stories 2012

[Christiaan]

I disagree that flexibility makes VW more powerful. The beneficial aspects of VW flexibility are eclipsed by the negative aspects, not in the least how difficult this 'flexibility' makes it to work in teams. On this front its flexibility makes VW very weak.

Being able to model things manually instead of having well made specialised intelligent tools to do the job doesn't make it powerful either. It makes it complicated and slow for the majority of things we need to model.

Flexibility on its own does not equate to more power. If VW' flexibility went hand in hand with a full suite of intelligent intuitive tools and the ability to easily work in teams then I would agree that its flexibility would make it more powerful.

Flexibility needs to be the icing on the cake, not the pudding.

[starling75]

VW is knife.

Revit and Archicad are powerfull chainsaws.

You can effectively cut down whole forest using chainsaw but for carving subtle wooden sculptures is better good knife.

I can agree that BIM tools in VW should work properly without bugs, but from my point of view folowing blindly Revit or Archicad way of doing things make no sense.

Diversity is good thing and VW = "swiss army knife" for small architectural praxis.

[img:left]http://swiss-army-discounts.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/wenger-giant-knife.jpg[/img]

[VincentCuclair]

I disagree that flexibility makes VW more powerful.

Flexibility needs to be the icing on the cake, not the pudding.

I guess flexibility is not the correct term, versatility is a better term in this regard.

When I mention flexibility/versatility I don't only mean when it comes to BIM but the whole process involved in creating a building. I think good parametric objects are a must for a BIM package to be good, however in comparing VWs with its competitors it is VWs versatility as well as its graphics that are so appealing and fitting for just my practice.

VW is knife.

Revit and Archicad are powerfull chainsaws.

You can effectively cut down whole forest using chainsaw but for carving subtle wooden sculptures is better good knife.

I can agree that BIM tools in VW should work properly without bugs, but from my point of view folowing blindly Revit or Archicad way of doing things make no sense.

Diversity is good thing and VW = "swiss army knife" for small architectural praxis.

Good analogue Bohdan!

Edited November 15, 2011 by Vincent C

[Christiaan]

It might be appealing for some practices but it doesn't equate to power. Power isn't the ability to do something in an endless number of ways. It's the ability to do more with less effort.

[starling75]

It might be appealing for some practices but it doesn't equate to power. Power isn't the ability to do something in an endless number of ways. It's the ability to do more with less effort.

more power = invest more

btw

You shouldn't expect that VW become next Archicad.

NNA already owns Archicad and Allplan. Why would NNA create duplicities....

I think, they will tailor their packages to suit needs of different market segments.

Edited November 15, 2011 by starling75

[VincentCuclair]

It might be appealing for some practices but it doesn't equate to power. Power isn't the ability to do something in an endless number of ways. It's the ability to do more with less effort.

True and VWs does this in a variety of ways but not in parametrics.....

[CipesDesign]

Interestingly, while I agree that the knife vs chainsaw analogy is fitting, I find that I am disturbed by the image of the mega-multi-tool (in a previous post in this thread). If that image represents VW's - which was my first impression- then I know why VW's is not as intuitive as it once was. I absolutely love my multi tool, but it still needs to fit in its small convenient case. By expanding to be "all tools" it would become, shall we say, a bit cumbersome...

[Chris D]

...Revit is almost 2 times more expensive..... VW is not that strong a BIM production tool but its flexibility, very good 2D and almost direct modeling 3D capabilities make it very powerfull designing tool.

This has been the way VW has been perceived until now - a budget end CAD program with a bit of BIM.

Trouble is, the near future of BIM is ALL or NOTHING.

The chatter about BIM has exploded in the UK this year. There are conferences every week and leader articles in every journal. Almost none of them mention Vectorworks, because nobody is suggesting that VW can play with the big boys.

It's no good talking about IFC and some rosy future of a level playing field - the big boys are not going to let you get a kick of their ball. Major contractors will settle on Revit or...well let's face it, Revit or nothing. Architects will work on Revit or they won't work at all.

As a Mac office using VW, we've had to bluff our way onto jobs that contractually require us to use AutoCAD. This is ok, because we just make sure our DWG output is good enough to thwart any questions. How on earth our we going to bluff it that we use Revit when we're sent Revit project files or asked to supply them?? Please sir, can we exchange IFC instead?... Not a chance.

[gester]

...Revit is almost 2 times more expensive..... VW is not that strong a BIM production tool but its flexibility, very good 2D and almost direct modeling 3D capabilities make it very powerfull designing tool.

This has been the way VW has been perceived until now - a budget end CAD program with a bit of BIM.

Trouble is, the near future of BIM is ALL or NOTHING.

The chatter about BIM has exploded in the UK this year. There are conferences every week and leader articles in every journal. Almost none of them mention Vectorworks, because nobody is suggesting that VW can play with the big boys.

It's no good talking about IFC and some rosy future of a level playing field - the big boys are not going to let you get a kick of their ball. Major contractors will settle on Revit or...well let's face it, Revit or nothing. Architects will work on Revit or they won't work at all.

As a Mac office using VW, we've had to bluff our way onto jobs that contractually require us to use AutoCAD. This is ok, because we just make sure our DWG output is good enough to thwart any questions. How on earth our we going to bluff it that we use Revit when we're sent Revit project files or asked to supply them?? Please sir, can we exchange IFC instead?... Not a chance.

you're mostly right, but that's why, as i understand it, ifc has been conceived as a cooperation tool to enable file exchanges between many apparently not (or hardly) compatible platforms.

there's something wrong in the state of denmark when a cad software application dictates the way to perform an engineering task.

i think the ifc standard development should be the highest priority of any cad software vendor.

or has autodesk got other plans

rob

Edited November 16, 2011 by gester

[Chris D]

as i understand it, ifc has been conceived as a cooperation tool to enable file exchanges between many apparently not (or hardly) compatible platforms or has autodesk got other plans

rob

Round tripping of IFC models between VW on a Mac and Revit on a PC is years away. I don't mean export and import, I mean round tripping.

The UK government will mandate BIM by 2015, but they won't mandate a level playing field - they can't because there isn't one.

Yes, Autodesk has other plans.

[VincentCuclair]

The chatter about BIM has exploded in the UK this year. There are conferences every week and leader articles in every journal. Almost none of them mention Vectorworks, because nobody is suggesting that VW can play with the big boys.

After having used Revit for a while I am inclined to agree with this, VWs is now quite far behind in Parametric BIM. The question is then is VWs supposed to be competeing with the big boys? It's a program intended for little 'boys' isn't it?!

Edited November 16, 2011 by Vincent C

[Christiaan]

You shouldn't expect that VW become next Archicad.

NNA already owns Archicad and Allplan. Why would NNA create duplicities....

I think, they will tailor their packages to suit needs of different market segments.

If you mean I shouldn't expect Vectorworks to have?along with its excellent 2D capabilities?a full suite of versatile intelligent standard architectural objects, the ability to work efficiently in groups and the ability to produce 2D and 3D documentation efficiently from a single model then what is Vectorworks Architect for and why is it pretending to aspire to this?

I don't know that Nemetschek are that worried about differentiating their products. Last I heard they like to keep their development reasonably independent. Buying ArchiCAD seemed like a move to buy market share, to stay relevant. In any case it's not ArchiCAD they need to worry about, it's Revit.

One of the major selling points of VWA is meant to be the ability to transition from 2D CAD to 3D BIM without having to make an all-or-nothing jump. The problem for us is twofold in my opinion.

Firstly, in reality this is more about VW making the transition to 3D BIM than it is about NV providing a software package that architects can use to make the transition.

Secondly, in making this transition, I think NV made a strategic mistake in believing that IFC was the highest priority; that interoperability between team members was the primary component of BIM. The primary component of BIM is the ability to produce the information in the first place! IFC should have been the last piece of the puzzle. The ability to produce our documentation from a single model (incl. intelligent objects and team work) should have been the first.

VWA is more likely to have been competing with Revit if they'd got these components in place sooner.

There is a third problem with this selling point: it probably doesn't attract that many new customers because if you're new to VW the advantage of being able to make a gradual transition from 2D CAD to 3D BIM is probably outweighed by the fact that you have to learn a new programme anyway.

[Christiaan]

The question is then is VWs supposed to be competeing with the big boys? It's a program intended for little 'boys' isn't it?!

Of course it needs to compete and play with them. We're a small practice but our competitors and team members will be using Revit and ArchiCAD.

If it can't compete or play we either end up out of business or joining them.

[VincentCuclair]

Of course it needs to compete and play with them.

If that is the case NVWs need to get their asses in gear, double the price of the Design modules and employ (another) bunch of wiz-kids.......... even though I hate AutoDesk, Revit graphics and Revit UI etc. I can't help admire the way they have developed their parametric design tools, it's going to be difficult to catch up!

Edited November 16, 2011 by Vincent C

[gester]

(..) The primary component of BIM is the ability to produce the information in the first place! IFC should have been the last piece of the puzzle. The ability to produce our documentation from a single model (incl. intelligent objects and team work) should have been the first.

(..)

imo the first sentence contradicts the third, and the middle one is the clue.

the information doesn't (and can't) depend on just one piece of software, otherwise all engineering projects' technologies should be the proprietary ones.

the future IS information AND communication. there's no use of information piece which can't be submitted and understood. i can't see better tool to fulfill this than ifc.

besides, nobody says the future is the 2d document. who knows what document type will serve the engineering processes in 5 or 10 years' time...

rob

[starling75]

Personally ... I think, that whole BIM marvel must one day reach its climax.

Parametric tools mimic real objects and there is no need to make them better than reality.

You can improve apps speed, interoperability, data sharing, GUI etc but virtual window will be always only symbolic representation of the real one.

Revit or any other app can't escape out of this reference frame.

vw doesn't have to be blazingly fast in the implementation of parametrics but they should do it consistently, with minimum bugs and with big portion of original ingenuity.

This whole run on BIM will softly land on flat part of the saturation curve of parametric functionality.

Just do it right

make it perfect and real ..

(original: http://youtu.be/S5SkI8zmFNw)

Edited November 16, 2011 by starling75

[mikatoa]

A long debate on the mention of Revit. It used to be AutoCAD. VW is still better than ACAD. End of 'story'. NVW should only promote Archicad for BIM. Let archicad users fight the BIM wars.

Pity though...I used to use a lot of the data functionality right from the minicad versions. Stopped as it wasnt going anywhere.

Right at the moment for a BIM programme I choose Revit.

[gester]

Personally ... I think, that whole BIM marvel must one day reach its climax.

Parametric tools mimic real objects and there is no need to make them better than reality.

You can improve apps speed, interoperability, data sharing, GUI etc but virtual window will be always only symbolic representation of the real one.

facing the time and money losses in the real building processes reaching the 30% mark and even above, i don't think the real objects can be separated from the virtual ones.

the whole bim hype is about inaccurate and missing information and the inability to communicate it properly while performing building engineering tasks in the real world.

so it's about money. 'big boys' think they can cut out a big piece of the market cake, 'smaller boys' would prefer cooperation and breadcrumbs.

rob

[Guest]

Id suggest a move encompassing the Engineering Professions (tasks), reasons Natural and Built Enviroments, Energy, Structure/Materials and Data Control, thats unless you enjoy breadcrumbs/noodles?

[Guest]

Trouble is, the near future of BIM is ALL or NOTHING.

Hmmm...not too sure about that....The take up for Revit Structural is s/low...as the majority of engineers still use 2D also its their choice how they choose to analyze the data (2D or 3D).IMO,I dont think Archicad/IFC will be prominant when the dust settles on Engineering BIM.The (funny) thing is Ive been saying this for years...

[gester]

Id suggest a move encompassing the Engineering Professions (tasks), reasons Natural and Built Enviroments, Energy, Structure/Materials and Data Control, thats unless you enjoy breadcrumbs/noodles?

and this is the next reason to look for tools that include all these input sources you list into a single information pool. a kinda 'bridge over troubled water'.

rob

Edited November 17, 2011 by gester

[VincentCuclair]

I think 3D is the future, at the moment that is BIM however what comes after BIM? As long as VWs can deliver (3D) 'tools' that can produce what is needed at the present time, as efficiently as the competition (or at least close to) it will survive.......

[Chris D]

NVW should only promote Archicad for BIM.

The problem is that VW/MiniCAD was a budget programme, attractive to smaller practices, that have now grown up.

We use VW for large projects, we work with very large contractors. We're stuck with what is now a large investment in VW in terms of Apple hardware, software, training, and most important...experience. Like every other medium sized practice we need to move to BIM, and we'd prefer VW to evolve into a BIM package rather than throw away our investment and start again.

If VW ARCHITECT needs to cost what Revit does, so be it.

Generally speaking, Nemetschek need to get their strategy right for Allplan, ArchiCAD and Vectorworks. In my view they should all be merged around a common core, which has architectural, engineering, thermal analysis modules etc, and let people pay for the modules they need. They can fork VW Fundamentals if they still need a budget CAD package in their stable for the BIM naysayers.

[billtheia]

...If VW ARCHITECT needs to cost what Revit does, so be it...

If VW winds up costing what Revit does, there will be little to keep existing VW users and those on the fence from choosing Revit. Whether we like it or not, ACAD & Revit are the industry standards. While cost isn't the only reason people choose VW, it is probably the biggest reason that they do so. Above a certain price point, people will choose the industry standard just so that they don't suffer all of the file exchange problems that exist when using non-industry-standard CAD software. At best, people would choose ArchiCAD because it's already a mature product with a complete tool set.

Nemetschek already has the strategy right. They have VW for the lower portion of the market and ArchCAD for the upper part. If VW is not suiting your needs, you should be seriously considering switching to something that does. While you might be perfectly happy to pay more for VW, I suspect that most of the VW users out there would not be interested in paying $5000-$6000 for it. Given that most architectural firms are small, I suspect that there is a big market for inexpensive software with moderate capabilities.

What does all of this have to do with Stories anyway?

[VincentCuclair]

If VW is not suiting your needs, you should be seriously considering switching to something that does.

I am inclined to agree with this however if the design module were to cost, say double of what it costs now to get rid of bugs, instability and faulty/abscent functionality it would definitely be worth it! And in the process save a whole bunch of time (= money).

Subsequently this would make VWs an interesting alternative for many (again).