Jump to content

BIM - Taking the Plunge - Advice?


Tom Klaber

Recommended Posts

 

Just for example in plan view - anywhere an autohybrid joins a wall, there's a solid line across the cut plane. If you're using an autohybrid to model a section of wall with more complicated geometry than the wall tool can produce - then that line shouldn't be there, because the two elements are contiguous.

 

If there's an object existing outside of an autohybrid, and you want it to stay in the same location in space when you bring it within the autohybrid, cutting and "pasting in place" doesn't work like it does working within a group. The autohybrid has a different datum to the outside world so your element pastes into some completely different place.

 

Unless things have changed in 2017 (literally have just upgraded now)

 

Anyway, next week I'm going to try and convert a relatively detailed 3D model into proper plans and sections that I'm happy with. I'll try and do a thread where I can post up the extent of patching that's necessary.

Edited by col37400
Link to comment
8 hours ago, col37400 said:

(..)

- I bought a 3Dconnexion 3D mouse. This is the single best investment I've made. Once you get the hang of it (I found it didn't take too long) it really makes a vast difference to the fluency of direct 3D modelling, as well as visualisation. Get one.

(..)

 

is the mouse for 3d modelling exclusively, or can you use it for architectural drafting in top/plan view, too?

Link to comment
Just now, gester said:

 

is the mouse for 3d modelling exclusively, or can you use it for architectural drafting in top/plan view, too?

 

 I have demoed them before and they are designed exclusively for 3D.  Technically, I am sure you could use it to pan - but it could not possibly work as well as a traditional mouse.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, gester said:

 

is the mouse for 3d modelling exclusively, or can you use it for architectural drafting in top/plan view, too?

 

You could use it in Move (only) Mode.

(Oh, I realize I can scroll in all directions in Safari or Preview*, not bad)

And I realize you can Pan AND Zoom in VW Top Plan View, when using normal 3D Flyover Settings.

So why not.

On the other side, Panning by SPACE BAR or (real) MMB (of my 3D Conx CADMouse) + Scroll Wheel Zoom

is also ergonomic.

 

But I couldn't stand Panning or Flyover with most standard Scroll Wheels.

(Except maybe MadCatz's)

 

*(with custom settings, yes)

Edited by zoomer
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Tom Klaber said:

 I have demoed them before and they are designed exclusively for 3D.  Technically, I am sure you could use it to pan - but it could not possibly work as well as a traditional mouse.

 

Technically you can, yes.

 

you can use one to scroll, move and zoom in acrobat, illustrator and photoshop.

 

in 6 years, I've only ever use it in 3ds max and vw for 3D work only, they're particularly good at camera placement and composing nicer renders.

The traditional mouse wheel and space bar are the go-to tools when in 2d flat land, and you'll never use it, except as a paper weight or door stop.

 

but the blue LEDs look cool and made my kids and clients think I'm Mr techno.

 

(Oh yes.... just get the cheaper nobble one. The Star Trek control deck one is too complex to program and remember to utilise, in my opinion.)

Edited by RussU
  • Like 2
Link to comment

Not really.. You generally use it with your left hand, so it's your left that's skipping from keyboard to 3d mouse, that's why, when you use a lot of keyboard short cuts, it's just as easy to use the keyboard rather than the super space age one.

Although other people might use it other ways??? anyone else got a workflow?

Link to comment

I use it in left hand, with mouse in RH.

 

I'd have to observe myself in action to see if it's maily my RH or LH that then tends to skip to the keyboard.

 

I've not currently got one that allows me to set shortcuts. But I do think I might do that in future, so that I can do most stuff without having to use the keyboard.

 

I don't use it during 2D work at the moment - just mouse with scrollwheel for zoom/spacebar to pan as I've done for years.

Link to comment

Currently I fight with BIM and have to give up.

 

A reactivation of a previous Project. The first part was done 3D Solids only.
(Revit IFC import, cleaning and sorting Solids, I had even no Layer heights !)

 

Now, second Part of the Building.

(Revit people on vacation so just DWG 2D and 3D Model => Meshes only)
I started modeling "real" BIM although I don't need 2D Plans. I set Stories and Levels and many Wall Styles.

But I don't come forward with VW Tools in a "real" Project.
Often 4 Different Wall Types meet - nearly - at the same point.

 

For Walls I am fighting with Auto Joining, which I deactivated at some point.
For the Joining (from a 2D Top View standpoint),

I have to use all manual Joining, capped and non capped Modes,

even "always capped mode" in Styles,

then Component Joining Tools where you have to join Walls globally first,

also custom Wall Ends, which works with un-joined Walls only.

This works from a 2D standpoint in Top Plan and so also for resulting 3D Geometry - in 2.5D.

 

I have so many Wall Styles to cover Wall Type and Thickness, additionally some duplicates for Story Levels.

But this does not work finally in 3D connections of all parts. Your Styles get infinite in real world.

If you start with setting Custom Heights for special Walls you can't never again update Heights by Style
and loose 50% of Styles parametric.
There are always slightly jumps in Height. Actual it is just the same Wall, but has to join with different Heights.
Stops working in 3D - and you need to control your insulation package around these.
So you will wont to work with Core and Insulation separately -> so using 2 Walls parallel.

But have Cut your Windows and Doors in both.

 

The next Problems are Story Levels.
I had to delete 2 Stories, because I would always need a "Level of Story above - of the Story above"
I don't get it to work in reality as I would need to set so many "Non-Default-Story-Levels" per Stories with

calculating their heights manually and no more being able to keep overview in the current VW of assigning these.

Also these Custom Levels don't work because you need a new Walls Style for each of these.

 

BTW, I read Wes's Manual of Stories and Layers.
I now understand how (complex) these are meant to be used. Especially the Default Layer Theme and the automatic
Layer generation. Understanding this, I see that 50% of my missing Layer Feature Wishes, are already there, in some way.

But I still don't think the UI is capable to avoid misunderstandings. No visual feedback if you activate a Default Level

or a Custom Level. And Custom Levels won't appear from your Story Level List until all "Duplicates" on any other Story

will be deleted too. Renaming Levels from Layer Organisation as well as changing default Level Heights have no linking

and will create further Duplicates of the "same" Level - having different or even same Name.

You can't count on any Level Name, you have to carefully check all Levels height values and apply every change manually,

to every Story.


This is no special building. Everthing rectangular and standard.

But parametric Arch Tools don't work for me in real Projects. These are to unflexibel.
So far no need to jump on the next problem - how to generate 2D drawings from the 3D Model.

 

 

Edited by zoomer
  • Like 1
Link to comment

@zoomer, lineweight

3d solids is a bad way to start bim. you have to use standard elements, and only in extreme cases when it's not possible you use _your own_ solids, and not some ifc imports - it's just crazy, especially from applications that have their constant troubles with ifc.

as for the walls, you can model in 3d everything, it's just the 2d view where you have sometimes to use patches, i've done it also for archicad some 5 years back - the model is a model, the 2d documentation is its result. for this i have my own 3d layers that are invisible in 2d documentation, but they complete my model.

 

i think you're still focused on 2d output, not bim.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, gester said:

@zoomer, lineweight

3d solids is a bad way to start bim.

 

I agree, completely useless without the use of Arch Tools.
Assigning IFC Tags is endless and error prone.

 

As I watched all available Wall JoiningTutorials,
I get it to work in Top Plan View too. At least more than I thought.


For the 3D Problem I have to give up on Wall Heights in Styles completely.
And on Story Levels. Or I need so many that I can't work with these anymore.

 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Alan Woodwell said:

people just are so focused on the 2d and see the negatives of 3D because they say its the program and its too complicated. Well I usually find its and "ID 10 T" problem.

 

Well for me, I have no clue about 2D so far.
I am working 3D only since my beginning.

No need of BIM so far, but a lot of interest.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Alan Woodwell said:

I agree with gester. I find this at work, people just are so focused on the 2d and see the negatives of 3D because they say its the program and its too complicated. Well I usually find its and "ID 10 T" problem.

 

I wouldn't say it is all the fault of the user as there is certainly room for improvement in Vw tools and workflow - but in general I'd agree as well.

 

I found that once I started really embracing the 3D Model BIM -> generated 2D Drawing workflow, I had to let go of graphic quality concerns that manual 2D elevations look so much nicer than generated 3D elevations. As long as the generated 2D drawings adequately convey the design intent, that's all that matters.

Edited by rDesign
  • Like 1
Link to comment

@rDesignTotally agree  with you. The program has a long way to go to have that simple flow from 3d to 2d and it one area the program falls down is the ability of elevations to have depth of field line weight. With the introduction of internal elevations as part of VW 2017 this issue has been elevated to a higher level and should be dealt with soon. I want to be able to bring forward graphical some elements of the elevation. Correct me if I am wrong but at present my only options are to backline or have a class that I can adjust in the VP.
 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, zoomer said:

Currently I fight with BIM and have to give up.

 

A reactivation of a previous Project. The first part was done 3D Solids only.
(Revit IFC import, cleaning and sorting Solids, I had even no Layer heights !)

 

Now, second Part of the Building.

(Revit people on vacation so just DWG 2D and 3D Model => Meshes only)
I started modeling "real" BIM although I don't need 2D Plans. I set Stories and Levels and many Wall Styles.

But I don't come forward with VW Tools in a "real" Project.
Often 4 Different Wall Types meet - nearly - at the same point.

 

For Walls I am fighting with Auto Joining, which I deactivated at some point.
For the Joining (from a 2D Top View standpoint),

I have to use all manual Joining, capped and non capped Modes,

even "always capped mode" in Styles,

then Component Joining Tools where you have to join Walls globally first,

also custom Wall Ends, which works with un-joined Walls only.

This works from a 2D standpoint in Top Plan and so also for resulting 3D Geometry - in 2.5D.

 

I have so many Wall Styles to cover Wall Type and Thickness, additionally some duplicates for Story Levels.

But this does not work finally in 3D connections of all parts. Your Styles get infinite in real world.

If you start with setting Custom Heights for special Walls you can't never again update Heights by Style
and loose 50% of Styles parametric.
There are always slightly jumps in Height. Actual it is just the same Wall, but has to join with different Heights.
Stops working in 3D - and you need to control your insulation package around these.
So you will wont to work with Core and Insulation separately -> so using 2 Walls parallel.

But have Cut your Windows and Doors in both.

 

The next Problems are Story Levels.
I had to delete 2 Stories, because I would always need a "Level of Story above - of the Story above"
I don't get it to work in reality as I would need to set so many "Non-Default-Story-Levels" per Stories with

calculating their heights manually and no more being able to keep overview in the current VW of assigning these.

Also these Custom Levels don't work because you need a new Walls Style for each of these.

 

BTW, I read Wes's Manual of Stories and Layers.
I now understand how (complex) these are meant to be used. Especially the Default Layer Theme and the automatic
Layer generation. Understanding this, I see that 50% of my missing Layer Feature Wishes, are already there, in some way.

But I still don't think the UI is capable to avoid misunderstandings. No visual feedback if you activate a Default Level

or a Custom Level. And Custom Levels won't appear from your Story Level List until all "Duplicates" on any other Story

will be deleted too. Renaming Levels from Layer Organisation as well as changing default Level Heights have no linking

and will create further Duplicates of the "same" Level - having different or even same Name.

You can't count on any Level Name, you have to carefully check all Levels height values and apply every change manually,

to every Story.


This is no special building. Everthing rectangular and standard.

But parametric Arch Tools don't work for me in real Projects. These are to unflexibel.
So far no need to jump on the next problem - how to generate 2D drawings from the 3D Model.

 

True word for word. 

Link to comment

To be fair,
I had another large Project in the past where VW's Arch Tools would work fine.


No Split Levels Stories, intermediate Stories there and Walls happen only between Slabs.
At that time (2015) I started just with Solids only because of export problems to 3D Apps.

Since VW 2017 improvements that would work beautifully.

 

Nevertheless, mostly I get things like e.g. Staircases moved outside of the building, but not

completely, as oriented to an other building corner. So there won't be Slabs between Stories
and their Walls, plus maybe some full height glazing where you need to join insulation in a

special way. So Walls often don't meet in the expected T, L or X-Join - more of a #-Join.

 

That is where limited Soft-BIM Apps like BricsCAD, FormZ or Rhino/VisualARQ are more flexible
and so more capable. Bricscad does Solids only BIM and Windows cut through everything at a given
distance in front or behind. So you can use or model Wall Components separately etc.
That means BIM Modeling like normal Solid Modeling, but still having all IFC goodies.

 

 

 

Link to comment

coming back to ifc it's not as bad as it seems to be, i mean the assignment of the entities and fiiling in the properties. many of them are getting populated via the oips, and the interaction between the internal database of the software with ifc is improving from release to release. even facing the fact that ifc is present in vw only from v2009 sp4 on. manual handling of ifc psets is the last thing that is necessary for proper data saturation in the project file.

 

vectorworks is now a full-fledged bim software, and stronger database basis of the likes of revit and archicad is getting irrelevant with ifc exports, where all data is present for further evaluation.

rob

Edited by gester
Link to comment

the only case where manual properties' manipulation is still necessary is for the free-form created objects. that's why starting bim with them is a bad idea. i hope marionette objects and their convertion to native ones will bridge the gap between the free-form objects and standard native elements.

rob

Edited by gester
Link to comment

There are a few comments suggesting that people are being too fussy about 2D output.

 

At least in the world I operate in, the quality of 2D output is absolutely crucial. It's still what contractual and construction documentation revolves around. To be honest I'd be perfectly happy to abandon all 2D output, if I could instead hand over a detailed 3D model to a contractor, or building regulations inspector, or town planning authority, or whoever else as necessary. It would mean I could spend more time designing stuff rather than trying to figure out the best way to communicate that 3D design by the means of 2D documentation. But that's just not how things work for the time being, and it doesn't feel to me like it's going to change very soon.

 

So, there's no way I'm going to just accept what VW generates from the model, if it's not good enough. It does need to communicate "adequately" the design intent - and to me that means it has to communicate it clearly, accurately and unambiguously. If we have long established, widely understood drawing conventions it's not acceptable to issue drawings which have lines where lines should not be, or where the important information is obscured in a mess of irrelevant geometry.

 

If I were to use the 2D output VW generates from 3D models, without significantly patching it up, then I'd either have to turn out information that simply didn't convey information clearly enough to communicate the design, or I'd be designing in a way that suits VW standard objects and plugins rather than in a way that creates good architecture. Neither of those things are in any way acceptable to me.

 

I do sometimes see drawings posted on here, as examples of what can be produced, which I have to say in my opinion fall into one or other of those two categories.

 

Link to comment

@lineweight

for a usual, traditional edifice you don't need anything outside of the standard building palette. if you're designing something organic it may be the case, but it's maybe up to 5% of the market (if really that high). how many such buildings have you designed recently?

but, of course, lacking slanted walls is a huge drawback.

rob

Link to comment

Every single project I work on has multiple elements that can't be dealt with using the standard tools.

 

But aside from that, there are really basic things that can't be dealt with adequately - the problems with joining walls of different heights, as alluded to above by zoomer is one example. Described in this thread:

 

There are also basic issues with creating proper floorplans in roof spaces -

 

Both of these things come down to limitations of wall objects - arguably the most basic architectural element there is. You mention the inability to created slanted walls too.

 

To some extent I can live with, say, not being able to create *exactly* the type of window I want with the standard tool - I can live with "near enough" at 1:100 and 1:50, and draw closer detail manually.

 

But if the wall tool has fundamental limitations, the whole system starts to fall apart for me.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...