BIM ? what is it really? - conference in London, UK - 26 June

[Christiaan]

This should be a very good conference, especially if you have somebody you'd like to take along in order to explain to the them the potential of BIM:

http://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showday&day=26&month=6&year=2009

[Jonathan Pickup]

it's sponsored by Autodesk, so watch out for the marketing. you might find BIM defined in terms of Revit.

[Christiaan]

Yeah but it's also under the buildingSMART alliance and includes a keynote from Richard Saxon, who I've heard speak on BIM before, and he's a forceful advocate of interoperability via an open file format.

In any case, if we get any blinkered talk from Bentley or Autodesk people it will just be a good chance to let em know what I think.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Christiaan

[Bob Holtzmann]

I'm currently going through a Revit instructional manual. It goes through the BIM rigamarole, how if you change one thing on the model, it updates everything else. But later on, the book suggests that it is not a good idea to model everything, and sometimes it's better to draw 2D details as needed.

Hmm, 3D modeling, plus a 2D drawing environment for misc. details? What a novel idea!

[Jonathan Pickup]

Christiaan, is that Richard Saxon from BDP? if so say hello to him for me if you get a chance.

[Christiaan]

Is it is indeed. I will say hi. I was speaking to him just the other day. Is that where you used to work? They're doing some amazing things with BIM.

[Christiaan]

Hmm, 3D modeling, plus a 2D drawing environment for misc. details? What a novel idea!

Maybe so but it's a pity ArchiCAD and Revit have leapfrogged VW in this regard. These applications are true virtual building modellers where you derive everything from the virtual 3D model with the click of a button. The point at which you need to work in 2D is the icing on the cake. Vectorworks Architect, on the other hand, is still mostly stuck in the manual drafting metaphor of CAD (i.e. we're still in the business of drafting instead concentrating on the design of the model), forcing NNA to market it as a "flexible" tool that doesn't "limit you to a certain workflow": http://www.nemetschek.net/bim/index.php

... With BIM, your 2D drawings, 3D drawings, and project data are linked into a simple, yet flexible design environment. ... Unlike other BIM programs, Vectorworks Architect does not limit you to a certain workflow. You can easily work in 2D using your existing CAD standards, design in 3D with free-form surface and solids modeling tools, or merge 2D and 3D in Vectorworks hybrid design.

I just hope the good folks at NNA haven't fallen for their own spin.

[Christiaan]

Or to put it another way, "3D [building] modeling, plus a 2D drawing environment for misc. details" describes ArchiCAD/Revit. VWA, on the other hand, is currently more accurately described as a 2D drawing environment, plus 3D modelling.

[mike m oz]

What the program is capable of is determined by the capability of the user. These users don't seem to have too many problems producing very good models:

- Jonathan Reeves: http://www.jrarchitecture.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

- Francois Levy: http://www.nemetschek.net/bim/presentations.php

- Nathan Kipnis: http://www.nemetschek.net/bim/presentations.php

These examples also show what can be done by capable users:

- Overviews: http://www.nemetschek.net/library/index.php?movie=overviews

- Case Studies: http://www.nemetschek.net/news/casestudies.php

- Projects: http://www.nemetschek.net/bim/projects.php

[Christiaan]

Not sure what your point is Mike. I can produce good models in VW too.

I could probably build a good house with just at axe, given enough time. That doesn't make it the best way to build a house.

What the program is capable of is determined by the capability of the user.

Er right, so the tool has nothing to do with it?

[Bob Holtzmann]

The use of the word "BIM" has given proof to the theory given to us by Laurie Anderson (perhaps quoting William S. Burroughs), when she said that "Language is a virus from outer space". In this case, Autodesk's marketing department has used the word BIM to fulfill their promise to the stockholders to become the world's leader of 2D and 3D software.

If you go to Japan, nobody in the design and construction business has ever heard of the word BIM, perhaps because there is no language equivalent, or more likely because they are out of Autodesk's marketing reach.

I am presently weighing what Revit lacks from Vectorworks (in case I have to work in a Revit office). So far, I've found that Revit lacks any visual grids or snap grids - all of the snapping is linear from the cursor. Also, it does not have Vectorworks' guides. As I explore Revit more, I suspect I will be grinding a very sharp axe in the process.

[Christiaan]

I would agree, but only in the sense that ArchiCAD has been doing a usable form of BIM long before Autodesk or anybody else started calling it that.

If you're saying BIM is a word with no substance then I'd entirely disagree. Using a virtual model to derive all information is a huge step beyond the drafting board metaphor of CAD.

In any case it was mainly Jerry Laiserin who helped popularise the term:

http://www.laiserin.com/features/issue15/feature01.php

If Graphisoft hadn't made the mistake of asserting intellectual property rights over "virtual building" we'd probably be using that term instead.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Christiaan

[Bob Holtzmann]

It seems that Jerry Laiserin and ArchiCad are on track with defining BIM as virtual building modeling.

But the borders blurr when CAD programs like AllPlan, Microstation and AutoCad go declaring themselves as BIM. And even further when BIM is described as an attitude rather than a computer platform. And no one's in authority to clearly define that border, so it shifts freely with no standards, so that BIM might become a buzzword with no meaning, like SNAFU.

There are great possibilities of using building information in construction. I have not yet seen a way of linking BIM directly to the construction manager's schedule, as a way of linking the trades to the building model in a 4D scheduling environment. This could save big on time, money and materials (and the environment). But I guess for now, BIM mainly serves the role of coordination between A & E, as a 3D version of CAD plan backgrounds.

[Jeffrey W Ouellette]

No application IS BIM. Many types of applications can be used as BIM tools, tools that are focused on particular interactions with the data model.

I said 'data model', NOT 'model data', on purpose.

Building Information Modeling IS Information Modeling, as in creating a database. In the case of AEC, the database is focused on the semantics of creating an analogy to, or a description of, a "building". Too often, we tend to focus more on the literal digital geometric analogy, than on the information itself.

Any application that can tie into the database that describes the building, whether is is geometry-based, or not, can be used as a method/mechanism to view, report, or add viable information to the description of the building model.

Not every application "builds" the model. Some "BIM applications" take the database, or a snapshot of it, and perform some kind of analysis, report, or presentation on it.

Using VW and Excel, a user could create COBIE-compliant worksheets that allow a contractor or owner to qualify and quantify the MEP assets in a proposed design. They don't NEED direct access to the digital geometry model, just a report extracted from it. What makes it a BIM is the use of an open data standard, IFC, and a standardized reporting format, COBIE, along with software utilities in either applications, or standalone, to extract and transform the desired data into a desired format for use.

In the US, the National Institute of Building Sciences and the buildingSMART alliance, in the form of the National BIM Standard, alongside the AIA's Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and contract E202, have very thoroughly described what BIM IS.

Other entities in the world, working together with buildingSMART International, are in sync with these efforts and descriptions.

The data model is one part. The business processes/practices are another part. The standards to guide both of these are the third part. Together, BIM is defined. Pull out any of the three pieces and you don't have BIM anymore, just fancy CAD, or a smoother, but platform-restricted, project delivery.

When standards are used, then a team of users in the process of designing, constructing, and managing a building, can take the data generated and, over time, use it, enrich it. This means that an Architect could use Vectorworks to create the building design, a Structural engineer could use Revit Structure to create the structural design, an MEP engineer could use Bentley Building Systems to design mechanical and electrical systems, the contractor could use Vico's suite of products to do 4D and 5D analysis and tracking, and the owner could use TMA Systems CMMS to track assets and schedule maintenance for equipment.

Believe it or not, but it IS possible to go down this road TODAY. You can export an IFC model from Vectorworks 2009 and it can be imported, with a relatively high degree of fidelity into ArchiCAD 12 (OK but not the best), Revit Architecture 2010 (OK, but with different problems), AutoCAD Architecture 2010 (better than Revit or ArchiCAD), or Bentley Architecture V8i (very good).

The user can browse and overlay the Vectorworks IFC model with other IFC models from these programs using Solibri Model Checker or Autodesk Navisworks 2010.

So quit arguing about which application is BIM or isn't. The question is WHO of YOU are using BIM, or not?

The tools are there. The processes and practices have been codified. The standards are in place to govern. The only thing missing are the users willing to dive in to put them together and do the work. The quick (but not easy) way out is to blame a platform and say BIM is only possible if you use one platform for the whole process. But that is a cop-out. Work together, work smart, and the tools shouldn't matter anymore.

VW isn't BIM, but it is a BIM tool. Revit isn't BIM, but it is a BIM tool. ArchiCAD isn't BIM, but it is a BIM tool.

The question is... Do you know how to use the tools?

[Bob Holtzmann]

Thanks for rescuing me from my ignorant bliss, Jeffrey! And introducing me to new acronyms like COBIE -- I'll have to research that one. Hopefully, they are a non-profit organization, like IFC.

The AIA's contract E202 does describe exchanging BIM models, but those same documents can only be accessed in MS Windows running MS Word (and inaccessible to Mac OSX).

So I am wary of where the AIA is taking us -- its latest Architectural Graphic Standards, in the chapter on BIM, has lots of advertising for Autodesk Revit, and not a word about Vectorworks. I'm all for fair game and free choice of BIM tools, but I'm not sure about the AIA. My local chapter is currently encouraging the local architects to learn Revit, through seminars and a local volunteer BIM project. I'll stay with it, although I'm a bit scared of Revit 2010 (some of the online user's comments compared it to AutoCad 13, and have daily crashes).

But I know what works for me, and my own tools are very reliable, and hardly crash at all.

[Christiaan]

Jeffery, I'm not arguing about which applications are BIM. I'm arguing about which are workable BIM tools.

The fact of the matter is VW does not do virtual building modelling well and therefore does not yet provide a good foundation for BIM.

NNA have taken the route of gradual change rather than revolution and while that means we can all get on with the old way of doing things it also means we are missing key bits of the puzzle; unfortunately one of the most important: virtual building modelling. Whether gradual change was the right way or not I don't know but what it has meant in practice is that the first step of BIM, modelling the building, is not something we are well positioned to be getting on with in our office. And that's a shame because if we were we would be in a far better position to transition to BIM (and we wouldn't be investigating other solutions).

Some on this forum may argue that they're doing it already but free-form modelling is not building modelling and we're in no position to free-form model our projects. We need workable virtual building modelling.

Too often, we tend to focus more on the literal digital geometric analogy, than on the information itself.

I would argue the opposite: that NNA has dropped the ball a little on this, to the point that you now find yourself in the position of focusing on the data and talking down the geometry.

What good is data if you can't model it in the first place?

Still, I await v2010 with great anticipation.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Christiaan

[Jeffrey W Ouellette]

Christiaan,

I am not talking down the geometry. But I think you are overstating the details, the bells and whistles, of specific features of specific workflows, in specific applications, and ignoring the more relevant big picture.

I take issue with your persistent negativity toward VW as a BIM tool. I have tried to show in my BIM in Practice project files that there are valid tools and workflows, today, in VW, to create digital geometric analogies.

VW does do "virtual building" well. But it does it differently than any of our competitors, and that is OK. Why should we all work the same way? I reject such insistence that VW, or specific features, need to be a clone of a competitor just because YOU feel the competition's workflow is preferable. Every BIM tool utilizes different technology, at its core, to implement different features and workflows that are tightly integrated.

I have a great deal of respect for the technology that our competition does offer, but first and foremost, I think there is always an option to do it differently, in some cases better, than they do, and do it in a way that is consistent with VW technology and workflows.

If you don't feel that VW is a viable BIM tool, it is your opinion. I think it is an erroneous opinion and I think you just need to learn how to use VW better, smarter, to get the most "BIM" out of it. Otherwise, you know you have other options.

I don't deny that VW has room to improve and grow, but there are so many perspectives and factors involved in accomplishing this, at a global market scale, that having an entire community being taken hostage by one stubborn, vociferous user's opinions is not reasonable.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Jeffrey W Ouellette

[mike m oz]

On the score of modeling I doubt that either Archicad or Revit could model this slab and footing arrangement from a project of mine.

[Christiaan]

I am not talking down the geometry.

Geometry is a key aspect of BIM and every time I bring it up in relation to VW I?m advised to stop focussing on it. Seems like talking it down to me.

But I think you are overstating the details, the bells and whistles, of specific features of specific workflows, in specific applications, and ignoring the more relevant big picture.

But I'm not even talking about bells and whistles. I'm talking about simple things like 3D windows that display properly in 2D, 3D stairs that work in multi-storey buildings, or even walls with joins that don?t break. These tools have to work properly or we can?t even use some of them.

NNA have a disadvantage in that VWA, at its core, is a general modeler and not a building modeler. This is a disadvantage because it?s too easy to fall back on free-form modelling as a workaround for 3D tools that don?t work properly.

Graphisoft have the advantage of not being able to ship without these tools working properly because they can?t full back on free-form 3D.

The answer to this, from what I can see, is to ferment a culture at NNA of saying we won?t ship unless these tools work properly. Based on your comments this doesn?t appear to be on the horizon.

I take issue with your persistent negativity toward VW as a BIM tool. I have tried to show in my BIM in Practice project files that there are valid tools and workflows, today, in VW, to create digital geometric analogies.

I?ve never said VW isn?t a valid BIM tool. I?m saying it?s not up to a standard that allows us to use it faster than 2D (there are just too many things that don't work as expected and we don't have time to work around these problems in free-form 3D).

VW does do "virtual building" well.

Okay this is just plain wrong. You yourself have admitted that ArchiCAD is miles ahead in this department:

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

But it does it differently than any of our competitors, and that is OK. Why should we all work the same way? I reject such insistence that the VW, or specific features, need to be a clone of a competitor just because YOU feel the competition's workflow is preferable. Every BIM tool utilizes different technology, at its core, to implement different features and workflows that are tightly integrated.

This is a straw man. I expect nothing more than for NNA to listen to their customers, including myself, and make their own mind up.

If you don't feel that VW is a viable BIM tool, it is your opinion. I think it is an erroneous opinion and I think you just need to learn how to use VW better, smarter, to get the most out of it. Otherwise, go exercise your freedom as a consumer in an open marketplace.

This is the kind of attitude I expect from open source programmers who have no appreciation of user interface design, puzzling at why I don't think it's acceptable. It?s not the kind of attitude I expect from a company like NNA. Fancy telling an informed customer that their ?opinion? on viability for their office is ?wrong.? Do you really think you?re in a position to tell me we just don?t know how to use the tool properly?

I don?t want to advise changing software because we already have a huge investment in VW. Sorry for daring to suggest that we?d like VWA to be different.

I don't deny that VW has room to improve and grow, but there are so many perspectives and factors involved in accomplishing this that having an entire community being taken hostage by one stubborn, vociferous user's opinions is not reasonable.

Well, I guess you?ve already tried to get rid of my opinions with brute force. The other way is to paint me as a hostage taker. Nice. At least you have some allies here who see criticism of VWA as a religious affront.

[Jeffrey W Ouellette]

Christiaan,

OK. I give. You are relentless and obviously have more time and stamina to argue than I can muster.

I see the glass as half full. You can turn it over and empty the rest out, if you wish.

[Ozzie]

Graphisoft have the advantage of not being able to ship without these tools working properly because they can?t full back on free-form 3D.[/Quote]

Would not be any third party add ons that had any thing to do with it?

I expect nothing more than for NNA to listen to their customers, including myself

As I have said before - cough up and become a current customer

I cannot believe it is possible for someone who is not using the latest version to assert NNA listens to them at all

I don?t want to advise changing software because we already have a huge investment in VW

Yeah sure - all on VW 2009

At least you have some allies here who see criticism of VWA as a religious affront

It is not that way at all - just people using a tool and getting on with it and doing their job as well as they can with THEIR tool of choice for THEIR reasons

AND BTW some of them are really good decent people who mainly go out of their way to help others whilst others rely on their premise of the whole world revolves around me - look at me - look at me - listen to me - listen to me

The attached nothing to do with the wonders of BIM no doubt - it was though a bit of hard work

[Christiaan]

I would certainly plead guilty to relentlessness.

[Christiaan]

Would not be any third party add ons that had any thing to do with it?

I think you misunderstood my point. I'm not sure what addons have to with it.

I cannot believe it is possible for someone who is not using the latest version to assert NNA listens to them at all

See my previous repeated responses in earlier discussions.

Yeah sure - all on VW 2009

I'm wasn't talking about the money. I was talking about time and experience.

It is not that way at all - just people using a tool and getting on with it and doing their job as well as they can with THEIR tool of choice for THEIR reasons

So remind me, what exactly is the problem you have with my criticisms and suggestions for VWA?

AND BTW some of them are really good decent people who mainly go out of their way to help others whilst others rely on their premise of the whole world revolves around me - look at me - look at me - listen to me - listen to me

The world is very black and white for you isn't it.

[Christiaan]

It's worth pointing out how bizarre this thread reads too. I was simply addressing Bob's initial comparison with Revit, etc.

I guess if I'd towed the party line I wouldn't be accused of having invalid opinions.

It's a real shame we can't discuss the strengths and weaknesses of VWA without hurting people's sense of choices or being accused of hostage taking.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Christiaan

[Christiaan]

On the score of modeling I doubt that either Archicad or Revit could model this slab and footing arrangement from a project of mine.

Maybe, maybe not, but I'm not hugely interested in what VW can do better than ArchiCAD and Revit. That's not going to lead to any discussion on how VW could be improved.

It helps with understanding, which is great, but my main objective is to see VW improved.