VW Architect vs Revit LT

[Christiaan]

Just had a UK distributor of Allplan phone me up (because I'd downloaded a trial of Allplan a while back).

Let's just say he found what I had to say interesting.

[M5d]

Reece, I think we should just pool together and get you a plane ticket to go talk some sense to the old codger himself.

Ha! You've read what happened with the other guys, right? Fleshing out the content in this thread was unpleasant enough. I doubt anything but daylight and a measurable reaction will shift Nemetschek?s policies.

[VincentCuclair]

What annoys me the most about this is the sad state of BIM on Mac.

Another argument against the current NAG=G.Nemetschek policy/strategy, especially when it comes to VWs.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Vincent C

[J Lucas]

Reece, how does this fit with you speculations?

[Dieter @ DWorks]

Reece, how does this fit with you speculations?

It's the cloud section that is getting bigger, clouds come and go you now...

[VincentCuclair]

Reece, how does this fit with you speculations?

All I can say is we'll see.....Lisa Lance is NVs PR specialist not R&D......

There have been too many past releases with small changes for me to believe that things will suddenly change, however so far I've stuck with it in the hope they will.....we'll see with v2014 in Sept.

[Christiaan]

As an aside a growing cloud team hasn't translated to us being able to actually render our elevations successfully.

[M5d]

Reece, how does this fit with you speculations?

Nemetschek?s policy appears to have two alternate avenues for its acquisitions; one promotes growth for, and with, Allplan via integration into the ?Allplan section? of the group; the other isolates acquisitions from integration and predicates growth solely on their existing capacity to deliver increasing revenue to Nemetschek year over year. Nemetschek didn?t acquire the competing brands to lose money, rather, the objective appears aimed at isolating them from alternate BIM destinies while returning their revenue to Nemetschek during Allplan?s international expansion. BIM is still an infant growing into the next generation of professionals and Allplan is still crawling its way out of Europe. If the internationally established subsidiaries deliver Nemetschek?s mandated yearly growth in revenue, they get to grow incrementally at no expense to Nemetschek?s revenue stream. Revenue growth is revenue growth, right? But the long-term BIM picture for the secondary brands remains BIM isolation without any major investment or avenues aimed at maturing them into vertically integrated BIM solutions.

The policy Tanja Tamara Dreilich thought worthy of promoting to the annalists in the conference call linked above, requires year over year revenue ?growth? at the subsidiaries to obtain further investment. That can still freeze hiring and limit development, even if a subsidiary?s revenue relative to its operating cost is extraordinary. And it would most likely focus development on ?new and shiny? marketable attributes, as opposed to solid development, in order to stimulate the sales needed to grow investment. Allplan?s comparative growth path is exponential however, when you consider it includes acquisitions being integrated to roll into a united BIM force.

Take a look a Nemetschek?s portfolio graphic and consider the distorted development picture it presents. Allplan is already internally across architecture, engineering, build and manage, while alongside it you?ve got ArchiCAD and Vectorworks perched like a pair of internationally established golden egg laying geese in Nemetschek?s corporate tree. They've been going nowhere for the last six and thirteen years respectively, gaining no BIM connections on that tree while Allplan continues to integrate with acquired products on the opposite branches in aid of its growth.

Imagine the market for Scia or a similar investment had it been integrated with ArchiCAD and Vectorworks. And imagine the reciprocal growth integrated engineering would have brought to ArchiCAD and Vectorworks. They could have dropped Scia?s hefty price tag and grown its subscriptions massively from the paltry 5 to 8 thousand it currently has. But instead, and despite Allplan?s internally established engineering, Scia and the associated investment / acquisition went to integration with Allplan, while the other two lonely sods go wanting. Other parallel products in that portfolio picture also claim to be integrated within the group. Those integrated acquisitions are effectively massive and continued investment in Allplan and the ?Allplan section? of the group. Funded by? Meanwhile the isolated brands can hire more staff IF or when they achieve greater than 10% revenue ?growth? year over year, whoopee! I shouldn't be glib about new jobs.

Contrast the integration occurring in the ?Allplan section? of the group, with the rhetoric that accompanied the openBIM scheme and you get an understanding for the recent politics and a reasonable backstory for Nemetchek?s use of the holdings company structure. When you invest in a product, that investment should grow that product, shouldn't it? I don?t think I?m alone in that desire for Vectorworks, or in the belief that Vectorworks was worth it.

Edited May 1, 2013 by M5d

[gester]

apparently you have something against the artistic and aesthetic parts of the man-built universe.

'the next generation of engineers' doesn't necessarily mean 'better suited to fulfill the human needs'.

rob

[gester]

everybody tries more or less to catch up but the best professionals will lead the bim processes. and it's ok so, as long as nobody's role is ignored.

what i disagree is the excluding of the open bim principle. the deliverables' standards must be vendor and authoring software independent.

the o&m processes may last for a few decades, probably much longer than the proprietary generated file formats.

the bim interconnecting 'communication middleware' must be accessible to anybody, no matter what tools they use.

rob

[VincentCuclair]

, too bad they (NAG) rolled over and handed engineering to autodesk thru RVT translators.Divided we fall

You know, the past few weeks certain things have come to light on this forum(at least for me) that completely baffle me when it comes to NAG policies and strategy, what the h.ll are they doing?

[VincentCuclair]

Although Im not a big fan of Bentley MS... I like their multi-disciplinary optimisation approach... be great if they could link in with maplesim cloud?

Very interesting, that means that specific disciplinary knowledge e.g. construction, energy, etc. will be of less importance in the future because the program will do it for you, however artistic input more essential because that part computers can not do....... :grin:

Edited May 17, 2013 by Vincent C

[VincentCuclair]

Heck anyone can learn a BIM application, extract and present data, not everyone can design and create.......that's the ultimate deciding factor when competing for contracts.

[Christiaan]

It's not just about art. It's also about choosing from a large set of possible solutions to any given problem. Computing and BIM is set to help this process immensely, not replace it.

[gester]

It's not just about art.

The art only gets you into the front door..then the rest is up to you and the team of consultants.

It's also about choosing from a large set of possible solutions to any given problem.

And who better than ENGINEERS to Analyse and Optimise D&C

Computing and BIM is set to help this process immensely, not replace it.

IMO,MATE, not your BIM, your BIM is now being replaced on large projects.

Clients are now realising, its far better to have the entire team on the same program.

Sketched in VWs and D&C in Revit to me is a personal insult/shame and what's NAG doing about it?

My2c

bim is about cooperation, not unification.

i (do/will) always regard the proprietary and 'in silo' developments as couterproductive, even a sabotage of the bim idea implementation.

bim in architectural practice

rob

[starling75]

Slightly offtopic, but interesting

http://www.deelip.com/?p=8642

Anthony Frausto comment from April 8 2013

cit:

Absolutely. Changing kernels can be big work for the developer and there is serious financial reasons also. Not just about legacy data. Nemetschek Vectorworks switched kernels (went to Parasolid) about 4 versions back and they have just now finished up converting all the elements of their application to the new kernel. They spread out the work over many years so they could reserve developer resources for new features.

[M5d]

what i disagree is the excluding of the open bim principle. the deliverables' standards must be vendor and authoring software independent.

the o&m processes may last for a few decades, probably much longer than the proprietary generated file formats.

the bim interconnecting 'communication middleware' must be accessible to anybody, no matter what tools they use.

bim is about cooperation, not unification.

i (do/will) always regard the proprietary and 'in silo' developments as couterproductive, even a sabotage of the bim idea implementation.

It?s unclear what you disagree with or think is being excluded, there?s already broad support and implementation of BuildingSMART?s IFC standard throughout the industry. You need to explain why you choose to ignore that IFC is very well supported, while you want a ?proprietary? interest trademarking and quarantining the same ?open standard? for its own ends to succeed? The openBIM V1.0 scheme was a ?proprietary? attempt to make a ?silo? out of IFC, it attempted to remove collaborative choice and impose a single approach under Nemetschek?s ?proprietary? owned trademark and control. How is that not sabotage of an ?open standard?? And what in Nemetschek?s scheme do you think promotes cooperative decision making around collaborative processes between collaborative parties? They?ve been selling their scheme to us as though it?s a weapon against the use of proprietary formats and selling it to their analysts as though their "proprietary" owned openBIM ?trademark? somehow controls or has the rights to exchanging BIM data via IFC, listen to this quote from the 2012 conference call (45:20) . . . ?the most important difference here is, we?re the only one . . compared to all the others . . we?re the one with the open system . . . if you decide to have your architecture firm running on an Autodesk system you can only participate in Autodesk projects . . .?. No shame whatsoever, Nemetschek proudly proclaims to analysts, ?we?re the only one with the open system?, a system built on trademarking the "open" IFC standard and a system that mysteriously excludes and prevents everyone else that has implemented the ?open" IFC standard from using that standard. Does that sound like cooperation to you?

Do you really believe that Autodesk and all the other IFC certified software listed here are ?un-cooperative? BIM citizens Rob? And that a trademarked logo, owned by Nemetschek with an accompanying set of contractual obligations coined by Nemetschek, prevents all the other IFC compliant software out there from being cooperative or outputting BIM data via IFC? I guess that?s what Nemetschek wanted us to believe, but it?s patently wrong to imply that cooperation, exchange or the output of IFC files for collaboration, lifecycle analysis, or facilities management requires submitting to Nemetchek?s proprietary owned scheme and trademark. All that should be required for IFC exchange, is IFC certification. The confusion that now exists, is the result of marketing and statements intent on blurring the relationship between Nemetschek?s scheme and buildingSMART?s "open" IFC standard.

It?s a shame, particularly in the wake of openBIM V1.0?s withdrawal, that there?s been no attempt to clarify what buildingSMART?s relationship with Nemetschek is. However inert openBIM V2.0 is, the openBIM logo now associated with "open BIM" is still a proprietary owned trademark belonging to Nemetschek, while buildingSMART International is supposedly : A neutral, international and unique non for profit organisation supporting open BIM through the life cycle. How can a proprietary owned trademark get stamped all over the "open" IFC specification without the appearance of impropriety?

PS. Don't miss the filing date on that trademark, just eight weeks prior to Ernst Homolka's resignation.

Edited May 28, 2013 by M5d

[gester]

It?s unclear what you disagree with or think is being excluded, there?s already broad support and implementation of BuildingSMART?s IFC standard throughout the industry. You need to explain why you choose to ignore that IFC is very well supported, while you want a ?proprietary? interest trademarking and quarantining the same ?open standard? for its own ends to succeed? The openBIM V1.0 scheme was a ?proprietary? attempt to make a ?silo? out of IFC, it attempted to remove collaborative choice and impose a single approach under Nemetschek?s ?proprietary? owned trademark and control. How is that not sabotage of an ?open standard?? And what in Nemetschek?s scheme do you think promotes cooperative decision making around collaborative processes between collaborative parties? They?ve been selling their scheme to us as though it?s a weapon against the use of proprietary formats and selling it to their analysts as though their "proprietary" owned openBIM ?trademark? somehow controls or has the rights to exchanging BIM data via IFC, listen to this quote from the 2012 conference call (45:20) . . . ?the most important difference here is, we?re the only one . . compared to all the others . . we?re the one with the open system . . . if you decide to have your architecture firm running on an Autodesk system you can only participate in Autodesk projects . . .?. No shame whatsoever, Nemetschek proudly proclaims to analysts, ?we?re the only one with the open system?, a system built on trademarking the "open" IFC standard and a system that mysteriously excludes and prevents everyone else that has implemented the ?open" IFC standard from using that standard. Does that sound like cooperation to you?

ok, so let me explain it in a more illustrative way. we have:

1. the proprietary bim-authoring tools layer (revit, archicad, vw, bentley, digital project, allplan and the likes) with their databases

2. the proprietary bim-analysis tools layer (ecodomus, ies ve a.s.o.)

and there in the middle is the most important layer for the bim environment:

3. the middleware one, enabling _any_ communication and thus collaboration and data exchange (ifc, ifcxml, gbxml, bimxml, xls, the xml itself, gst - geometry simplification tool and many others). speaking of 'silo'ing' of any of the standards under the #3 equals the misunderstanding of the whole evolution.

adesk, as they are the topic here, too, after the initial energy input for the ifc development started to sabotage the format, and in the end excluded the export from the revit lt features. ifc is an unwanted child at adesk, and they don't even try hide it. the adesk ifc exporter has been made the open source, and eventually the users implemented this feature in revit lt themselves.

the tool (which is the topic here) still lacks gbxml and point cloud exports and the workgroup capability.

if it is not an ignoring of the open bim direction than i don't know what is this in the end.

Do you really believe that Autodesk and all the other IFC certified software listed here are ?un-cooperative? BIM citizens Rob? And that a trademarked logo, owned by Nemetschek with an accompanying set of contractual obligations coined by Nemetschek, prevents all the other IFC compliant software out there from being cooperative or outputting BIM data via IFC? I guess that?s what Nemetschek wanted us to believe, but it?s patently wrong to imply that cooperation, exchange or the output of IFC files for collaboration, lifecycle analysis, or facilities management requires submitting to Nemetchek?s proprietary owned scheme and trademark. All that should be required for IFC exchange, is IFC certification. The confusion that now exists, is the result of marketing and statements intent on blurring the relationship between Nemetschek?s scheme and buildingSMART?s "open" IFC standard.

i agree. nemetschek may have their own politics, but eventually they will have to contribute to the #3 layer in my above picture. otherwise they are the history on the bim-market.

It?s a shame, particularly in the wake of openBIM V1.0?s withdrawal, that there?s been no attempt to clarify what buildingSMART?s relationship with Nemetschek is. However inert openBIM V2.0 is, the openBIM logo now associated with "open BIM" is still a proprietary owned trademark belonging to Nemetschek, while buildingSMART International is supposedly : A neutral, international and unique non for profit organisation supporting open BIM through the life cycle. How can a proprietary owned trademark get stamped all over the "open" IFC specification without the appearance of impropriety?

PS. Don't miss the filing date on that trademark, just eight weeks prior to Ernst Homolka's resignation.

agreed again. all i expect from nemetschek is to develop the full bim-authoring capability, and to contribute to the bim middleware.

rob

p.s. i write this on the fly, sorry if i miss any point from your post.

Edited June 2, 2013 by gester

[Christiaan]

Slightly offtopic, but interesting

http://www.deelip.com/?p=8642

Anthony Frausto comment from April 8 2013

cit:

Absolutely. Changing kernels can be big work for the developer and there is serious financial reasons also. Not just about legacy data. Nemetschek Vectorworks switched kernels (went to Parasolid) about 4 versions back and they have just now finished up converting all the elements of their application to the new kernel. They spread out the work over many years so they could reserve developer resources for new features.

Perhaps that was a mistake. Perhaps they should have put all resources into kernel switch and optimisation and wrapped it all up in one release.

[VincentCuclair]

Slightly offtopic, but interesting

http://www.deelip.com/?p=8642

Anthony Frausto comment from April 8 2013

cit:

Absolutely. Changing kernels can be big work for the developer and there is serious financial reasons also. Not just about legacy data. Nemetschek Vectorworks switched kernels (went to Parasolid) about 4 versions back and they have just now finished up converting all the elements of their application to the new kernel. They spread out the work over many years so they could reserve developer resources for new features.

Perhaps that was a mistake. Perhaps they should have put all resources into kernel switch and optimisation and wrapped it all up in one release.

Perhaps that's part of the reason they haven't implemented 64 bit and multicore yet.......oh dear so much catching up to do, will be interesting to see what happens in the new release in September......could finally be a make or break version on my part!?

Edited June 3, 2013 by Vincent C

[gester]

Slightly offtopic, but interesting

http://www.deelip.com/?p=8642

Anthony Frausto comment from April 8 2013

cit:

Absolutely. Changing kernels can be big work for the developer and there is serious financial reasons also. Not just about legacy data. Nemetschek Vectorworks switched kernels (went to Parasolid) about 4 versions back and they have just now finished up converting all the elements of their application to the new kernel. They spread out the work over many years so they could reserve developer resources for new features.

Perhaps that was a mistake. Perhaps they should have put all resources into kernel switch and optimisation and wrapped it all up in one release.

then we probably wouldn't have push-pull until today...

(..)will be interesting to see what happens in the new release in September......could finally be a make or break version on my part!?

i'm curious, too

rob

Edited June 3, 2013 by gester

[M5d]

Nemetschek?s internal conflict continues. The third CEO in less than two years (Tanja Tamara Dreilich) has now made a similarly dramatic exit from that position, citing "irresolvable differences" between the management board and the supervisory board (Georg Nemetschek).

It's incredible and tragic that the futures of such significant brands in this industry, not to mention the businesses that use their products, have become the plaything of an entirely egocentric set of objectives.

[VincentCuclair]

.......I was going to write something witty here but I'm actually just dumbstruck......

[Ozzie]

yeah me too ... but

From here

http://www.nemetschek.com/en/home/the_company/people/company_founder.html

It would seem G N is about 79 and has or is in control off a lot of money

A while back ? maybe a year or so ago I researched some of what M5d has commented on but he has provided much more information than what I had discovered then

I was talking about it to a friend just the other day and commented:

I wondered if it was me or others who had what appears to be such a large sum of money and maybe control; what at that age a person may wish to leave as a legacy

Say if you could afford to blow 10, 20 million or more, what could be achieved?

Intrigues but also saddens me that maybe someone who could be classed as a software pioneer would not wish to do that assuming the resources are available!

[J Lucas]

"Dreilich, sole member of the managing board" Sole member? What kind of managing board is that?

Also, it seems strange to post a press release that so clearly reveals such serious upper management conflict. What is going on?