Jump to content

Does VW need to split into 2 programs....


Recommended Posts

Gulp...
I am starting to feel like VW needs to split.  We are getting to a point where maintaining workflows for 2D delivery are getting in the way of organizing the program for a BIM delivery...
Pleasing both groups has been good business for a while, and has allowed firms to stick with VW through a 2D->BIM transition, but now - I see so many comment board fights about the what tools we need, or where things should go - and usually this boils down to traditional delivery vs. BIM delivery.  The needs of these two groups seem like they are starting to be at odds, and it might be easier for everybody if the program split and could concentrate on doing 1 thing well rather than continually developing ways where it can do both.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment

I can see where you're coming from:, how about some rationalisation of less used legacy tools on the menus? I'm using a 3D/ BIM type workflow but often 'flat' is just the design tool you need. At the VW BIM conference there was a great example of using saved views to create presentation pages. I've started putting together image/ sample boards in VW - works a treat! VW can be much more than 2d CAD or 3D/ BIM!

  • Like 1
Link to comment

I know...that why its painful to suggest.  The fact that it can do both has been its strong suit.... Its why I love the program so much.

Maybe I am wrong - but I feel that there is a very near future where the obvious solution to a BIM file set up will be squarely at odds with the classic file set up.  

It just seems as this new BIM delivery is a revolution - and it will be held back if we are always trying to squeeze it into a CAD box.  That maybe - completely new ways of thinking how to orgazing and document will be better long term solutions - than always trying to make new tools works with legacy ones.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Tom Klaber said:

Gulp...
I am starting to feel like VW needs to split.  We are getting to a point where maintaining workflows for 2D delivery are getting in the way of organizing the program for a BIM delivery...
Pleasing both groups has been good business for a while, and has allowed firms to stick with VW through a 2D->BIM transition, but now - I see so many comment board fights about the what tools we need, or where things should go - and usually this boils down to traditional delivery vs. BIM delivery.  The needs of these two groups seem like they are starting to be at odds, and it might be easier for everybody if the program split and could concentrate on doing 1 thing well rather than continually developing ways where it can do both.  

 

It's a matter of setting/using the proper workflow imho, either BIM oriented or "traditional delivery" oriented. If you need both then it would be best if the software is capable of handling both, otherwise you end up using two programs, which is not that different from importing/exporting to other software and work with the document in there to produce the end result. Then what would be the purpose of using VW anymore? You might then as well use two different programs anyway, and this is what most people do not like as it brings it own set is issues to solve.

 

Autodesk is trying to promote BIM in Civil Engineering and I can see the use of BIM there for e.g. construction projects. But there are still plenty of areas where BIM is not used at all and not expected to be used in the near future, e.g. survey drawings.

Even if you would split up VW it won't take long before we would end up with e.g.  VW " traditional design versions" as well as VW BIM Architect, VW BIM Landscape, VW BIM Spotlight again to accommodate for the different requirements in BIM usage and end up with all kinds of little issues/conflicts because the functionality does not match 1:1 so a BIM Spotlight file does not integrate seamlessly with BIM Architect file or a VW traditional file.

 

BIM is still a work in progress and it should develop in a way that will keep it flexible enough to adjust for differences in requirements for various disciplines where it is or may be used while maintaining overall compatibility/integrity. If VW would develop generative drawing in order to generate 2D documentation views from 3D objects in an automated way then this might solve the bulk of the issues between traditional delivery and BIM delivery.

 

I've seen project document specs for delivery where the same class/layer names and settings were used for different purposes in different disciplines, once you had to merge a drawing crossing these different disciplines it raised some compatibility issues for creating documentation. BIM is not going to be different, no matter how your software is organised. In that case I'd prefer things to be integrated well into a single program so that I can deal with it in a consistent way instead of also having to solve paradigm differences between two or more programs or different versions of the same program.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Tom Klaber said:

It just seems as this new BIM delivery is a revolution - and it will be held back if we are always trying to squeeze it into a CAD box.  That maybe - completely new ways of thinking how to orgazing and document will be better long term solutions - than always trying to make new tools works with legacy ones.  

 

This could be solved by having BIM only tools and a BIM only workspace in VW. Then when you need to change to more traditional things then switch to a different workspace using the traditional tools and vice versa. The use of one does not have to exclude the use of the other. I don't really see this being much different that 2D vs 3D.

 

If the CAD box is the limiting factor then a strictly BIM dedicated program is the way to go, like it is for some types of 3D modelling where using a dedicated 3D modelling only program is the better way of working.
I prefer using a "CAD box"  for my 3D modelling because most of it requires the accuracy of CAD, which, at least for me, is harder to get in traditional 3D modelling software, also when other things are used in combination (e.g. survey files).

Link to comment

Fair.

It's funny - the things I want VW to develop to improve the program are very different than the things I would want if I were to close my eyes and think about developing a whole new program from scratch.

Let's take the most basic thing of all - Design Layers.  We NEED them in the CAD workflow - everything is built off of them.  They are modeled off of drawing sheets - and they are great; they are smart.  They can have Z values - like a super intelligent stack of paper, but when we move to BIM - we continue to use them because it is the fundamental organizing principle of the program, but we are immediately confronted with their antiquity.  Objects want to span stories and where objects go is not clear because the whole logic of layers falls apart - and we are always making compromises about where an object goes - because it has to go somewhere - but it just shows that Design Layers work for CAD but do not work for BIM.  The concepts of stories and levels are closer now to what a BIM model needs rather than design layers.  Walls, windows, and chimneys want to span multiple floors, and VW right now has no real way to handle this. 

The some of power of BIM is lost if I have to manually draw repeating elements on multiple stories or divide up multistory elements so that they appear on the design layer I need them to.  This is not sustainable as the expectation for more accurate BI models increase these outmoded workarounds will become less and less acceptable. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Vectorworks is quite an extensive program for architects, but not everyone uses the same tools or designs, or presents their designs in the same way. There are many tools in Architect that Fundamentals doesn't offer so just because I don't design buildings or use BIM technology doesn't mean the tools offered through Architect aren't useful to other trades.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, mac@stairworks said:

Vectorworks is quite an extensive program for architects, but not everyone uses the same tools or designs, or presents their designs in the same way. There are many tools in Architect that Fundamentals doesn't offer so just because I don't design buildings or use BIM technology doesn't mean the tools offered through Architect aren't useful to other trades.

 

Precisely.  This is my fear.  Is that ACE industry needs are changing - quickly - and I wonder if Vectorworks can continue to be the Jack of All trades is has been in the past - or if it is going to have to face a hard truth that they will need to specialize.  

It could be that they choose to be a BIM Light solution - where most architects will be forced to move to something else - leaving lighitng, stage, and landscape - or it goes full on BIM - leaving some other trades behind.  

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Tom Klaber said:

oof - I knew this would be a rough one - killing my reputation. :)

 

I repaired that with my love button ...

 

I don't think it needs a split.

I worked with CAD software unlimited in 3D long ago, which still allowed all 2D Goodies

like Element Stacking, Hatches, Fills and all.

It is the 2d porting to 3D approach that is limiting. I mean 2,5D is fine for Architecture

as Architecture is 98% 2,5D. That you can be sure that your 2D will be drawn on XY plane only.

 

But even thinking about a "Screen Plane" is horrible. And it really appears in many Objects .

It is just a XY (so 2D) plane with a granted Z of 0.00. And the only meaning is setting a

potential frame for a Viewport - where you can see it as a Workplane, where Z is oriented to

viewer.

And there are some Islands in VW that behave true 3D like SubD's and Gizmo but a lot of

legacy 2D stuff. And a lot of inconsistency. You can do more than expected with 3D Modify Tool,

but if you want to change height of an extrude in a side view, you will need to use the drag

tool and such things.

Drag Tool will keep Z in a orthogonal side View, move by points not ...

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, zoomer said:

It is the 2d porting to 3D approach that is limiting. I mean 2,5D is fine for Architecture

as Architecture is 98% 2,5D. That you can be sure that your 2D will be drawn on XY plane only.

 

 

Well to quote some famous architects with hopefully a lot more pull than I.

'Architecture begins with the section'

Not sure who said it first (oddly it doesn't even google which goes to show how much architecture hits the world stage) but locally I've heard it attributed to Le Corb, Murcutt, Alto, Utzon and few others and I'm convinced it's much much older.

 

No Vectorworks doesn't need to split in two as everything suggested as much needed in BIM is just as much needed for those of us who have the need to output to paper to make money. I'm pretty sure most of us have dreamed of being able directly manipulate sections, even start a project from by sketching out the section with hybrid objects then expanding and refining in other directions instead of all ways having to work from plans.  I think a lot more users would be better and more comfortable with more advanced workflows if they could have more flexibility in the working plane. That said clip-cube helps but agree fully it feels like you are still working tied to the plan but with better visual access. 

 

Also would be in full agreement Vectorworks shouldn't be so constrained by legacy. Given upgrading users bring their own workspace with them. I see no reason each new version default installation shouldn't have everything geared to the best practice. I think part of reason we have 3 ways to do most things but rarely one that is the best way is a shyness to trash legacy and make us deal with it. 

 

 

Edit: to Add the following link.

 

http://www.archdaily.com/799167/mental-canvas-new-drawing-app-shows-how-digital-software-will-save-sketching-not-destroy-it

 

I mean this is amazing. Imagine Being pull all your site information in to VW as a model then zoom around to any where and just start sketching before picking up Hybrid objects/symbols/tools to hardline the sketch into form.

 

Edited by Matt Overton
  • Like 2
Link to comment

I love the sketching over 3D Vw idea! To be able to add scribbles/ notes to model in client meetings / workshops and then share with web view export (which clients love so far!) could be a great collaboration tool.

Meanwhile in the real world, with drawing sheets and sections/ elevations, the less time I have to spend setting these up, the more time I get to design, so great that VW2107 has made this process much quicker! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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...