Jump to content

So where are we at with BIM in v2009?


Recommended Posts

Part of it, though, remains an issue of perception about ... VW. ... I feel like VW was ahead of its time, for a while, in many respects, but admittedly needs to catch up to the current pace of expectations, marketing, spin AND functionality.

Jeffrey, this point of view worries the hell out of me. It suggests an attitude of denial about VW capabilities. Functionality should not be an "AND" but the primary motivator.

The best way to keep pace with expectations is to produce a piece of software that allow users like me to demonstrate to purse holders and other users that BIM is an improvement on CAD.

Marketing needs to butt out and take a back seat because the bad perceptions are well founded in actual difficulty in using the software as little BIM. Little BIM, as far as my experience is concerned, doesn't work well in Vectorworks unless you're a one man band designing 1-2 storey timber houses or the like. As soon as you get into multi-storey buildings in dense urban environments with more complex materials and interfaces between those materials, things break down and workarounds proliferate. And workarounds = working in teams very difficult, especially when using parametric objects.

My hope is that NNA is utilising Parasolids to produce a BIM environment where objects dynamically interact with each other in perfect harmony (and do not break each time you edit them, such as the way wall component joins do!)

I need to be able to sit down demonstrate to the purse holders that I can do what I do in a week with CAD in a day with BIM and with NO workarounds or ifs, or buts and so on. That is where the problem of perception lies.

In terms of big BIM there're many things out of your hands and all you can do is keep working on interoperability, but in terms of little BIM the ball is completely in your hands.

Link to comment

As Christiaan alludes to the predominate perception is that BIM is what Jeff is calling "little bim". That is because Autodesk and Graphisoft have been very effective in convincing the masses that BIM is the virtual building model.

That perception is unlikely to change and if Vw is going to have credibility as a BIM program it will have to be able to do most of what they do. That will require improvements in both capability and processes so that it can be used effecively by teams on larger and/or non residential projects.

Link to comment
As Christiaan alludes to the predominate perception is that BIM is what Jeff is calling "little bim". That is because Autodesk and Graphisoft have been very effective in convincing the masses that BIM is the virtual building model.

I don't see it that way Mike. My understanding of little BIM is that of BIM apps that don't yet talk to each other properly. Once they talk to each other then it becomes big BIM.

Link to comment

And the means of talking to each other, effectively, should be IFC.

Why?

1. It's an open source, open standard. It is vendor neutral and developed in a global public process. No one "owns" the file format. No single vendor can revise it an lock out all other vendors. With IFC YOU own the data model, not a vendor through a proprietary format. Anyone has access to tools that allow apps to be built to support IFC import/export.

2. It is flexible. The file format and schema allows for many different types of applications to exchange needed information, subsets of the entire building model and data (most likely) or the entire building model and ALL its data (least likely or productive).

3. It is multi-modal. The IFC file/data format can be left in its ASCII/XML form or read by a geometry interpreter. This allows different applications for different purposes to read, display, report and add information in a "suitable" format for the purpose. Not every app needs geometry, much less 3D geometry, all the time.

But as Christiaan says, there is no big BIM until all the apps can exchange this data with high fidelity.

BIM is NOT a platform, or a single technology. But BIM works when technologies and communications and data and business practice are guided/led by competent open standards, that put the participants (architects, engineers, builders, owners) in charge of the data, not the technology vendors.

Link to comment

Mike,

You're still focusing too much on the details of "whiz-bang" functionality and marketing spin for an individual platform and not on the bigger picture of the concept of what the data ultimately is and how it is shared. Having a tool that can create every possible window configuration in the world, or in the designer's mind, means nothing to BIM if he can't share it freely with the engineer, contractor, supplier and owner, no matter what application they use.

I will always argue that, today, we have the best position, amongst all our competition, of a sweet spot between power, flexibility, value, and ease of use. Like the old adage that there are three components of construction - speed, cost, and quality - and you can only have the best of two out of three, because you can't have them all, you have to make a choice on where to compromise.

Some programs may appear more powerful, but lack flexibility, ease of use and are very high cost and low ROI. Some programs might appear to be very easy to use, but lack power and flexibility. Some programs might be very cheap, but they are very simple.

Link to comment
Having a tool that can create every possible window configuration in the world, or in the designer's mind, means nothing to BIM if he can't share it freely with the engineer, contractor, supplier and owner, no matter what application they use.

But just the same BIM means nothing to those of us who can't create the window configuration we need quicker and easier than we can with CAD.

Link to comment

Christiaan: See what I mean about ArchiCAD? VW has got to get its user interface flaws worked out to be more intuitive first before it can really compete.

Forum: I think talk of BIM software and interoperability is great, and steps in the right direction for getting architects, designers and engineers to be able to work together more easily. But, all of that goes out the window if the software tools we are using slow us down because we are spending more time in our day trying to come up with workarounds, or being frustrated because the software is not doing things in the way that we as creative minds naturally think. From my relatively objective position, the winner of the intuitive use challenge is ArchiCAD. The winner from the cost standpoint was VW. So, I ask NNA, do you want to be the good software or the one that people buy because they can't afford the good software at the moment? My attempt to communicate some of my first-use observations and ideas have been met with total silence. Makes me wonder if our efforts to help are even worth the price we pay to buy the software package. Not even a "Thanks for your thoughts". A bit unprofessional, I felt, from a company that has otherwise high marks in my playbook. But hey, I'm just a user. What do I know?

BIM as a concept is a fabulous thing and at this point in practice for most of us just that: a developing concept. As designers and architects however, we have been thinking about BIM already in the sense that we must design building elements with data assigned to those elements, albeit in rudimentary forms, historically. So, if a software tool is meant to propel us all forward towards a workflow that not only incorporates BIM as a workflow concept but makes it easier and our projects more cost-effective, then that software needs to function in ways that are fluid and sensible. Its Achilles Heel shouldn't be its usability flaws.

If you'll indulge me a moment...the problem I see with software developers is that they all see things from an engineering standpoint. Rightly so. I would expect a software engineer to be skilled in working well in his/her craft. Will this piece of code fit in with that piece of code? Can we do something a certain way without crashing the user's computer, or slowing things down to the point where the software purpose is defeated? These are important questions and certainly from an engineering standpoint, the primary questions. But an equally important question, IMHO, should be: how does our target user think about what they are using the software to do? In other words, how can we make our software speak to the user in their language rather than ours?

For example, one of the things that made Photoshop so uniquely popular initially was that it did not force photographers and digital artists to rethink photography and art. It communicated in photographic terms, created a darkroom metaphor and duplicated photographic tools that were already in use in the real darkroom. In fact its original name was "Digital Darkroom". Other tools and functionality in the software came along out of necessity or desire, but always the core of the app spoke to artists in familiar ways. The software has expanded (I feel because of the universality of its tools and its ease of use), and is now in use by everyone from photographer to engineers, and includes collaborative workflows and server-side image management and CVS (via Bridge and Version Cue). This is the basis of a well-written application. It MUST communicate to the users in ways that the user is used to thinking about his/her craft and with familiar graphical and conceptual metaphors. And the software developers need to employ good usability engineers and interface designers and listen to the voices of their userbase to help eliminate irregularities in the usability. Another example is Apple. The best thing they did for computing was employ the Desktop Filing Structure?a paradigm we all take for granted today?the metaphor of a desktop, folders and files. These were concepts people were already familiar with. 30 years ago, almost overnight, the computer made sense and began its meteoric rise to common use.

This need for an intuitive interface has never been more important than in Design, Art & Architecture applications. Users are generally right-brain centric, meaning that they think in visual and dynamic ways. They process information in what may not seem like logical ways, yet they come up with amazing solutions to challenges. Thought processes are generally global and as such, success is best achieved when there is a paradigm for a given set of functions that are similar (shape creation vs shape manipulation, for example). In the systems that we employ, things need to make sense from this global and artistic perspective. If they don't at first use, then the user is confused. The more situations like this a user experiences, the more detached and uncertain they will feel about their experience with the application. They will get frustrated more easily, and ultimately be unable to do their best work. Enough of this type of experience, and a user will start looking for a better software tool.

So, what's the point of this diatribe, and how does it fit in with the original question, where are we with BIM in VW2009 today? Very simply, VW is not an intuitive piece of software to learn and use. This is an opinion that is shared by a great many users, and not just the noobs. Just because there are seasoned users doesn't meant the software is great. It just means that seasoned users have been a part of the development process and have knowledge of why things are the way they are in a software app. Take them away from it and put them in front of something that works better, more easily, and they will choose the better tool. Often they will say, 'Wow, that was easy...that takes so much work in my other software.'. Or (The Killer), they just get work done with less trouble, because the software supports their natural processes.

So, for VW to truly be a BIM tool does not just mean employing a bunch of BIM-y concepts like group collaboration workflow, interoperability and standardized file systems like IFC. It also means being a tool that is written lean and presented intuitively, because that is what will make the tool usable to a greater audience in the industry.

Link to comment

I've gradually come to a decision, since the release of v2009, that v2010 is going to be a big factor in forming my opinion about where I go professionally and what advice I give to those around me. The adoption of Parasolids was a brilliant move. I expect v2010 to give us a good glimpse into whether VW is going to compete with and overtake ArchiCAD in 3D and BIM or otherwise.

At the moment the idea that Vectorworks' "flexibility" is a positive thing doesn't bode well in my opinion. From my experience VW "flexibility" overwhelmingly means unintuitive, manual labour, workarounds, aggravation, difficult to work in teams.

Every time I've taken an indepth look at ArchiCAD over the years I kept thinking to myself it's not long before VW will work like this. My patience is admittedly wearing thin.

Link to comment

Charlie, Christiaan, I'm with you.

I think the success of Vw (Minicad, before) was it ease of use and logical approach, among other things. That's why it was (still is) a choice instead of Autocad.

NNA can't loose the focus on ease of use. Reggarding to this, I think Vw has the proper structure to be an efficient, easy of use and powerful piece of software like photoshop. But it lacks some integration:

Why 2d locus and 3d locus?

Why 2d Reshape and 3d Reshape?

Why 2d Selection and 3d Selection?

Why extrudes have one handle (must be 3) in 3d reshape mode and a extruded circle have two (that's ok). Mulltiple extrudes doesn't have it.

Why does polygons have a close option and polylines doesn't?

This happens with objects, too. Every kind of object has it's own interface an use, why not a consolidated one.

Why column and pillar?

Why all objects doesn't clean up in hidden line rendering: like walls, floors and pillar does?

BIM is part of that consolidation. Geometry and information well integrated, without confusion for the end user.

I'm confident that NNA will make Vw evolve. I don't think changing platform it's a good solution over time. Threads like this one, with NNA people participating on it, can greatly make the difference.

Sorry, for my english.

Edited by Mr. Gog
Link to comment
I don't think changing platform it's a good solution over time.

Life's too short not to keep this option open Mr Gog.

At the end of the day we can argue until the cows come home about the details but ultimately, for me at least, it's about enjoying life.

I drew manually for 5 years when I started out and found it immensely enjoyable but even back then I was imagining what it would be like to do all these things we do in 3D on computers.

In terms of enjoying life CAD has been quite a disappointment to me. I expect BIM and 3D to bring back that enjoyment and more. Graphisoft, it seems to me, is possibly the only company that seems to understand this.

Link to comment

"Very simply, VW is not an intuitive piece of software to learn and use...... It also means being a tool that is written lean and presented intuitively, because that is what will make the tool usable to a greater audience in the industry."

"I've had to (or need to) create replacements for practically every NNA tool, in addition to creating the ones entirely missing! Door, window, floor, beam, column, ceiling, space ? even tiling. Precast sandwich elements and stairs are on the to-do list. "

"VW "flexibility" overwhelmingly means unintuitive, manual labour, workarounds, aggravation, difficult to work in teams."

"In terms of enjoying life CAD has been quite a disappointment to me. I expect BIM and 3D to bring back that enjoyment and more. Graphisoft, it seems to me, is possibly the only company that seems to understand this."

Seems like this thread has some consistency in thought, as some even go to the extent to create tools for how they work.

Since the inception of CAD by engineers for engineers initially the interface has never been as Architects and other Creative's design,think and concieve. Most have only adopted CAD and now BIM as sheep following the Shepherding of Software Application Engineers.

If an Architect were to create some BIM software(SketchUP-Form Z both were by Architects) then maybe it would be done with an interface that is more accessible.

If one cannot create the content.......

Link to comment
I don't think changing platform it's a good solution over time.

Life's too short not to keep this option open Mr Gog.

At the end of the day we can argue until the cows come home about the details but ultimately, for me at least, it's about enjoying life.

Totally true, Christiaan.

About 3d and enjoying life:

I make 3d all the time, it's really good... the problem comes when we have to make it looks like a 2d plan, for all the uses that our industry requires. That's a pain. We loose more life on that.

For now that's not my part, so I'm lucky.

I wonder how many time does it take to learn a new software. Learn its glitches

and workarounds (every software have they).

Does the future development of our choice (Vw), will give us the things that we're needing and asking for? I hope for that.

The concept of BIM is in development. I had tested ArchiCAD many times, it's a good application, but it has it's lacks too. Same for Revit. I think it's too early to say which BIM application it's the right one. That's why: Threads like this one, with NNA people participating on it, can greatly make the difference.

I hope the industry evolve to the 3d world (hope it not take 20 years more). Working with BIM will be more enjoyable...

Sorry, for my english.

Edited by Mr. Gog
Link to comment
I don't think changing platform it's a good solution over time.

Life's too short not to keep this option open Mr Gog.

At the end of the day we can argue until the cows come home about the details but ultimately, for me at least, it's about enjoying life.

I drew manually for 5 years when I started out and found it immensely enjoyable but even back then I was imagining what it would be like to do all these things we do in 3D on computers.

In terms of enjoying life CAD has been quite a disappointment to me. I expect BIM and 3D to bring back that enjoyment and more. Graphisoft, it seems to me, is possibly the only company that seems to understand this.

I couldn't agree more. I am very interested to see where v2010 goes, as well. It will ultimately cement my decision about whether to stay with VW or go with something else. I spent most of today drawing in the eval version of ArchiCAD, and I have to say, I was able to accomplish quite a bit, and it was pretty fun. There were several "Aha, that's cool!" moments. ArchiCAD has a version that is priced similarly to VW, so now it's not just about price anymore. It's now also about usability. The race is on! :D

Link to comment

I would just like to remind everyone that THIS is a Vectorworks SUPPORT forum, meant to provide users the opportunity to interact with their peers regarding the use of VECTORWORKS.

If you would like to discuss the intricacies, pros, and cons of other platforms, there are many other forums on the web in which to do so.

While I encourage a HEALTHY discussion of BIM, I think this thread, among others, has crossed the line.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...