Jump to content

Re: So where are we at with BIM in v2009? v2


Recommended Posts

This is a response to:

http://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=120389#Post120389

Jeffrey, I use this forum for two reasons:

1. to gain and promote a better understanding of CAD/BIM technologies, primarily NNA products

2. to influence NNA's culture and technological decisions

There is nothing in your terms of service or guidelines that prohibits discussing the merits or otherwise of competing technologies and I would suggest yourself and NNA have a good think about the potential consequences before taking steps to purge such discussion from this forum.

I would point to a post of your own that discusses some of the same issues and comes to some of the same conclusions that I do:

http://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=9&Number=119929Post119929

Ultimately I want to see a merging of the pros from both these applications and I want to see that merge happen in Vectorworks because I think Vectorworks has the most potential going forward from this point.

What worries me about your reaction is that it suggests a lack of confidence in the product and it's ability to compete. Graphisoft, it's worth pointing out, has a section in their forum dedicated to discussing other software. What does that say about their confidence?

I've spent a lot of time helping VW users on this forum and if you want to make enemies of people like me then I would suggest that will be your loss, not mine.

Link to comment
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Christiaan,

I hardly want to "make enemies". That's just silly. While it may have been rash, the intent was not to "purge" a discussion as much as to change to the nature of it to be more productive.

ArchiCAD and VW are individual platforms and technologies, with total independence of management, development, engineering, marketing, and sales, and appear to remain that way for the foreseeable future. Don't confuse corporate affiliation with "merging".

There are lessons to be learned in both directions. That is obvious. As a former professional user of ArchiCAD (8 & 9), I can also tell you "where the bodies are buried" in ArchiCAD. Every app can make a good "clean" marketing demo, but the dirt is always made evident in daily use, over time, with many different types of projects.

Every app does some things better than others, but there needs to be recognition that this goes in many different directions. ArchiCAD is an excellent building modeler, but that is all it does. VW is a multi-modal platform that adds unique value to the building information modeling methodology. Our other competition has strengths that play to its users AND weakness that confound the heck out of them.

Link to comment

Jeffrey, I'm glad we're stepping back from the brink.

While I understand your fear of potential new users being befuddled you might consider that the opposite is true, that such users are attracted by a vibrant community open to frank discussion and actually factor it into their decision. I know I certainly operate this way.

You might also consider that being open with potential new users will give them a better understanding of their needs and ensure they're confident in making the right decision.

The open discussion and the many criticisms on Graphisoft's forums certainly gives me confidence that Graphisoft are happy to let their software do the talking.

In any case I think you've got the wrong end of the stick with regard to my recent comments regarding ArchiCAD and VW. I have always recognised and openly applauded NNA's ability to listen to its customers and consistently provide substantial improvements to VW. Biplap Sarker and his team have my utmost respect and I'm really looking forward to v2010.

What I've been commenting on recently, however, is not feature-by-feature comparison but a fundamental difference that you yourself enumerate: "ArchiCAD does buildings very well" because at its heart it's a building modeler.

It's this aspect I'm most interested in seeing VW overcome.

Link to comment

Jeff, et al: Well, I suppose I'd better say something, since I was an active participant in the previous milieu.

First, and most importantly, I am not interested in trashing Vectorworks in this forum with negative hyperbole. I am committed to making it "my" software, as well, because I chose it for good reason over other apps I was researching. So far, it's proven itself to be quite powerful, and I am thankful for that. It's important however that in the effort to make the almighty powerful app, the important basics are not trodden upon (such as user interaction, a trumpet I will be sounding loudly until the day I die, I expect). In general I am enjoying using VW, despite it having some quite frustrating idiosyncrasies that have disrupted my workflow. Remember that I am working to get things accomplished in my profession as an architect, rather than re-design software. I've spent a long time in that field already.

I understand very intimately that software needs to appeal to a wide group of users, especially one as ambitious as Vectorworks. I understand that platforms, code bases and technological approaches all have their strengths and weaknesses. I appreciate the work involved to develop software and employ changes?that a "simple change" in the interface is not as easy as rewriting a few lines of code. I get that. My approach has healthily digested those ideas and I am on to something else. I'm kind of hoping you're with me on this.

I like Vectorworks' potential. I'm impressed with its strengths. I have been able to get my real-work projects done and I'm generally pleased with the results. I am excited to see where future versions will go. I applaud your commitment to improving the software, and it is reassuring to hear that the suggestions that are being made are taken to heart in the dev team. I am excited to be learning more and more every day I use it, despite feeling frustrated by some issues with interaction, which I hope will be sorted out in future versions. Speaking of...that list...any comments? Perhaps an acknowledgment of receipt, at least (I did spend some time on that).

Finally, in the spirit of the word "forum", I am expressing my opinions and I feel that am doing it in a thoughtful manner. I do not expect to be censored because my opinions do not align completely with the moderators' market strategies, even if that is your prerogative. My posts about this topic of usability have attempted to focus on the concept of intuitive user experience, rather than implicitly steering anyone away from using the app. None of that is meant to suggest that my frustrations using the app and a loyalty because I spent some money isolate me from looking at other options. That's just basic free market sensibility. The terse response might be: make an app that doesn't have glaring interface problems and you'll get fewer posts complaining about it. It's that simple. However, that's not a very nice way of saying it. I am committed to making Vectorworks better by sharing my experiences in as constructive a way as possible. I apologize if some of my posts seem otherwise. I appreciate your desire to create a constructive environment here, and I will do my best to respect that.

Link to comment

Well, that's my point, really. Vectorworks is attempting to be a solution for several disciplines, that of architects, landscapers, machine engineers and by incorporation of modeling and rendering capabilities, digital modelers, for lack of a better term at the moment.

One way to look at this is that these disciplines all share some commonalities (from an object-creation viewpoint) when one considers their "digital end products". By that measure, it makes sense that a central engine should drive the application. And a really good application should allow users to be able to create whatever they wish with it, using a set of tools that is sensible to their discrete disciplines, or at least universal enough to be able to be effective to all. By simply allowing buildings to be one of the types of objects created, from a pure modeling standpoint, architecture can be incorporated into the capability of the app. The logical offshoot therefrom is landscaping.

I am torn on the idea that software should do one thing very well or several things adequately. I am personally an example of this: a self-proclaimed (and verified, according to my friends!) autodidact and jack-of-several-trades, I have come to respect an inter-disciplined approach to just about everything. That's not to say that I disregard the singular approach, that to do something very well one should focus on that thing with an eager and open set of tools. Architecture and the skills and toolsets used to produce drawings is a creative endeavor that has traditionally had a solid (and highly protected) set of practices. For decades, AutoCAD has been the tool of choice for producing drawings, but with the introduction of BIM and 3D modeling I see these skills beginning to merge. Because of that, I see the direction of BIM tools such as Vectorworks, ArchiCAD and others to be a logical step in our brave new world.

All that said, when it comes to software, I feel that if you are going to present a product as having certain capabilities, then that aspect of the product should do those things very well.

Go big or go home.

Link to comment

Right on Charlie. I am also a self-proclaimed master of all trades. I'm sure those who know me well would agree (because they know what will happen to them if they don't!).

I have used VW's since MiniCad 4 (I think that's over 20 years?). I still love it and wouldn't switch for anything... But just like me (and you I infer) VW's still has a lot of "learning" to do.

P

Link to comment

Christiaan, IMO, as long as VW's works for ME for what I do (also buildings, mainly) I don't have any objection to it having other capabilities, to help others achieve what they do.

I don't entirely disagree that such a product has the potential to end up with its resources spread a little thin. But I have a strong feeling that NNA are aware of this and that they all work really hard to make the entire VW's family of products as good as humanly possible.

I also would add that on the rare occasions that I am called upon to do a full-on landscape & irrigation plan (for example) those tools are already there in my tool kit and the learning curve is fairly shallow, because I already know the basics of the program...

A more specific answer to your question might come from a marketing point of view. Obviously, allowing more different disciplines to use the same product leads to a larger and more diverse user (owner) base...

Link to comment
So, hypothetically speaking, as someone who wants to design and document buildings very well, what is the point of having a tool that only allows you to design and document various different things adequately?

Good point, and I agree with that thesis in principle.

I'd simply echo Peter's comment in that VW still has a lot of learning to do, as does every tool attempting to become a strong player in the field. Clearly this BIMinization of software tools is in its infancy, and everyone has a bias. This is never more true than with software applications. People become "gurus" because they have a passion for a particular application. This does not mean that the app is the perfect solution for everyone. It just means that some guy has spent an awful lot of time with the app, loves it, and has learned how to make it do what he wants. That fellow will also tell you that his app can make carrots fly out of your monitor as well as the perfect pudding, so a bit of salt is in order with that advice, eh?

I think my personal gripes have been centered around the interface and usability of VW, rather than its capabilities. I think many people would agree that VW is not an easy one to master. There are inconsistencies and a predilection for having users recall exact steps and methodologies for getting things done. As I said in an earlier post, VW makes no assumptions about what the user is going to create, and it also doesn't support very well the paradigm of kinesthetic learning (exploration, experimentation and action)?the former can certainly be equally boon and bane. In a perfect world, the tools that are discipline-specific would be automatic, like wall attribute creation in ArchiCAD, for example. Personally, I feel that creating a more intuitive interface is an area that VW's dev team should be focusing on. Seasoned users such as Peter and many others have had the luxury of progressing along with VW's growth from MiniCAD, and perhaps have also developed a schema for working within what newer (and less adaptable) users may interpret as frustrating errors in the program's capability. The actuality of those bits lacking may or may not be reality, and it's usually a combination of a user's inexperience with the software as well as the mis-presentation of the software's interface metaphors and/or paradigms. That does not mean that the core functionality is non-existent. I am trying to remember that at this critical time in my own evaluation of VW's 13 month stint as a presence in my architectural toolbox.

In truth, I believe that VW is going in the right direction as a modeling tool. Is it solely an architectural tool such as ArchiCAD? Absolutely not. But, I see the bones of what will make a good BIM tool in place in VW. Now, it needs some creative shaping. A modeler with care and a conscience for the users out here making it work and getting things done. It's my hope that such an individual sits on the dev team at NNA. And considering that Nemetschek owns both VW and ArchiCAD, it makes sense that some of the elegance of ArchiCAD will eventually seep through the cubicle walls into the code of VW. I think there's a thread about that in more depth on the Architosh forum.

For me, I watch and learn so I can progress forward in my understanding of how the software works, and hopefully find a way to communicate found troubles to the developers in a constructive way. And, because I live in a free market society, I vote with my pocketbook, a concept I'm sure the beancounters at NNA are well aware of.

Link to comment

Haha, yes of course, forgive me Peter. What I mean is the hypothetical situation of being equally skilled at using both forms of software.

I'm trying to get to the nub of why you think it's advantage to use a piece of software that is an adequate Jack of all trades as opposed to a piece of software that excels at a particular objective. Neither of you seem to have answered that it seems to me.

Link to comment

Well it's not necessarily an advantage, but not necessarily a disadvantage either. Like I said, for me VW's is an excellent tool. I have tried some of the others and was not particularly impressed. They are generally more expensive and besides I am not intimate with them like I am with VW's. I guess what I'm saying is that through an investment in time I have made VW's into exactly what it should be, and while every software has flaws, VW's flaws are very few (or at least they don't bother me).

Now if I could design my "fantasy" CAD program that'd be a different story... But I can't. I can however design buildings, and some of them contain many elements of my "fantasy", and all of them are fully achieved via VW's...

Link to comment
I'm trying to get to the nub of why you think it's advantage to use a piece of software that is an adequate Jack of all trades as opposed to a piece of software that excels at a particular objective. Neither of you seem to have answered that it seems to me.

Okay, here's why it's working for me.

I have found that doing general modeling is better in VW (than ArchiCAD). As an experiment and learning exercise, I've drawn the entire skeletal frame of my current project, a residence, complete with beams, joists, rafters, connectors, posts and columns. I haven't yet, but I see that I will be easily able to include things as detailed as bolts, properly sized for steel connectors, steel bracing and other detailed construction elements. I was not able to find the same structural modeling functionality in ArchiCAD anywhere. There is TrussMaker, but it is severely limited when compared to the Wall, Floor and Roof Framers in VW. Now (okay, by the end of the week), not only I can look at this building literally in the way it's built, but also in comparison with the detailed environmental, ecological, and site data elements in place that the integrated landscaping design functionality can provide.

The joist take-off worksheet, built on the fly when constructing the skeletal frame, shows me the exact materials list for the entire structure. To get this with ArchiCAD, one must run the model through a separate application, such as VICO's Takeoff Manager or Constructor. And there's no telling what adjustments may need to be made to the model so that the data comes out as expected, since it's two separate software tools. I can easily see an entire day spent adjusting a file when all that is happening the very moment I draw the structure in VW.

The integrated modeling capability is tremendously exciting to me, as someone who came to the architecture practice after 20 years as a hands-on carpenter, builder and then general contractor before studying for my architecture degree. To see relevant data being generated dynamically with the modeling process is the "I" in BIM, in practice right here on my desktop. I can also use my structural skeleton to see exactly how the structure will assemble in the field. I can make adjustments to framing locations if I discover that maybe I'll need to place a bolt for a stair newel and a beam connector is in the way, or I need more room for an HVAC chase. These are real-world problems that usually aren't discovered until the money is spent and we're on site, facing the difficulty of adjusting some aspect of the structure that now can be circumvented in the design process. I'll admit that that's just good BIM in practice, and should be available in a decent BIM tool. I haven't yet found those capabilities in ArchiCAD.

To me, that's the power of having multiple functionality in one application.

Link to comment
Well it's not necessarily an advantage, but not necessarily a disadvantage either.

Well I guess this is where I'm at. Ever since first seeing ArchiCAD years ago I presumed VW would eventually be able to produce buildings in the same way. Now I'm beginning to think maybe not, because VW doesn't have the scope to concentrate on buildings in the same way.

Link to comment
Okay, here's why it's working for me.

I have found that doing general modeling is better in VW (than ArchiCAD). As an experiment and learning exercise, I've drawn the entire skeletal frame of my current project, a residence, complete with beams, joists, rafters, connectors, posts and columns. I haven't yet, but I see that I will be easily able to include things as detailed as bolts, properly sized for steel connectors, steel bracing and other detailed construction elements. I was not able to find the same structural modeling functionality in ArchiCAD anywhere. There is TrussMaker, but it is severely limited when compared to the Wall, Floor and Roof Framers in VW. Now (okay, by the end of the week), not only I can look at this building literally in the way it's built, but also in comparison with the detailed environmental, ecological, and site data elements in place that the integrated landscaping design functionality can provide.

Yes general modelling is certainly an advantage when using a general modeller over a building modeller. But, two things, the pervasiveness of general modelling capabilities over building modelling capabilities is stopping us from integrating our 2D and 3D documentation (we basically do 2D drawings and create separate 3D models) because it's such an onerous workaround-laden process, so this is a disadvantage to us. There are too many manual procedures and not enough rules; too many ways to achieve an ends. A recipe for disaster when working in teams.

Secondly, while I believe GDL objects are your answer, we have no interest in modelling buildings to this level. Our objective is to design buildings and document them as quickly as possible to a level that contractors can use to build at least risk.

We're more interested in been able to instantly add or edit an intelligent stair in any form we want and not have to wait 30-60 seconds while it calculates. We're more interested in knowing that when we stretch a window in 3D it will change in all other views. We're more interested in signing out any arbitrary part of the building on the fly and merging any changes we make.

The joist take-off worksheet, built on the fly when constructing the skeletal frame, shows me the exact materials list for the entire structure. To get this with ArchiCAD, one must run the model through a separate application, such as VICO's Takeoff Manager or Constructor. And there's no telling what adjustments may need to be made to the model so that the data comes out as expected, since it's two separate software tools. I can easily see an entire day spent adjusting a file when all that is happening the very moment I draw the structure in VW.

Again, this doesn't interest us. We're not interested in how many joists there are, especially when we're designing 10 storey residential buildings. But, if that's the kind of thing you're after, I believe the tool for the job is: http://www.cadimagetools.com/

I can make adjustments ... if I discover that ... a beam connector is in the way, or I need more room for an HVAC chase. ... I haven't yet found those capabilities in ArchiCAD.

Well, I'm surprised, the demo I saw recently not only has this capability but has active clash detection so that, when activated, the tool would highlight in a different colour where an extract duct was clashing with a beam for example.

Link to comment

I find VW a really strong general program at its core. And the real power of it is that you can make your own objects with VectorScript. If you invest in those objects and automatization, you will gain a lot of time (and spend a lot less mony) in the end. You can let VW do the things you want it to do! And that's the thing that is being overlooked here.

@Christiaan: I also had a hard time learning to make hybrid drawings, but once learned, it's very simple and easy to do. It just take some time to learn a good way of taking it into your workflow.

Link to comment
@Christiaan: I also had a hard time learning to make hybrid drawings, but once learned, it's very simple and easy to do. It just take some time to learn a good way of taking it into your workflow.

DWorks, I'm quite capable of working in an integrated 2D/3D environment in VW, not that I particularly enjoy it with all the workarounds involved. The main problem comes when working with more than one or two people and on large projects.

I find VW a really strong general program at its core. And the real power of it is that you can make your own objects with VectorScript. If you invest in those objects and automatization, you will gain a lot of time (and spend a lot less mony) in the end.

I have no qualms with VW's power. It's an extremely capable 3D modeller; far more so than ArchiCAD. But such power, I suspect, is not what we need. Intelligence and speed is what we need.

We're not programmers, we're designers, and we're not particularly interested in making ourselves reliant on a 3rd party programmer to ensure our workflow actually works with each upgrade of VW. In any case creating our own intelligent objects might give us the parametric configurability we need (if we had a quazillion dollars to spare) but it's not going to give us the speed or the integrated intelligence we want.

Maybe v2010 will be the beginning of this?

Edited by Christiaan
Link to comment
DWorks, I'm quite capable of working in an integrated 2D/3D environment in VW, not that I particularly enjoy it with all the workarounds involved. The main problem comes when working with more than one or two people and on large projects.

I'm not saying you aren't capable, but there aren't that much workarounds needed than you think. Sometimes thinking a little different from time to time solves a lot of problems.

I know that the current workgroup reference is not that great, but once you find a good way to splitting up a project, it's not a big problem.

Link to comment
I'm not saying you aren't capable, but there aren't that much workarounds needed than you think.

What sort of buildings do you work on?

Sometimes thinking a little different from time to time solves a lot of problems.

This is part of the problem if you ask me. We don't want to spend our time thinking about how to model/draw. We want to spend time designing.

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...