Archicad gets free-form modelling

[Christiaan]

http://www.graphisoft.com/products/archicad/design.html

So how's Nemetschek going to market Vectorworks Architect now? It's better because we can make pretty 2D presentations?

[Assembly]

With 60 instruction videos on how to make the most of it.

[VincentCuclair]

Wow! might have to go back to ArchiCAD again......I guess they don't care at NV the money ends up in the same pockets anyway......

Edited May 24, 2012 by Vincent C

[Ozzie]

Maybe there are bigger questions to ask with regards to NAG the big owner of all of this

Isn't the whole thing in the main controlled by one family? May be wrong

Is there a Steve Jobs amongst them?

As for ArchiCAD - I suppose they had to do something or croak it

[Kizza]

This is interesting.

One of the reasons why I overlooked Archicad was creating parametric families/objects seemed complicated (GDL programming)

Revit's implementation of creating custom families gave the user the ability to create parametric objects reasonably easily.

I wonder how extensively the morph tool can add parametric capabilities to it's objects.

[taoist]

Way Cool!

[VectorGeek]

http://www.graphisoft.com/products/archicad/design.html

So how's Nemetschek going to market Vectorworks Architect now? It's better because we can make pretty 2D presentations?

Well Christiaan, we make our money from 2D presentations and 2D drawings. We use 3D in a parallel process only, but can't justify drawing buildings in 3D from the start. For the type of work we do, there is absolutely no point.

We have no need to "morph" shapes.

Personally, I would way rather NVW spend time improving performance, better WG referencing, better plug-in design and functionality, than more useless 3D features that we don't get paid to use.

Just my 2 cents.

V-G

[Tom G.]

all of those videos are great sales tools.

Tom G.

[Christiaan]

we make our money from 2D presentations and 2D drawings. We use 3D in a parallel process only, but can't justify drawing buildings in 3D from the start. For the type of work we do, there is absolutely no point.

That may be the case now but it will almost certainly become similar to the situation we have now with CAD vs. manual drawing. People still do it but it's a cottage industry. Big job, small job, it won't matter. The people coming through architecture schools now won't even know how to operate 2D CAD.

Where will Vectorworks end up if it backs itself into the corner of a cottage industry? Certainly not in our IT budget. By 2016 we have to be in the full swing of BIM. Any work that is partly or fully government-funded will mandate it.

What you're describing is a catch-22. It is indeed difficult to justify drawing buildings in 3D from the get-go in Vectorworks. But I would argue that's precisely because the dedicated building-modelling tools in VW are inadequate.

As I agued 2 years ago, marketing Vectorworks as unique in its flexibility because of free-form modelling was a dead-end. All it would take would be for the likes of Archicad to add this capability and suddenly Vectorworks looks hugely weak in comparison:

http://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=170991#Post170991

We have no need to "morph" shapes.

Of course you don't. Vectorworks already has free-form modelling. That's the point. VWA no longer has this as an advantage.

Personally, I would way rather NVW spend time improving performance, better WG referencing, better plug-in design and functionality, than more useless 3D features that we don't get paid to use.

If they took this road then they would need to let their customers know as soon as possible. We'd be out.

The worst possible scenario for us is that Nemetschek keep marketing VWA as a BIM tool that competes with dedicated building modellers like Archicad/Revit but then neglect BIM and dedicated building-modelling tools.

It's not just about "3D features" either. It's about being able to efficiently derive all our documentation from a single source of information: the model. Window schedules are a classic example. We're hugely uncompetitive in this regard. We're modelling our projects now but we're also having to cobble together window schedules in a way that takes the same amount of time that 2D schedules did (along with the associated risks of mistakes because of a lack of automatic coordination). We should be able to produce window schedules automatically from our model.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Christiaan

[bc]

"If they took this road then they would need to let their customers know as soon as possible. We'd be out.

The worst possible scenario for us is that Nemetschek keep marketing VWA as a BIM tool that competes with dedicated building modellers like Archicad/Revit but then neglect BIM and dedicated building-modelling tools." CHRISTIAAN

Indeed.

History has borne out that NNA has never gotten it right with any release. There have always been some major glitches (not to be confused with bugs) in the various features that prevent their best intentions and hyperbole from being realized.

I believe this is because there is something fundamentally wrong with company decision-making processes.

There are well-intentioned people somewhere in the heirarchy deciding that half-baked functionality is OK. Just as we have accepted same as useful enough by continuing to buy in. It is either that or the "decider" doesn't actually know what is needed for the function/tool to work realistically.

Where would companies like Apple be with this kind of offering?

Those who want more will have to pay more, I believe.

Save up. Budget as well as you can and move on.

Edited May 25, 2012 by bc

[VectorGeek]

Where will Vectorworks end up if it backs itself into the corner of a cottage industry? Certainly not in our IT budget. By 2016 we have to be in the full swing of BIM. Any work that is partly or fully government-funded will mandate it.

What you're describing is a catch-22. It is indeed difficult to justify drawing buildings in 3D from the get-go in Vectorworks. But I would argue that's precisely because the dedicated building-modelling tools in VW are inadequate.

We may be in the minority, but our firm of half a dozen principals and staff, doing primarily developer-driven multi-family residential work (towers, condos, townhomes) has absolutely no need for BIM. First of all, clients won't pay for it. They want the maximum amount of information for the minimal amount of fees. Secondly, we already produce automated door schedules, window schedules and finish schedules using VW worksheets. The process is simple, but could benefit from more Excel-like features in the worksheet. That's what I am talking about. NVW should be bettering what's already there rather than continually adding features. Remember, to a huge degree, marketing drives the software industry. Companies cannot allow customers to become complacent or else they won't upgrade. New features mean sales because we are told we MUST have these things, and many believe.

We typically skip every two or three versions of VW to avoid jumping on this unneccesary bandwagon.

We produce highly accurate, graphically rich drawings, using the 2D and data management features of VW. 3D is simply there to add context (and only on certain projects), but it is done at our expense.

Governements or for that matter anyone who "demands" BIM is likely misguided. Someone in a back office who has no idea what they are talking about is simply responding to industry buzzwords. As professionals, it's our duty to drive the process and technology. We take the liability and our reputation is on the line. Why let software companies tell us what we need?

Morning without coffee rant complete.....

V-G

[Christiaan]

We may be in the minority

If you're not now you will be.

Governements or for that matter anyone who "demands" BIM is likely misguided.

I don't see any evidence of this. In any case how could you make this judgement without knowing who you're talking about?

Someone in a back office who has no idea what they are talking about is simply responding to industry buzzwords.

Paul Morrell, the UK Government Chief Construction Advisor, is hardly such a person.

Anyway Finland and Norway are right into it so it must be good. A large majority of the world's most sensible people reside in those countries.

As professionals, it's our duty to drive the process and technology. We take the liability and our reputation is on the line. Why let software companies tell us what we need?

We're well and truly past this debate. BIM is being driven by all sorts of industry players, including architects and engineers. As far as I'm concerned it pains me to know that we have such a backward inefficient industry that hasn't made this switch earlier.

[VectorGeek]

We may be in the minority

If you're not now you will be.

No worries. I have a feeling we'll continue to be very profitable despite.

Governements or for that matter anyone who "demands" BIM is likely misguided.

I don't see any evidence of this. In any case how could you make this judgement without knowing who you're talking about?

Someone in a back office who has no idea what they are talking about is simply responding to industry buzzwords.

Paul Morrell, the UK Government Chief Construction Advisor, is hardly such a person.

We see it all the time Christiaan. The last time was when a certain government agency REQUIRED us to use AutoCAD. We politely told them "Seller sets the terms", and provided .DWG files at the end. The person who created the policy turned out to be an accountant.

Anyway Finland and Norway are right into it so it must be good. A large majority of the world's most sensible people reside in those countries.

I hope that was in jest. :-) Come on, there are sensible people everywhere, including over here in North America. In fact one of the LEAST sensible people I have ever come across is from Finland. ;-)

As professionals, it's our duty to drive the process and technology. We take the liability and our reputation is on the line. Why let software companies tell us what we need?

We're well and truly past this debate. BIM is being driven by all sorts of industry players, including architects and engineers. As far as I'm concerned it pains me to know that we have such a backward inefficient industry that hasn't made this switch earlier.

You might be past it. As a decision maker, I am not, and will continue to educate clients on the fact that WE as architects know what technology is best. Whether it's BIM, Non-BIM, 2D, 3D, or whatever the flavor of the day is.

[Guest]

I guess when it comes to art you guys might know whats best in technology...but 3D is about Data,Volume,Mass,CoG,CoS etc etc... its about checking data that comes from software that costs x20's more than VWs.E.G 3D hatches on a garden beds is worth $25/hr... determining the shear plane on an Civil/mining ore deposits is worth $500 hr..I would love 3D hatching along with other Civil improvemnts to landmark and then shareholders should profit on large projects. In regards to Archicads update, users were tired of spending $8000 on base and $8000 on GDL 3rd party scripts,it was a case of "do or die" for them.

[Assembly]

BIM is much more than getting 2d drawings from 3D.

BIM Stages

I think that VW is actually not that shabby in this respect.

The I is for information. Where VW is hopeless is with the worksheet and inconsistent access to object information. There is no way to get information out of the Roof Face object for example.

[Dieter @ DWorks]

The I is for information. Where VW is hopeless is with the worksheet and inconsistent access to object information. There is no way to get information out of the Roof Face object for example.

???

Just look again in the help if you want, to find this: see attached.

(Dutch version , so you'll need to look for yourself in the help to find the English terms. Look at the functions for the spreadsheets)

And VW is really good at BIM! Better than most people think. But the user have to do a lot, and that's where it goes wrong. Most users want to do nothing and get it all out in an instant.

Before you shoot me: I know VW could be better so that the user can do less, but that is no reason calling VW incapable of BIM!

Edited May 27, 2012 by DWorks

[Christiaan]

I wouldn't call it wholly incapable of BIM. What i would say is that we can't compete with the likes of Revit/Archicad users and that this situation is getting worse. Not better and not the same, but worse.

We need something else other than being cheap and good at 2D presentations.

At the very least we need VWA building modelling tools and 2D data extraction to be hugely improved. What I'd prefer, however, is a revolutionary kind of parametric object framework that would provide some kind of mixture of free-form modelling and automation.

[Kizza]

At the very least we need VWA building modelling tools and 2D data extraction to be hugely improved.

You've hit the nail on the head.

Sometimes I rant a bit, but I really do like using Vectorworks.

2D drawing - brilliant

3D Modeling - brilliant

Rendering - very good

Some building modeling tools as well as some much requested features MUST be addressed.

I get the feeling that 2013 is make or break for VW. Being "cheap" won't allure too many professionals anymore.

Edited May 27, 2012 by Kizza

[Assembly]

DWorks I stand corrected.

However where is the consistency-

Why can't I use the Create Report function?.

[Assembly]

(Why do the users who like VW always feel like we need to disclaim the dissatisfaction before launching in and slamming it?)

I too think VW is best in class for 2D drawings.

I think it is also good for 3D and am happy with my renders now.

The last few sets of drawings every 2D drawing we produced was a live render or section of the 3D model. We used the Automatic Drawing references.

In many aspects I think VW is very good.

HOWEVER.

On the BIM side I'm totally unconvinced.

Here is an example of a Slab object and a Roof Face object.

Using '=Perim' the Slab object is double what it should be.

As an architect, I take a certain level of liability for the information that I issue. On fundamental objects Roofs and Slabs, with a basic return function VW BIM does not work. On such a basic test- how can I trust the information on a complex file?.

It is quite simple- this has to be sorted by the time BIM schedules are a requirement of service.

Edited May 27, 2012 by Assembly