ones and the final path and work is done.

As usual! And when the finances is finished then there will not even enough left to do it good enough - same as current state of afairs at NNA.

[Jeffrey W Ouellette]

Conrad,

My perspective is that the CADDETAILS.com don't really know what they are talking about and simply released a blurb based on what they gleaned in 3 days of being around architects who are still trying to figure BIM out.

The problems I see with that article:

1. Big 3? Got those wrong. How? Well, first they left out Bentley (yes they were there with a BIG booth, mainly focusing on GenerativeComponents, the most complex BIM tool outside CATIA/Digital Project). Secondly, they seem to have lost that memo on ArchiCAD/Graphisoft now being a Nemetschek product.

2. I'd like to know where they got their perception of the "general message" to architects. In light of the "fear, uncertainty and doubt" surrounding BIM, VectorWorks has continued to be promoted as a second to none 2D tool with the additional benefit of giving users the ability to adopt BIM tools and methods gradually, as their expertise and comfort levels increase.

3. Their "observation" about format wars is disingenuous at best. There has been file format competition for as long as there have been competing CAD systems.

4. Their "conversation with architects" and "recommendations" are, at best, amusing, at worst, hypocritical. As a content provider, they only provide 3D/BIM models in the Revit and SketchUp formats. They provide 2D drawings in DWG, PDF and some in MCD (the old MiniCAD/VW format). They DO NOT provide any IFC format product files, even though the "Big 3??" have the ability to read/write this format. Instead of supporting REVIT and SKETCHUP, why not make just IFC objects instead? The capability is there. Shouldn't they heed their own advice?

I may sound a bit upset in responding to this, because I am disappointed by the tone of their email bomb campaign. We have provided a caddetails.com library to our users for a long time and continued to update the file format of them, within our own distribution of our products. I, myself, gave a presentation on the floor of the AIA expo (several times over the course of three days) that talked about the "big picture" of BIM, how VW can be used and a couple of examples of using IFC to do high-value exchanges such as preliminary design through the Onuma Planning System and facilities management for the US General Services Administration.

I would love to see "content providers" supply more IFC-based digital content, usable for all IFC-compliant CADD/BIM systems. But at the show, McGraw Hill, Reed Construction AND CADDETAILS all rooled-out or touted their new, extensive Revit libraries.

Lastly, your own generalizations are just wrong. As a VW user, you have had BIM tools for a LONG time and their should be little complaint about their accuracy. The accuracy of BIMs (or 2D drawings, for that matter) are only as good as the input by the system operator/designer - "garbage in, garbage out."

There is a real cost to moving down the BIM road, but there is also a great deal of benefit to be reaped. The development of the technology is strong and will continue, both inside and outside NNA. I see the struggle and problem, like every other technology movement in architecture/construction, not with the method or technology, but with the architects and builders being too stubborn to accept change and adapt. There are many of your peers, internationally, who are adopting, adapting and moving swiftly ahead (even with the pains and mistakes) to push the envelope so that one day, all of the industry can enjoy the benefits, if they are willing. ["Resistance is Futile" - ].

[islandmon]

CAD = data ... so what's the issue here ... other than achieving standardized object data-tagging protocols.

BIM = biz ... sooner or later all CAD will be able to cross-talk on the front-end within a "sandbox" while offering specialized tools on the "sellable" back-end.

The CAD company that eventually discovers the "sweet-spot" within the opensource model will win market share.

All others will remain as niche players catering to specialists. Where NNA is missing the point is that the code for basic "Fundamentals" should be both rock-solid and freely distributed.

The profit should be in the support and the sales of "sweet" tools which provide a wide range of connectivity, power & functionality.

However, the current archaic proprietary CAD model forces Users to choose between sticking with the "devil that they know works most of the time" or casting fate & fortune to the wind to become endless beta-testers for the massive new & improved bloat-code that inevitably requires new hardware investments and endless hours of creativity draining trail & error.

BIM will only add to this madness by forcing another learning curve on overwhelmed programmers & Users.

Perhaps, the solution is to upload all our work to a company in SoCal so that they can massage the data for us. I doubt it...

Give Users a basic time-tested free multi-user CAD module which simply gets the math & GUI right ...then offer a menu of proven & tested single-user add-on enhancements for additional utility including BIM. Allow User to pay modest fees online to download and install the new encryptedTools with a click of the mouse. Every tool should come with a free tutorial, too.

But no .. corporate CAD needs to compete for market share & profits ... acting like territorial predators savaging the marketplace to feed the promotional beast.

Hence the need for constant mind-numbing versioning of expensive products. Imagine if every time you used a screwdriver or wrench you had to allow for the real possibility that it would leap out of your hands and puncture your gut... and all you were trying to do was install a door hinge.

Why is it often more peculiar to spec and schedule a door or window with CAD than it is to install the real thing ? How will the magic of BIM change this ?

And what about all those neophyte Users ? How will all this added complexity help them get their feet wet ? Recalling the simple sweet satisfaction when your very first 3d Cube was rendered and rotated in CAD.

Just last week I used an online CAD program to design , test, render, and spec antique street lamps for a client. The experience was flawless and the order was exported to pdf and sent out the same day. www.antiquestreetlamps.com/

This is the future people !

My concern is that all these "enhancements" will eventually strangle the essential purity of the CAD product by morphing an otherwise pleasant creative experience into an endless repetition of SelectableObjectInfoPaletteClassLayerAttributeFields made almost palatable by clever computational database algorithms trying to keep track of all the information management systems before they crash.

Meanwhile, to save time while the bugs are being worked out of BIM ...I'll be online doing the "free" design and spec on the manufacture's dedicated java-CAD site.

Please excuse the " uncustomary" rant ; )

[Guest clb]

SOrry to tell you - but VW is accurate in designing as the coastline of the USA.

Ask Ernest Coleman at TECH - he got the problems and ACKNOWLEDGED - it have been with him from last year and would have been repaired in SP 2. So what now ?

In terms of advancement - what advancement - V13 gave a few old outdated tools that was long overdue from year 2000 (according all other general more expensive and cheaper CAD's) and a plant library that was terribly updated. And of course an advertisement campaign to sell the scam and bugs as VW 2008. Pardon - I do not buy your story of advancement or accuracy in VW 2008. Even that you can see in the general discussions in VW.

Yes - AC will be probably the winner out of that mess of BIM R & D finances. On a parallel they have a decent Mech, Civ etc programs to support the R & D effort that drain any company to it's knees.

What do VW have - what ? You know that is only the Arch and a bit of Spotlight as main features to sell. The Mech is a joke and disgrace instead of an pillar to stand on. VW have a good solid base to VW 12.5 but there it stops. VW 13 went backwards.

So in the end after all the BIM R & D mess VW will still have less finances to get the core program to have decent, simple and urgent needed tools to do the job fast & efficiently - just get some trial if you do not want to buy other CAD's to see HOW far you are actually lagging.

Yes we will accept and adapt but give the tools to do the job with it!

It seems you guys are thinking/living/working inside a box without really noticing what is really needed by user's. Simple example of that is the Jappanese ADD-On now in your news letter.

Why not - if you have no interest in serving your users with THEIR (NOT YOURS) needs rather shut down VW and make it an open source program. I guarrantee you that in less than 2 years there will be no comparing CAD.

Think the above option will the best because in looking only at all the ADD-On's it is very clear that you as VW do not/want not/will not deliver what user's really want.

[Christiaan]

My perspective is that the CADDETAILS.com don't really know what they are talking about and simply released a blurb based on what they gleaned in 3 days of being around architects who are still trying to figure BIM out.

That is exactly the impression I got.

[brudgers]

While much of the CAD Details position was hyperbolic, I agree with their vision of OFC (or something analogous) as a means for designing or building a BIM with multiple software tools.

I agree with The Mon that the first company to get interoperablility right is likely to win a huge share of the market.

As I've previously said, we all may wind up exchanging sketchup files unless someone else sees the light.