stories 2012

[gester]

you don't have to make yourself any clearer. we simply have different bim expectations (and maybe definitions).

you're but right in the vw development estimation. it's still not dynamic enough.

rob

[Christiaan]

we simply have different bim expectations (and maybe definitions).

We don't. I want the same thing out of BIM that you do and we have the same definition of big BIM. All I'm arguing about is how to get to that point.

[Dieter @ DWorks]

Christiaan is right, BIM is getting the (2D) Information out of the (3D) Building Model. BIM is also getting worksheets etc... out of the building model. And for that last one, IFC can help. IFC is not BIM but just a transportation method to get the building model with it's information attached (BIM) into another program that can read the building model and it's information. There is no little or big bim, it's just that you don't need to implement BIM 100%, but our path must lead to that.

You must see bim as:

* You have a Building Model.

* This Building Model holds Information.

* This information can be anything: the shape (model) itself, but also other parameters like the strength of materials etc...

* We use BIM by getting the Information out of the Building Model, by presentations of the Building Model, or by worksheets for the other stuff.

* We transport our BIM to other programs by IFC where we can get other info out of it, or getting it in a different way.

The biggest problem is with the IFC transportation! For it to work, all programs (VW, ACAD, ...) need to implement the IFC standard so that you can get exact the same out of each program. This will never happen because

* Not all things in a building model can be described by IFC at this moment. Maybe we will get there once...

* Each software put's their own extra stuff in it, and this stuff can't be translated to IFC, so you'll always end up losing information.

[Jeffrey W Ouellette]

I'll keep posting this until y'all start paying attention:

http://buildingsmart-tech.org/certification/ifc-certification-2.0/ifc2x3-cv-v2.0-certification

http://buildingsmart-tech.org/certification/ifc-certification-2.0/ifc2x3-cv-v2.0-certification/participants

http://buildingsmart-tech.org/implementation/implementations

[Christiaan]

IFC means nothing to us, as has always been the case. None of our consultants want or need it and none of our clients want or need it. This may change in the future but what has always been the case is that producing our information economically from a single model would be invaluable.

I find it incredible that a new form of sharing information is and has been viewed as important or even more important than the ability to economically produce the information in the first place.

[gester]

Christiaan is right, BIM is getting the (2D) Information out of the (3D) Building Model. BIM is also getting worksheets etc... out of the building model.(..)

no, it's not. it's only flattening the information. the real bim is using the 3d parametrized model in contacts with the building authorities and with the general contractor on the building site.

rob

[Guest]

Well you havent yet posted certification.... yep and paying is the operative word as the increased costs filter down to the end user.

The good thing about being a Design Engineer (Civil/Structural/Environmental) and Builder it's my choice as to what (How) Software is used and the new codes reflect that....LOL, it will be like the old days when the client gets 2 Quotes... one with the increased costs and a lower one without.

[Guest]

IFC means nothing to us, as has always been the case. None of our consultants want or need it and none of our clients want or need it. This may change in the future but what has always been the case is that producing our information economically from a single model would be invaluable.

I find it incredible that a new form of sharing information is and has been viewed as important or even more important than the ability to economically produce the information in the first place.

Well, we agree on something...maybe its about propping up the other Nem software that no-body uses?

[Christiaan]

Christiaan is right, BIM is getting the (2D) Information out of the (3D) Building Model. BIM is also getting worksheets etc... out of the building model.(..)

no, it's not. it's only flattening the information. the real bim is using the 3d parametrized model in contacts with the building authorities and with the general contractor on the building site.

But who cares? Why get so hooked up on what's real BIM and what's not? It's a pointless exercise in semantics if you can't economically produce the model in the first place.

[gester]

i'll tell you why.

the architect's duty is to provide full (i repeat: full) building information, preferably with the 3d model, because it's able to store every bit of information possible.

that's the information pool to share with all the other involved parties.

anything you deliver as a 2d is a voluntary choice of yours. you do not have the idea what the other party really requires. i'm in this business for exactly 30 years now, and i've seen them all (ok, almost all ). some require, say, the distance measure from the middle of the road, some from the field surveyor posts, and some from the nearby apple-tree (pun intended ).

we've delivered a window schedule to our investor. they wanted more information about handles, about their colour, about the corner post. everything is in the model, but just these parameters are missing in the schedule, because we didn't consider them important for the bid. but they want it this way.

we are losing valuable time correcting the schedules. would we enhance the model on the bim server, every party could retrieve the information they exactly need, and not depending on other party's imagination.

rob

[Dieter @ DWorks]

I'll keep posting this until y'all start paying attention:

http://buildingsmart-tech.org/certification/ifc-certification-2.0/ifc2x3-cv-v2.0-certification/participants

Status is In Progress. This means that it's not fully implemented. Plus all those extra things each software adds?

[Dieter @ DWorks]

Christiaan is right, BIM is getting the (2D) Information out of the (3D) Building Model. BIM is also getting worksheets etc... out of the building model.(..)

no, it's not. it's only flattening the information. the real bim is using the 3d parametrized model in contacts with the building authorities and with the general contractor on the building site.

rob

So you say it yourself: you transport the building model and others get the information out of it.

Getting an elevation out of the model is bim. You get the information out of the model. So if a contractor needs the elevation, it can get it. So you are doing bim. And transport it through ifc.

[gester]

(..)

Getting an elevation out of the model is bim. You get the information out of the model. So if a contractor needs the elevation, it can get it. So you are doing bim. And transport it through ifc.

you miss one small thing: 'delivering' is something different from 'getting'.

you have to deliver ALL information. the other party is getting only information they need.

i don't see any better tool to achieve it as ifc.

but hold on: the corporate bim server is way better. but it's a static 3d model. any movement with it requires an ifc.

rob

[Dieter @ DWorks]

(..)

Getting an elevation out of the model is bim. You get the information out of the model. So if a contractor needs the elevation, it can get it. So you are doing bim. And transport it through ifc.

you miss one small thing: 'delivering' is something different from 'getting'.

you have to deliver ALL information. the other party is getting only information they need.

i don't see any better tool to achieve it as ifc.

but hold on: the corporate bim server is way better. but it's a static 3d model. any movement with it requires an ifc.

rob

'Delivering' is the same as transporting your model, so IFC is the transportation method and not the BIM (Buidling Information Model) itself. Who gets the elevation out of the BIM and with what program doesn't matter here.

Also a bim server is just a way to store the BIM in a central place, it's not the BIM itself in some way.

[Christiaan]

i'll tell you why.

the architect's duty is to provide full (i repeat: full) building information, preferably with the 3d model, because it's able to store every bit of information possible.

that's the information pool to share with all the other involved parties.

That doesn't answer my question.

It's like you're telling us we should care about what blueprint machine to buy when we don't even produce negatives to print from.

[gester]

(..)

Getting an elevation out of the model is bim. You get the information out of the model. So if a contractor needs the elevation, it can get it. So you are doing bim. And transport it through ifc.

you miss one small thing: 'delivering' is something different from 'getting'.

you have to deliver ALL information. the other party is getting only information they need.

i don't see any better tool to achieve it as ifc.

but hold on: the corporate bim server is way better. but it's a static 3d model. any movement with it requires an ifc.

rob

'Delivering' is the same as transporting your model, so IFC is the transportation method and not the BIM (Buidling Information Model) itself. Who gets the elevation out of the BIM and with what program doesn't matter here.

Also a bim server is just a way to store the BIM in a central place, it's not the BIM itself in some way.

well, it's kinda splitting hairs

to get the information required for the bim way you have to put it into a 3d model. the ifc is a way to secure the information required for bim during transportation.

rob

[gester]

i'll tell you why.

the architect's duty is to provide full (i repeat: full) building information, preferably with the 3d model, because it's able to store every bit of information possible.

that's the information pool to share with all the other involved parties.

That doesn't answer my question.

It's like you're telling us we should care about what blueprint machine to buy when we don't even produce negatives to print from.

yes, it's an important issue: who should manage information stored in a model?

less important is who and in what form is retrieving it.

rob

[VincentCuclair]

To get back to the topic, i think it boils down to the fact that VWs is released with parametric tools (big BIM) that are not capable of proper big BIM (ie. 2D/3D output) eg. the Roof tool. One wonders, why bother, why not just use the excellent 3D and 2D tools that already exist, workarounds needed for this already basically do this anyway?!

I think the introduction of stories is an unavoidable necessity for the further development of big BIM, lets just hope it means a substantial increase in the speed of development of big BIM in VWs.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Vincent C

[starling75]

It is possible, that in the near future the concept of exchanging data via universal or proprietary files will be obsolete ...

http://beyondplm.com/2011/07/01/my-experience-with-dassault-v6-plm-cloud-on-amazon/

http://blogs.technet.com/b/sql_server_isv/archive/2011/02/09/guest-article-storing-cad-databases-in-the-cloud.aspx

Edited November 22, 2011 by starling75

[Christiaan]

yes, it's an important issue: who should manage information stored in a model

Why should we care? We don't produce a model!!

P.S. in case it needs clarification, when I say throughout this thread that I want to be able to produce a "single model" I don't mean single model as in big BIM shared with consultants, I simply mean a 3D VW model for each of our projects internally.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Christiaan

[Peter van der Elst]

I agree with Christiaan here. I also think that Nemetschek should get their tools right so we can efficiently create our 3d model/2d output. The rooftool is one of the tools that needs to be addressed right now (servicepack anyone :-) ). This tool hasn't changed in years.

On topic,

Although I haven't had any experience with storeys (dutch version coming out in January probably) reading this thread allready gives me the feeling that it's not a great addition (yet?) and we can better work with layers for the time being.

[gester]

yes, it's an important issue: who should manage information stored in a model

Why should we care? We don't produce a model!!

yes, you do. generally the bim model (no matter what bim size) is being generated and created by the architects. and the copyrights is a known issue.

P.S. in case it needs clarification, when I say throughout this thread that I want to be able to produce a "single model" I don't mean single model as in big BIM shared with consultants, I simply mean a 3D VW model for each of our projects internally.

and what's the difference? beside the consultants and 3rd party contribution to the 3d information stored in the model?

rob

[Christiaan]

yes, you do. generally the bim model (no matter what bim size) is being generated and created by the architects. and the copyrights is a known issue.

We don't. As I've said above we use a 2D workflow. We draw plans, sections and elevations separately in 2D.

and what's the difference? beside the consultants and 3rd party contribution to the 3d information stored in the model?

The difference we're interested in is that between a strict 2D workflow and a '3D model/2D output' workflow, in the form of productivity and co-ordination gains that come from producing plans, sections and elevations from a single source of information: a 3D model. And the fact that we'd be up skilling and learning to model in 3D, readying ourselves to use a BIM workflow.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Christiaan

[starling75]

We don't. As I've said above we use a 2D workflow. We draw plans, sections and elevations separately in 2D.

And have you tried to manage at least one complete project in 3D? I don't think VW "light" BIM is THAT bad.

DWorks looks to use VW 3D parametric capabilities pretty intensively...

[Christiaan]

That discussion has been had elsewhere ad infinitum on this board so I'm not going to get into here. Suffice to say it is not economic for the projects we do.

My point is that development over the past 5 years should have concentrated far more on this aspect of things.