vectorworks, solibir, bim & ifc

[digitalcarbon]

trying to show one guys experience at jumping in to ifc for a upcoming project and the problems encountered. problems w/ my lack of know how, limitation of software (vw and slolibri etc).

this is my first attempt at exporting to ifc, my first attempt at doing a project this big and first attempt at using youtube and screen flow. so it is crude. please excuse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2g7_8tbmWY

[Benson Shaw]

Thanks, DM. At least the basics work. Seems that interoperability is well demonstrated, at least with VW and Solibre.

-B

[digitalcarbon]

i am going to try to do more as i go along w/ the project. if anyone has any suggestions...

[Assemblage]

Does proposed vs existing in the DTM make it through?

[Jeffrey W Ouellette]

When exported via IFC, the geometry for the current "3D Display" setting for the Site model is exported. That is, if you have "3D Display" set to "Existing Only", then that geometry only will be exported. Currently, the IFC export is focused on the 3D geometry and not the 2D geometry which can display the existing/proposed conditions in different ways via contour lines.

[Jeffrey W Ouellette]

Mike,

I must admit that this is ambitious, but I think the use of the Vectorworks Viewer may be better suited to sharing this level of model and information with other parties.

While IFC can do what you are trying to accomplish, there are some limits to the current implementation in Vectorworks Architect, and some logical issues to consider when trying to share this type of data.

1) Primarily, though not exclusively, the intent of the use of IFC in Vectorworks, is to exchange the information of one (1) particular Building, not several, on one (1) site. The hierarchy of the IFC specification focuses on this. (Project > Site > Building > Storey > Space)

2) While it is technically possible to have multiple Buildings in/on the same Site in IFC, Vectorworks Architect 2010 SP4 currently does NOT support this. I hope to solve this limitation, but it does require rethinking some pretty significant data structures within Vectorworks and would NOT be easy.

3) The use of Space objects to represent Buildings is interesting, but the automated IFC translation from VW limits this usefulness. The Space object is meant to be a sub-object of an overall Building, not a Building in and of itself.

4) A better idea would be to model each building on a separate layer, then export each building/layer from VW as a separate IFC file. Then, in Solibri Model Checker, you can combine all the IFC files into one site, will the correct spatial relationships to each other and the site. Then save this as an .smc file for distribution.

5) For a site model such as this, with multiple buildings, wouldn't it be better to use the Massing Model object for each building? That way each building can have multiple floors and the gross ares for each building can be calculated and scheduled. If necessary, you can even stack Massing Models to produce building with multiple functions/forms, or use the new 2010 profile group functionality to create custom building shapes in the roof group of the object.

6) Also, using VW and the Viewer, you can color code the buildings, provide 2D labels for top/plan views (currently NOT supported in an IFC export) and even have database worksheets for everyone to view.

[Benson Shaw]

Makes sense, Jeffrey and thanks for the workflow outline, but:

I don't know why, but people seem reluctant to acquire and use viewers. I can't get a public agency or a repro shop or an ACAD design firm to use the VW viewer to explore or print my docs. I'm in pdf/dwg export for all that.

Maybe the VW Viewer needs to be pushed more often and to a wider audience (by users? by NNA?)

-B

[Jeffrey W Ouellette]

Benson,

What's the difference if it is the Vectorworks Viewer or the Solibri Model Viewer (or a DWF, or DWG viewer for that matter)?

I agree we could do better to promote and distribute the Viewer .

[digitalcarbon]

wow! great info jeff. this is what i was hoping for. i will adjust my game plan.

the youtube link was also sent to roger grant at csi & solibri

if the project holds up, im am just going to hammer it through.

as to the vw viewer, if i ask others to get the viewer then they will say "no...you should get my viewer"

this way i can say "we should all use ifc" hence, solibri.

the neutral zone

[Benson Shaw]

Jeffery - I can't personally say what the dif is to users. This is a mystery to me, too. I'm not even sure they would download Solibre (never asked anyone to do that). So I will keep suggesting the Viewer. Maybe it's fear that "new" software will somehow screw up a system which already works. Maybe it's fear that the software will be difficult or time consuming. One factor may be that they just can't be bothered and want me to provide files in a format compatible with their software.

-B

[Robert Anderson]

Chris, I don't know where you got your information on IFC:

IFC was developed to provide one way communications for Architects on Archicad only.

..but it is incorrect. As a member of the board of the BuildingSMART alliance (the US branch of BuildingSMART), I can assure you that Archicad, while a supporter of IFC, is by no means its only or even primary beneficiary. IFC solves problems of interoperability that Vectorworks does not and cannot.

[Itchy]

Is there anything detailing what the limitations/uses of the viewer is?

I know that it can view sheet layers, is that all?

Surely there should be a bit more of a blurb on the download page letting people know what it can do for them?

[digitalcarbon]

i think everyone is forgetting that ideally this modeled system would go to Solibri Model Checker for a real test.

i am assuming that if the Solibri Model Viewer can read it then Model Checker can.

[Jeffrey W Ouellette]

Mike,

First, Solibri v5 and v6 are Viewer and Checker in one. The free version gives everyone "viewer" capability, but a paid license gives you access to the "checker" tools.

Secondly, I must repeat my previous inquiry about the purpose of the model. The problem with your original idea/trial is that the data structure of the model doesn't support the practical data structure of the IFC spec, or implementation in VW export. So, Solibri won't let you really "check" anything of usefulness because the checker rules are written based on properly following IFC specs/best modeling practices.

If you adjust to my previous recommendations, I think you need to figure out, first, what kind of data you are trying to get out of the model and the workflow, before adding any more detail.

[Robert Anderson]

Chris Manus said:

You would do better trying to find out the real reasons why Governments,clients and real engineers are supporting single file format delivery and then be honest to VW users? and Your "build smart" means squat to me and others.

Chris:

The truth is that many government organizations (GSA in the US, Senatti in Finland, Staatsbygg in Norway, etc.) are working very hard and spending real money on open (read: IFC-based) interoperable solutions. I have attended many conferences and workshops, and sat around the table with a bunch of expensive guys. Agencies don't throw that kind of money at stuff they don't intend to use.

The truth is that some state- and university-based agencies have tried to implement (as you say) "single file-format delivery" or (as I prefer to call it) vendor specific BIM delivery. The most high-profile of these was the state of Texas, which published a Revit-based standard and then, only weeks later, retracted it, and re-assigned the guy in charge of it. Expensive and embarrassing (for someone).

The truth is that establishing open, extra-proprietary standards to do something as complex as design and build a building take time, and it's a two-steps-forward-and-a-step-back kind of process. Mixing politics and technology is a frustrating process, but there's no other way to do it.

It may not be important to you, Chris, but I think you should speak for yourself.

[islandmon]

One only needs to look to the US Military for innumerable poignant examples of costly "interoperable" failures/disasters.

At the beginning of WWII necessity demanded that limited resources be conserved.

Therefore, used oil & gasoline drums were logistically re-cycled whenever possible.

When the Marines landed on remote islands ... so did all those 55 gals. oil drums filled with their precious water.

Unfortunately, detergent chemistry was in it's infancy.

The soaps available were insufficient to adequately cleanse the hydrocarbons from the containers.

And... moving 55 gal drums filled with oily liquid... across blood soaked beaches and over muddy trails really sucked...

"it's a two-steps-forward-and-a-step-back kind of process".

[Christiaan]

One only needs to look to the internet and HTML/CSS/Javascript for an example of what we be achieved via open interoperability.

[islandmon]

To clarify ... my observations were not political ... but representative of a general theme...

that even in matters of extreme circumstance involving life & death decisions...

the road to chaos and disaster is very often paved with good intentions.

Containers that work successfully in one scenario may not be appropriate for another.