Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

As one example of how an intelligent railing tool can work in today's software see this video:

http://www.cadimagetools.com/resources/movieView.aspx?id=138

And believe it or not: Vectorworks can do this!

The way Archicad does it in the video, that's the way Vectorworks can do it, and I really mean CAN do it. It's just not programmed that way by NNA, but someone that know's Vectorscript can make this kind of pio. And it is a pio in Archicad. I will explain why it is the same than in VW:

Those purple dots are the same as VW's loci. The railing is an object through a path, ... It's just a pio in Archicad like it can be in VW. The only difference you see is that placing the pio in Archicad is differend from placing the pio in VW. It's just that way of placing that is more 'intelligent' because you click on an object where to place it and Archicad will look up values to give to the railing pio. You can do the same thing with VW.

Well Christiaan, I think that these examples you give are needed in the wish list forum section. This will give NNA an idea of how we want it to be programmed. This will do nothing to the core of VW, but just how the pio's are programmed.

I wonder what will happen if the stair is changed, and what will happen if the wall will change? Because what I understand of what you really want is that when the stair is changed, all things related to it like railings and walls will change too.

EDIT: Whoops, I just overlooked something. The Stair builder is an add-on. So this means that this is not standard in Archicad. Why? Maybe because the stair tool in archicad isn't that great?

Well Christiaan, you said you didn't believe in the strength of VW when it comes to creating own pio's. Well, the stair builder you showed us is such a thing. Someone can make it for VW. And that the point I wanted to make you clear. You can tweak the program to get it the way you want. Believe it or not, but there will always be situations where a pio can do what you want.

Edited by DWorks
Link to comment
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks for the videos but I'm already using parametric railings in real-world Revit projects so I'm fully aware of what their advantages and potentials are. What I'm trying to tell you is that you'll eventually encounter instances wherein they weren't designed for. Or inevitably you'll have to create a totally different railing or stair design which simply can't be done with the standard railing tool which came with the software. What you also fail to see in the videos is the effort and time involved in setting up those parameters and components.

It's not as easy or intelligent as it looks. Oftentimes you end up working more as a programmer than as a designer.

Link to comment
And believe it or not: Vectorworks can do this! The way Archicad does it in the video, that's the way Vectorworks can do it, and I really mean CAN do it. It's just not programmed that way by NNA, but someone that know's Vectorscript can make this kind of pio. And it is a pio in Archicad.

Placing and editing such objects in ArchiCAD is nothing like VW. Download and try the demo and you will see that placing or editing a stair in ArchiCAD is instant. Do the same thing in VW and you'll have to wait for 30 seconds while it calculates a bleedin' handrail.

Whoops, I just overlooked something. The Stair builder is an add-on. So this means that this is not standard in Archicad. Why? Maybe because the stair tool in archicad isn't that great?

Try it. It leaves VW for dust.

Well Christiaan, you said you didn't believe in the strength of VW when it comes to creating own pio's.

I posted the above link purely as an example of how a railing tool can work in today's software. That doesn't mean I like the idea of relying on 3rd party plugins for core functionality. And it certainly doesn't mean I like the idea of commissioning one's own plugins.

As I've repeatedly stated my argument isn't that VW doesn't have the capability or power. My argument has to do with implementation and the possibility that a general 3D modeller may be at a fundamental disadvantage when it comes to competing with specialists modellers.

Link to comment
What I'm trying to tell you is that you'll eventually encounter instances wherein they weren't designed for. Or inevitably you'll have to create a totally different railing or stair design which simply can't be done with the standard railing tool which came with the software.

And what I'm telling you is that you come up against that wall far earlier in VW than you do in ArchiCAD.

Furthermore you're describing such tools as if they'll never improve. It's inescapable that these methods will become easier and easier, that such objects will become more and more aware of what's around them and that various interfaces will be designed to directly manipulate such objects with great ease. Maybe you're just afraid that a 10 year old will be able to do in 20 seconds what it currently takes you 20 minutes to do?

It's not as easy or intelligent as it looks.

Yeah, actually, it is. I've tried it.

What you also fail to see in the videos is the effort and time involved in setting up those parameters and components.

Hehe, they were using the default settings; it took no effort or time setting up the parameters in that video. And don't get me going about default settings in VW.

But thanks, I'm well aware of what's required to configure parametric objects.

Link to comment

WIP: This is a project (not so big), that we are working on, in a few weeks it will be completed and we will input more info. Reggarding the things that are in discussion in this thread:

1. All the drawings are derivated completely from the 3d model. Only annotations are 2d.

2. We used: walls, floors, roof faces, pillars, extrude, extrude along path, solids operations, fillet 3d, hardscape, fillet 2d (for nurbs paths) and hybrid symbols (stairs).

3. We used windows and doors, then we replaced it with our custom made symbols.

4. There are 4 models. 1 Model for kitchens. 1 Model for bathrooms. 1 Structural Model and 1 model for the architecture. Workgroup references used for link the four models in one called: Monitor model. It acts like a central model.

5. All classes are custom.

Render: maxwellrender via cinema4d.

In this extract aren't include the kitchens and bathrooms models.

6. I'll post our conclusions on the overall project in the near future. These conclusions will be over colaboration, modeling workflow and documentation. Until now most of them are positives.

Edited by Mr. Gog
Link to comment
And what I'm telling you is that you come up against that wall far earlier in VW than you do in ArchiCAD.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Furthermore you're describing such tools as if they'll never improve. Intelligent dynamic tools will consistently become easier and easier to configure and manipulate. Maybe you're just afraid that a 10 year old will be able to do in 20 seconds what it currently takes you 20 minutes to do?

Sorry, my bad. I thought we were talking about present day software.

Link to comment

Thanks, Ruben, for attempting to get this thread back on track. Maybe we can relegate the ArchiCAD/VW match to the back field now, yes? Somebody wins and somebody loses, and everybody's got an opinion. Use what works, learn the software and go forth and make stuff!

Very nice project Mr. Gog. If it works out as you've described, I'm sure lots of us would like to hear about your experience using VW as the tool. I know that I would.

So, what was the question? Oh yeah...where are we with BIM in v2009? I know that I am taking a similar approach as Mr. Gog in that I am attempting to use all the BIM-myness I can muster out of VW. I have made some significant breakthroughs in the past few weeks in my understanding of how VW gets things done. In that process, I have also witnessed the strength of the core technologies.

For me personally, of late, the structural modeling capability (via the framing tools), and the resultant materials lists are incredibly useful BIM info. We also now have IFC data import and export. That's promising.

I'm sure anyone can pick apart my thoughts and tell me that all that exists in another app, and my answer is: you're probably right. To paraphrase Ozzie earlier, all it takes is getting into "the other" app for a while before one sees that it has limitations and gripe-worthy aspects. For me, I've decided to learn what I can and use this tool to implement what I need it to. I feel confident VW has way more capability than I'm able to fully use at this stage. And I'm pleased with what I have discovered so far.

I'd also like to actually hear some opinions to the original question. What are we using VW for in regard to BIM? Taking Mr. Gog's example, how do you use VW to achieve a BIM workflow in your shop?

Link to comment

These 2 threads have been very interesting, but Chistiaan, if you don?t feel your comments have had a VW vs ArchiCAD focus, I think you're kidding yourself, that?s how your comments read to me.

By differentiating ?general 3D modeller? and ?building modeller? you?re placing these two softwares into two distinctly different categories, which I don?t get. Lightwave, Modo and the like are general 3D modellers, VWA and ArchiCAD are definitely building modellers, just with different approaches and at different points in their evolution.

If you?re looking for higher efficiency / dollars and you believe ArchiCAD can deliver for your team, I don?t understand why your office wouldn?t quarantine suitable projects and be running them through on a single edition of ArchiCAD to see if there?s proof in that pudding.

I?m not at the big end of town but my experience of switching from a CAD environment to Vectorworks a couple years back has been very positive. I use the OzCad edition of VWA and have invested plenty of time into customising libraries and developing templates to suit my preferences and work. The ability to build VWA around my own requirements I regarded as one of the strengths of VW. I?m very sceptical of your ?flexibility is overrated? argument.

I've moved from AutoCAD to 3D modelling with considerable amounts of integrated data that I pull directly from the model now, I have vastly improved presentations (straight from the model as well), I encounter far fewer errors and have a workflow that allows me to design as I go. Of coarse, I hope VWA is going to improve, add features and functionality, but expecting VWA to turn into ArchiCAD seems unrealistic when the two products will always compete by defining their own approaches to BIM, each of which are likely to provide a better fit to different parts of the industry.

Link to comment
These 2 threads have been very interesting, but Chistiaan, if you don?t feel your comments have had a VW vs ArchiCAD focus, I think you're kidding yourself, that?s how your comments read to me.

Most of it stems from Charlie's proposition "... that software needs to appeal to a wide group of users ..."

This doesn't make sense to me. While I am generally a self-taught Jack of all trades all the best software I use specialises to a high degree.

By differentiating ?general 3D modeller? and ?building modeller? you?re placing these two softwares into two distinctly different categories, which I don?t get. Lightwave, Modo and the like are general 3D modellers, VWA and ArchiCAD are definitely building modellers, just with different approaches and at different points in their evolution.

VWA is a building modeller built on top of a general 3D modeller and ArchiCAD is a specialised building modeller (which might one day become a general 3D modeller built on top of a building modeller). Different approaches, different categories... whatever, the differences are still significant.

If you?re looking for higher efficiency / dollars and you believe ArchiCAD can deliver for your team, I don?t understand why your office wouldn?t quarantine suitable projects and be running them through on a single edition of ArchiCAD to see if there?s proof in that pudding.

This will be the idea if we did introduce it. The thing is much of what I've learnt over the years is from having discussions like these on the net.

Introducing a new piece of CAD/BIM software would be a big deal in my office because, while the Director trusts my judgement, he's been using VW since the get go. And, frankly, we like VW, we produce a lot of good work with it, and I don't want to change.

I'm currently doing a project at home in ArchiCAD and will evaluate things again once VW v2010 is out.

Link to comment
Placing and editing such objects in ArchiCAD is nothing like VW. Download and try the demo and you will see that placing or editing a stair in ArchiCAD is instant. Do the same thing in VW and you'll have to wait for 30 seconds while it calculates a bleedin' handrail.

Try it. It leaves VW for dust.

I can't, They don't let you download the demo twice. I once tried it, and I found it anything but untuitive. It's very hard to get great looking plans, and it feels like you must do it 1 way because the program don't let you do it all other ways. It just doens't feel ok.

As I've repeatedly stated my argument isn't that VW doesn't have the capability or power. My argument has to do with implementation and the possibility that a general 3D modeller may be at a fundamental disadvantage when it comes to competing with specialists modellers.

With a specialist building modeller, you will get things fast, but only the things it is programmed to. When you need something else, you just can't. That's why a general building modeller is far better because you can do what you want, how you want. It may look poor to the specialist modeller, but just look a little bit further.

I still got no answer to this question:

What will happen to the railing when a stair is changed in Archicad??? If nothing happens, than saying that Archicad is better is very wrong.

Link to comment
I can't, They don't let you download the demo twice. I once tried it, and I found it anything but untuitive. It's very hard to get great looking plans, and it feels like you must do it 1 way because the program don't let you do it all other ways. It just doens't feel ok.

I don't understand why you keep thinking I'm pushing ArchiCAD itself as if it's some panacea. We should be able discuss the merits of various software without having to claim devotion to one or the other.

You'll need to use a different email address. You'll also need to uninstall your previous version, by doing a search for anything with archicad or graphisoft in the filename and trashing it. It's worth it just to see how fast it is to place and edit 3D parametric objects.

With a specialist building modeller, you will get things fast, but only the things it is programmed to. When you need something else, you just can't.

Agreed, there are workarounds, such as using tools for something other than what they were designed for, but this is pretty much what I'm saying. And the problem I find with VWA, aside from how sluggishly it deals with parametric objects, is that there's not as much incentive on NNA's part to program these building modelling tools to do many things, because general modelling techniques can always be relied on instead.

ArchiCAD doesn't have this fallback so they have to ship with advanced building modelling tools, which are naturally far in advance of VWA building modelling tools.

That's why a general building modeller is far better because you can do what you want, how you want.

Well, no, not for us, because the outcome for us isn't that we end up modelling anything we like. The outcome for us is that we end up producing our documents in 2D because it's faster.

General modelling sets the bar too high for too many people. So, as others have pointed out (as if it's some kind of advantage), you end up needing programmers to produce your designs and documents, instead of architects, engineers, designers and building technicians.

What will happen to the railing when a stair is changed in Archicad??? If nothing happens, than saying that Archicad is better is very wrong.

As with ArchiCAD's default stair they automatically update, of course: http://www.cadimagetools.com/documents/FlyerStairBuilder.pdf

See, I suspect only a Vectorworks user would even think to ask that question. An ArchiCAD user would naturally assume the railing would automatically update.

In the case of building modelling tools ArchiCAD is of course better. But this is hardly surprising.

Edited by Christiaan
Link to comment
Thanks, Ruben, for attempting to get this thread back on track. Maybe we can relegate the ArchiCAD/VW match to the back field now, yes? Somebody wins and somebody loses, and everybody's got an opinion. Use what works, learn the software and go forth and make stuff!

Very nice project Mr. Gog. If it works out as you've described, I'm sure lots of us would like to hear about your experience using VW as the tool. I know that I would.

...

I'll be more than glad to post all those things...

Link to comment

Here's another annoying niggle of an example that no doubt comes down to the fact that VW is, at its heart, a general modeller.

When I use the space tool in VW I'm hardly ever able to use the Paint Bucket mode because it invariably tracks door leaves, window sills or any inconsistent wall joins, etc. It's always faster just to go straight for the Poly mode and draw it manually.

On the other hand, try the same tool in the other program in question and so far I haven't been able to trip up the Paint Bucket mode. It just has a better understanding of what walls and openings are and what you're trying to do with the space tool.

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
WIP: This is a project (not so big), that we are working on, in a few weeks it will be completed and we will input more info. Reggarding the things that are in discussion in this thread:

1. All the drawings are derivated completely from the 3d model. Only annotations are 2d.

2. We used: walls, floors, roof faces, pillars, extrude, extrude along path, solids operations, fillet 3d, hardscape, fillet 2d (for nurbs paths) and hybrid symbols (stairs).

3. We used windows and doors, then we replaced it with our custom made symbols.

4. There are 4 models. 1 Model for kitchens. 1 Model for bathrooms. 1 Structural Model and 1 model for the architecture. Workgroup references used for link the four models in one called: Monitor model. It acts like a central model.

5. All classes are custom.

Render: maxwellrender via cinema4d.

In this extract aren't include the kitchens and bathrooms models.

6. I'll post our conclusions on the overall project in the near future. These conclusions will be over colaboration, modeling workflow and documentation. Until now most of them are positives.

That is really superb work Gog. Any chance you can post the Vectorworks file for me to examine how you set up your model?

Link to comment
Here's another annoying niggle of an example that no doubt comes down to the fact that VW is, at its heart, a general modeller.

When I use the space tool in VW I'm hardly ever able to use the Paint Bucket mode because it invariably tracks door leaves, window sills or any inconsistent wall joins, etc. It's always faster just to go straight for the Poly mode and draw it manually.

On the other hand, try the same tool in the other program in question and so far I haven't been able to trip up the Paint Bucket mode. It just has a better understanding of what walls and openings are and what you're trying to do with the space tool.

Good point! However it would be good if one could determine what elements are to be followed or not.....

Edited by Vincent C
Link to comment
However it would be good if one could determine what elements are to be followed or not.....

I don't want this. I don't want to have to walk my CAD program through every little step holding its hand the entire time. It should just know what the real boundaries of a room are. I shouldn't have to explain everything to it. I just want to get on with architecture.

Link to comment
However it would be good if one could determine what elements are to be followed or not.....

I don't want this. I don't want to have to walk my CAD program through every little step holding its hand the entire time. It should just know what the real boundaries of a room are. I shouldn't have to explain everything to it. I just want to get on with architecture.

Not by default, but as an option, eg. what happens when you want a space to pass a door ie 2 rooms as one space then you want it to not count that specific door/threshold inbetween.....(just one eg. for starters).

Just imagine you have the space tool the way you described earlier and come across this 'specific' situation...i can tell you there would be quite a few you's in your post about that..... :)

I think these programs should be intuitive by default but abundantly flexible in options. The classic example in all CAD Apps is the stair makers, remember a couple of years ago we were all ecstatic when they first appeared only to be frustrated because 80 percent of the stairs we draft happen to be slightly or greatly not standard and we couldn't make them with these new tools because they were not flexible enough and didn't offer the options we needed.....

The important thing is not a limited amount of options but that when you need to change them the options are presented in a clear, understandable and easy to find way.

Edited by Vincent C
Link to comment

Okay I was coming from a philosophical point of view. What invariably happens with the "options philosophy" is that you end up with tools that don't work as they should by default and a myriad of options (or workarounds) to make them do what they should of in the first place.

First and foremost these tools should work intelligently by default. Then we can talk about options.

In saying all that, from a practical point of view, it's extremely easy to implement what you describe. It doesn?t need to be included as an option of the Space tool settings but instead you would provide enclosing objects, such as walls/doors etc., with a parameter that allows you to turn off their affect (on an individual basis) on the Space tool as an enclosing object.

Link to comment

Agreed, practically that's the way to solve this specific problem, however i personally like (hate not being able too) have options so that i can decide how something looks or functions.

What we need is a way to have and create our own default options once, to be then used as templates for our own/countries specific needs.

Another example is the 'generate sections' function (this applies for all CAD apps i have encountered) i have never been able to generate sections to look the way i want, in any App (this is not only lack of competence :))

Both the ability to control what parts/classes/objects are shown and how/if they merge and line thickness control options are greatly inadequate. Bentley was fairly good at this however, a couple of years ago at least, but still far too complicated and time consuming to be effective/usable.

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...