Popular Post Jonnoxx Posted September 25, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted September 25, 2020 There seem to be many unresolved issues over the years that VW just refuses to engage directly with it's client-base. Why VW is so reluctant to address fixing these issues in an open and candid manner with its paying clientele seems a marketing mystery. Seems the ideal place for the Vectorworks executive team to DIRECTLY address these questions is at the upcoming 6th October webinar explaining the features of VW 2021 and importantly, the boss' vision for the future. Register for this webinar and submit your questions about these problems, and demand a clear answer as to WHEN these problems are going to be not merely addressed, but FINALLY solved! There's a very interesting article in the latest AEC Magazine by Martyn Day https://www.aecmag.com/component/content/article/19-lead-story/lead-article/2080-the-future-of-revit discussing the problem of software developers losing their developmental momentum after a few years of the introduction of a new program. The article is focused on the very embarrassing public spat between Autodesk's Revit and their long-suffering customers. This problem is not unique to Autodesk alone. It's endemic to ANY software developer. It's just like constantly altering the same building. EVENTUALLY, there comes a point where you run out of runway, and the only option is to demolish the entire building, and start from scratch again! In addition, Nemetscheck also has a FUNDAMENTAL - and very serious - business problem that is peculiar to their stable. Nemetschek currently supports THREE distinct, mutually-competing, architectural programs (Vectorworks, ArchiCAD, Allplan). It is argued that these three programs survive by addressing separate and unique markets. That may well be true, but this seems an increasingly risky argument going forward in a trend of standardisation of software solutions across international boundaries. All three Nemetschek products suffer from serious, unattended, cholesterol buildup in their separate development arteries. Allowing duplicate programs in the same company addressing the exact same problem, and not making any effort to develop a common core software, is an expensive opportunity-cost indulgence that is not a sustainable situation that can continue forever. Sooner or later, at some point, Nemetscheck is going to have to consolidate these three programs into a SINGLE program (albeit maybe still with a strongly-localised flavor, based on a SINGLE common core ). Landscape and Spotlight are stellar programs in their own right, but do nothing for Architects, and should be spun off as separate stand-alone programs. The situation is reminiscent of the early days of the software development of Word-processing, Spreadsheet, and Operating System programs. Remember Wordperfect? Ami-Pro? Lotus 123? MS-Dos? IBM's OS/2? These programs ruled the roost in their hey-day. But now ...??? They are forgotten footnotes in history! You want a word-processing program today ...? It's WORD! Spreadsheet ...? It's EXCEL ! Operating System ...? OK, I won't go there! But you get the point ... EVENTUALLY ... the market STANDARDISES on a SINGLE solution. And all the previous players VANISH into the history books! SAME thing is going to happen with Architectural software! The astonishing power becoming available to developers in the latest Unreal and Unity Gaming engines is making it easy for bright newcomers with new ideas to enter this field without the baggage of legacy code - or a management frozen in the past. Or needing 20 years of coding experience. Combined with major advances in inexpensive graphic and computing power, the marketing grip of large software houses on their traditionally captive-market clients, is now ever-more easily threatened by a few young Bill Gates type upstart renegades. Looking back, Autodesk really did have the opportunity to have locked this market down for themselves, but in a series of disastrous executive decisions, they under-estimated the shifting paradigm at the time (from expensive main-frames and workstations towards cheap PCs), and over-estimated their monopolistic grip on the market - which allowed the then small-fry upstart SOLIDWORKS to be bought out by France's Dassault from under their nose. To Autodesk's unbelieving consternation, SW rapidly replaced Autocad as the de facto standard in mechanical CAD. Decades later, Autodesk has never recovered from this faux pas. Ominously, Revit seems to be caught in the same whirlpool, and facing the exact same fate of throwing its market dominance away because it got caught in the headlights of indecision, and complacency in their own self-importance to the market. In a way, I'm very surprised that Microsoft has not yet taken a keen interest in this market turmoil and dissatisfaction. Blood in the water attracts sharks! MS have recently embarked on the ambitious journey of creating a fully functional 3D digital world for their new Flight Simulator 2020. This has thrown the cat amongst the pigeons of the current mainstream operators in this field - NONE of whom saw this coming, and virtually ALL of whom are COMPLETELY ill-prepared for their future to be completely upturned and redefined by the re-arrival of MS back into this genre. By all accounts, MS (or rather the subcontractor Asobo who conceived the project in the first place, and is now running it as the main software developer), has knocked the ball out of the park. And with that, the prospects of all the current competitors, whose future now looks very bleak - if not even ... gasp ... non-existent (no exaggeration!). My wild opinion is that an accurate digital Earth is more than just a mere mapping exercise useful for a "game". It provides a powerful underlying synergy that plays very well in the architectural and civil engineering world. I used to think that Google had a lock on mapping. Now I think that MS has turned the tables on Google by successfully developing a solution for effortlessly moving very large amounts of data to millions of distributed PC's all over the world, with an acceptable minimal impact on latency. This is an essential requirement for gaming, but is equally suitable for any other industry with similar data-processing problems. Google has stumbled badly trying to solve this problem, and appears to have lost the initiative to MS. All the current situation of general customer discontent in the Architectural / Civil Engineering space is begging for, is some live-wire, bright-spark company to recognize the potential of exploiting this dissatisfaction, and come up with a fresh and electrifying vision - just like Asobo famously did for Flight Simulation - of a fresh new 21st century approach - without the legacy baggage - to the current architectural/civil engineering portfolio, that could persuade MS to enter this field - and galvanize the re-invention of a market that appears ripe for massive change. I think MS could find a LOT of synergy for their existing businesses here. And they will likely find a lot of support if they try! Whether that will happen anytime soon, and whether the change-agent will be MS (unlikely), is anyone's guess. But I'm pretty certain the current "unhappy-clients with nowhere to go" setup in the Architectural space is INTRINSICALLY unstable for the current players, and cannot last forever. Eventually, that tectonic shift will take place! Will Nemetschek ACT on this threat ? In time?? Or will the winds of complacency blow their "too-little, too-late" ship onto the rocks of Oblivion??? We shall see ... 😜 14 Quote Link to comment
Popular Post jmanganelli Posted September 26, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted September 26, 2020 (edited) @Jonnoxx thank you for this very thoughtful post. I appreciate the careful thought. I am adding some points and elaborations: Look at what Siemens, Dassault Systemes, and Intergraph/Hexagon are doing, and also Bentley. They have more mature visions and more advanced methods and tools. Who knows if it will be Microsoft, Google, Apple, or some other tech giant who takes the AEC industry. Any of them could buy most of the major BIM authoring tool vendors outright with only a fraction of their free cash. I don't imagine there is much interest in doing so though. I could see them buying Fluor, Jacobs, Stantec, HOK, or any of the major AEC/EPC firms instead, as well as Siemens, Schneider Electric, Rockwell Automation, Honeywell, and Johnson Controls. They don't need legacy code. They have software development domain knowledge, systems engineering domain knowledge, and vast user data. They need design, construction, and operations domain knowledge and they need facilities operations data. I don't think they will have an interest in BIM authoring tool vendors or the BIM authoring tool market other than perhaps as an aquihire opportunity. I think that the big tech companies want to own connected environments, smart buildings, smart cities, smart transportation, etc., and to own the smart buildings/cities domains they need to understand and ultimately optimize and manage how buildings and communities are designed, constructed, and maintained. The BIM tool is among the least interesting and least useful technologies for understanding how to design and build buildings and environments as part of smart, connected systems of systems because the way major BIM authoring tool vendors seem to develop their tools, they seem to view the data capture and analysis they do through the traditional lenses of their industries and roles as opposed to through the lens of making tools to facilitate the creation of smart, connected systems. It would be more useful for the tech giants to buy the 10 biggest AEC/EPC firms, as mentioned above, and allow them to keep running as normal for years, gradually introduce smart systems requirements, and to mine and collect all of the data associated with design, construction, and operations, as well as monitor, collect, and analyze every email, meeting, phone call, drawing, and keystroke of the subject matter experts who design, build, and operate built environment systems of systems. This is how you map the entire facilities/environment/operations ecosystem. At the same time, on the back end, you have machine learning analyzing all of that data and figuring out how to do it all better and more efficiently and in a way that will have clients clamoring for your facilities and environments, in which, in turn, their data is also mined and operationalized. Perhaps occasionally, if they see an opportunity, based on their data mining and analysis, they may suggest methodological improvements to the AEC/EPC firms, but mostly we would be the study subjects for their systems analyses. Look beyond the AEC industries' inward focus (its somewhat idiosyncratic focus). Look at aerospace, defense, computer science, automotive, energy, telecommunications, and industrial scale software industries. You'll find that there is something like a convergence or agreement on a number of methods and tools for systems of systems development and optimization that are superior, mostly, to the methods and tools found in the AEC industries. There are somewhat standard formalisms for systems of systems representation, requirements elicitation/development/validation, analyses, optimization, and operations. There are well developed methods of co-simulation between software systems, hardware systems, hardware-software systems, as well as hardware-in-the-loop, software-in-the-loop, and human-in-the-loop co-simulations for systems of systems development. There are well-established paradigms for emerging project types, including cyber-physical systems, socio-technical systems, ultra-large scale systems, multi-scale systems, and complex, large, integrated, open systems. Siemens and Dassault Systemes are keyed in on these constructs and methods and their tools reflect it. The AEC industry is years to decades behind in recognizing and adapting this knowledge and these methods and tools. Why does all of this matter? Sit back and look around you. Look at your computer, you monitor, your smart phone, perhaps your smart watch, your tablet, perhaps your wearable technology, your car made in the last 25 years that is as much or more computer and network data node than car, perhaps, your cloud systems, your Alexa or NEST or Ring or other home automation systems, your security and access control systems, and also the transportation, distribution, and telecommunications systems of systems upon which you rely. Our digitally augmented world is designed, made, optimized, and operated through the constructs, measures, methods, and tools that I am referencing above, widely utilized in all other major capital-intensive, mission-critical industries --- with the surprisingly notable exception of buildings and the built environment. And yet, it is inevitable that these same constructs, measures, methods, and tools will be applied to the built environment because: (1) they can be --- the built environment is designable, constructable, and operable using the same methods, as are all complex, dynamical systems of systems --- and; (2) because there's so much profit to be made and control to be gained from fully connecting the built environment for commercial and governmental actors that they are compelled to turn the built environment into an extension of the rest of our digitally enhanced society; (3) these technologies and methods and tools are already being applied to the built environment through control systems and building automation systems mentioned above, and so there is a natural and easy path for reaching into the AEC industry that is at least somewhat familiar to the tech giants. If you go down the bunny holes implied in the content referenced above, you'll find that as far as systems geometry authoring and simulation platforms go, Daussault Systemes and Siemens have tools that are much more tailored to designing complex systems of systems than any BIM authoring tool vendors' tools. As an example, Dassault Systemes Catia platform includes components for overlaying systems engineering methods and performing hardware/software/human co-simulations. Siemens Tecnomatix line in conjunction with their NX line allows for robust modeling and simulation of human-environment interactions and design. The problem though is that these platforms are very expensive. In 2010 I got a software grant from Siemens to use their NX MCAD tool in conjunction with their Tecnomatix Process Simulate Human tools in order to do research on bringing systems engineering design and analysis methods as one may find in aerospace or defense into the AEC industry to improve the AEC industries' ability to execute model-based, evidence-based design. The software tools that Siemens let me use for that project were valued at in excess of $500,000. I don't know what a full suite of Dassault Systemes modeling, systems engineering, and co-simulation tools would cost, but as I have been told and read, it would also be 3-20 times as much as what AEC professionals typically pay for BIM authoring tools. So there is a fundamental barrier to using these superior systems design and analysis tools in our industry as our industry is not set up to afford to do this level of modeling and analysis. Beyond this, of course, our industry would also have to start integrating data scientists, human factors engineers, systems engineers, and computer scientists as standard parts of design teams. This is done to a limited extend in the heavy industrial, military, event, and healthcare subsectors of the AEC industry, but is not wide spread, and would also entail significant additional cost. Bringing this all back to Vectorworks, one of the reasons that I like vectorworks is that it is a fundamentally very sound modeling and drawing tool with great representational ability, a solid internal data management system, that can handle big data sets well and is relatively inexpensive, at least in the US market compared to its competitors. From my perspective, Rhino and Vectorworks are similar in that they offer tremendous value for the cost and are very efficient for the most basic and fundamental tasks, that we will always need to do, even if they don't offer all of the bells and whistles of some of the more expensive packages. But, given my comments above, it should be clear that I believe that the priorities and foci of the more expensive BIM authoring packages either suffer from a poor vision and alignment with where our industry is headed (i.e., how to model/simulate smart/connected environments) or suffer from an inability to deliver the features and functionality in an affordable way. I should also say that with Vectorworks' focus and leadership on tools like Spotlight and ConnectCAD, in a low-key, low-cost kind of way, they are actually better prepared for a transition to the methods, tools, and workflows needed to design smart, connected environments than any, or at least most, of the other BIM authoring tool vendors currently appear to be. Combine this with Vectorworks' strategic relationship with Siemens, and Vectorworks' ability to handle big data sets, its database technology, and its general user-friendly modeling, drawing, and graphics capabilities, and I think that if Vectorworks plays its hand well, it could leapfrog the other BIM authoring vendors and gain market dominance. But as per the comment about complexity below, there are too many factors to know what will play out or how, and I do not work for any of these companies or know what they have in the pipelines. These are merely my observations based on my experience and what information is publicly available right now. In case you are interested, look at the NIST Cyber Physical Systems Testbed and start to think about how this will integrate with AEC industry BIM authoring tools and project management tools. This will give you a sense of how our industries' methods and tools have to evolve to participate in the connected future of the built environment. Or look at IES' ICL --- also heading in the right direction. Also look at Matlab/Simulink, and how energy analysis software like OpenStudio can be integrated with Modelica to perform systems of systems analyses. In case you're interested, take the concept of a digital twin as presented typically and set it aside. A geometry model as a data model is not necessarily a particularly interesting or useful data model. An equation is a data model. A story of any kind, for instance, a children's book, is a data model. A spreadsheet is a data model. Building design, construction, and operations have been represented by data models since people sketched out plans in sand with sticks. Building design, construction, and operations have been represented by digital data models since plant, railroad, and utility operators in the late 19th century first mapped out electricity distribution networks with wall-sized painted diagrams that had indicator lights located at key points to indicate the status of system functionality. A digital twin is also somewhat useless as a concept because there is a supposition in almost all, if not all discussion that I ever see about digital twins that they are in fact high-fidelity digital representations of actual physical and logical systems. But this supposition fails to take into account system complexity, components in the model that may be poorly represented or missing, and rate of change of system states (especially changes that occur outside of the designed performance envelope). Once a system gets so complex, when all of the little assumptions and estimates and unknowns and fudge factors start to add up and compound upon each other, and once the system experiences a series of external, unplanned for, traumatic events (like lightning strike, earthquake, flood, hurricane, tornado, fire, systematic and chronic misuse, etc.), the systems' behavior and structure become somewhat unpredictable, either temporarily or permanently. This is a mathematical and scientific truth. Complex, dynamical systems (i.e., complex systems whose states change over time) are only modelable and predictable when the system occupies something like a natural harmonic frequency, an equilibrium state (that may be far from entropy, i.e., is highly structured). When the system falls out of such an equilibrium state or harmonic frequency, its behavior can become fundamentally chaotic and unpredictable. Once the model loses fidelity, structure, and stability, how do we get it back in sync with reality? Maybe its easy. Maybe its impossible. Maybe getting it back in sync can be approximated but at the cost of a further loss of fidelity and an increased likelihood of wandering into chaotic states in the future. The buildings that we design are complex, dynamical systems. They wander in and out of states of structured, stable, predictable behavior and chaotic, unpredictable behavior throughout their lifecycles. A digital twin can be made and it may even be mostly accurate, much of the time, especially if system states and variables and contextual conditions are kept within limited performance envelopes, but digital twins can never be completely accurate or stable representations of the actual building performance and they cannot always accurately predict conditions and future states of the buildings' assets. There's a great book that explains this issue of the limits of predicting complexity by using a pool table analogy. Here's the key quote from the book: "If you know a set of basic parameters concerning the ball at rest, you can compute the resistance of the table (quite elementary), and can gauge the strength of the impact, then it is rather easy to predict what would happen at the first hit. The second impact becomes more complicated, but possible; and more precision is called for. The problem is that to correctly compute the ninth impact, you need to take account the gravitational pull of someone standing next to the table (modestly, Berry’s computations use a weight of less than 150 pounds). And to compute the fifty-sixth impact, every single elementary particle in the universe needs to be present in your assumptions! An electron at the edge of the universe, separated from us by 10 billion light-years, must figure in the calculations, since it exerts a meaningful effect on the outcome." (p. 178) If this is true for trying to predict the paths of pool balls on a pool table, then how much more is it true of the way that buildings (and by extension digital twins) function! In case you're interested, all is not lost for architects, engineers, and contractors. There is a well established way in which AEC professionals maintain relevance. It is rooted in our history. You see, over time, AEC professionals figured out something fundamental about how to design, construct, and operate complex, dynamical systems. Rather than trying to model and manage the complexity and dynamicism, eliminate it instead. Make the building as simple as possible but no simpler. AEC professionals figured something else out, too, as codified in Don Schon's great book, The Reflective Practitioner. AEC professionals design systems of systems unlike any other industry, and there is a wisdom in our creative madness. What Schon calls reflective practice is like an early, bespoke version of agent-based modeling that we naturally developed in the AEC industry. The idea is that as opposed to trying to capture and manage all of the possible variables and permutations of a system of systems, start with some big concepts, simply defined, not too many, get them all aligned and working in something like a cohesive whole by imagining and playing out what-if scenarios and iterating, and then the rest will fall into place through iterative refinement, even though you may never be fully aware of the full system of systems or understand it. This practice will remain valid and is very powerful. It is also very efficient and effective. There was a study out of CIFE about 8 years ago that compared a group of seasoned AEC veterans scoping a project to a machine learning algorithm scoping the project. The machine learning algorithm produced better results than the team of human experts. But, the results of the algorithm were not that much better and it ran for a lot more hours than the SMEs spent conceiving of the project. The point is that while overall the smart tech produced a superior result, the humans were surprisingly competitive and efficient in that they produced a pretty similar result by spending a lot fewer hours analyzing the project needs and logistics. So again, there is a place for AEC SMEs. We are not irrelevant now nor will we be for a long time, if ever. Rather, the best outcome is when that deep and efficient human expertise is supercharged with just enough machine learning. In case you are interested, also look into SEPS2BIM and BIMStorm. This is a great effort. They have worked on BIM-authoring tool agnostic building systems and component representations that can be loaded into any BIM authoring tool. Also, with SEPS2BIM, they've geotagged all components, so that everything is listed in a database as existing in a specific location in the world. Edited September 27, 2020 by jmanganelli 6 Quote Link to comment
Popular Post _c_ Posted September 26, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted September 26, 2020 12 hours ago, Jonnoxx said: There seem to be many unresolved issues over the years that VW just refuses to engage directly with it's client-base. Why VW is so reluctant to address fixing these issues in an open and candid manner with its paying clientele seems a marketing mystery. But I'm pretty certain the current "unhappy-clients with nowhere to go" setup in the Architectural space is INTRINSICALLY unstable for the current players, and cannot last forever. Eventually, that tectonic shift will take place! VW has an uncanny way of building up an increasingly large discontent user base for the Architectural Module. Every year never what you asked for, insistently, for a decade. Instead, something new that doesn't work for some reason. Something either causing massive workarounds, endless clicking around dialogs, or abandonment altogether. This is letting us down, really. We are already seeing the tectonic shift. Most professional users, fed up with waiting for things to fix, move to Archicad. For Nemetschek this is no problem whatsoever. The problem is exquisitely our. Mind, the Renderworks, Spotlight, ConnectCad parts etc. are, on the contrary, very beloved. There is a direct relationship with the users, they listen and give back what's expected in humanly measurable times. 6 Quote Link to comment
Helm Posted September 26, 2020 Share Posted September 26, 2020 I am not capable of the deep analysis we read above, but I believe that Enscape is an example of a company that has made a huge leap in consolidating the need for rendering output from our various cad programs. It pretty much works with all of them. VW for the pc user at least could eliminate Renderworks, and other rendering tools except Open GL and focus on core issues like better design and drafting tools and plug in objects. In other words the consolidation of tools as mentioned above is happening, and the simple practitioners like me will just naturally without giving it much thought move on to those programs or you might say tools of our industry that make our work easier and more profitable. It seems that VW with all its capabilites may just be one of the survivors. 1 Quote Link to comment
Diamond Posted September 27, 2020 Share Posted September 27, 2020 22 hours ago, jmanganelli said: You see, over time, AEC professionals figured out something fundamental about how to design, construct, and operate complex, dynamical systems. Related to the philosophical side of architecture, on the trxl podcast this week… Special guest Reg Prentice joins the podcast to talk about the value of an architect, how and why we document decisions, the network effect, how designers are decision factories, and much more. https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/trxl/id1519377425?i=1000492068230 What caught my attention was Reg's description of an architect's role – that is, designers are decision makers that create certainty from uncertainty (and needing to be comfortable with uncertainty, which software / tools is a part of). And then he speaks of wicked vs tamed problems. Good stuff to help us understand the real issues of the architectural profession. 21 hours ago, _c_ said: We are already seeing the tectonic shift. Most professional users, fed up with waiting for things to fix, move to Archicad. For Nemetschek this is no problem whatsoever. The problem is exquisitely our. Yes, I feel this as, after many years, I have recently changed architectural firms, and nearly ended up using ArchiCAD. It is very hard for me to grow as an architect remaining on the Vectorworks Architect platform. 21 hours ago, _c_ said: Mind, the Renderworks, Spotlight, ConnectCad parts etc. are, on the contrary, very beloved. There is a direct relationship with the users, they listen and give back what's expected in humanly measurable times. Knowing there are parts of Vectorworks that are taking such great leaps forward and are much beloved makes the Vw Architect product stagnation all the more challenging / frustrating. I suspect this reflects the general stagnation of the architectural software space. If architects had clients / customers / suppliers / technologies forcing complex standards upon them (as lighting designers do), I think AEC software would be far more leading edge. Ironically much of the push to better solutions is coming from clients and developers requiring better project outcomes at the big end of town. But Vectorworks doesn't generally play in that space in Australia. I am thankful for the increased stability of the last couple of releases. I hope now that those holes are plugged, Vectorworks Inc. can also plug the holes in tools that have been around for many years but have gone unloved. I would love see Vectorworks Inc. to take advantage of the industry discontent that Autodesk / Revit has created, and not to be lumped in with them as part of the problem. 3 Quote Link to comment
jmanganelli Posted September 27, 2020 Share Posted September 27, 2020 @Diamond strongly suggest reading schon’s book 1 Quote Link to comment
elepp Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 Thanks for this thread. It's nice to read something related to Vectorworks in a big picture way. I think it's also for us architects important to think about were we are headed and what the future should/might look like. @Diamond Nice to hear from another TRXL listener. Even though I am sitting in germany and some of the topics are more us-centric, I still find it enlightening to hear the interviews and ideas expressed. On 9/26/2020 at 8:13 AM, _c_ said: We are already seeing the tectonic shift. Most professional users, fed up with waiting for things to fix, move to Archicad. For Nemetschek this is no problem whatsoever. The problem is exquisitely our. That's only part of problem. I talked to some people, who switched or are in the process. One big advantage of switching software is leaving old habits behind. Lots of offices start in 2D in Vectorworks and keep those habits. They are always tempted to fall back into this ingrained paterns, when the going gets hard. And it will get hard. The biggest factor to any change is the human factor. No matter if it's the software user (us) or the software developer (vw). And those young, skilled people all leave university knowing Revit or Archicad. They than constantly sing the praises of these software packages and are also the only ones willing to switch to 3D/BIM. Quote Link to comment
Art V Posted September 28, 2020 Share Posted September 28, 2020 On 9/27/2020 at 5:41 AM, Diamond said: I would love see Vectorworks Inc. to take advantage of the industry discontent that Autodesk / Revit has created, and not to be lumped in with them as part of the problem. Except that I don't get the impression they have actually been doing that so far. When a few years ago Autodesk went subscription only and start to try smoking out those still on maintenance by increasing prices with double digit percentages I saw this as an opportunity to attract AutoCAD users if only they would fix some compatibility issues (text styles import/export being one of the big(ger) issues that still didn't get solved). Especially because BricsCAD was developing at neckbreak speed with its 3D and developing BIM and Mechanical on top of their base program and already being DWG compatible they could be one of the new competitors to VW on Mac when it comes to enticing disgruntled AutoCAD/Revit/etc. users. Gräbert from Germany is now also making serious efforts at BIM and they are also using the DWG format and present on Windows, Mac and Linux. BricsCAD is now part of Hexagon (in the same division as Intergraph). Anyone coming from Autodesk software may now be more enticed by the DWG based alternatives than by Vectorworks because some of the incompatibilities with DWG still haven't been solved, some have but not enough. Vectorworks still has advantages over the DWG based competitors but the DWG based competitors are closing in and in some ways even surpass Vectorworks by now. I really think they missed an opportunity for the long term here. The CAD market is mostly stagnant, most of the growth comes from attracting customers away from their competitor CAD programs so VW can't afford to have too many of their users become disgruntled at the lack of development in some areas. It will be interesting to see what will come up on October 6 with regard to VW's future and direction. 2 Quote Link to comment
elepp Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 Stumbled on this article: Link Very interesting read, especially about the AEC Delta Mobility project. It is puzzeling, that I can use a budgeting app on my smartphone and get my bank account synced in real time, because of an open api, but the same for our building models is not possible. There is so much potential for productivity gains and workflow improvements. Quote Link to comment
Art V Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 The article is interesting when it comes to a perspective of interoperation/data compatibility/exchange through common APIs but that part about being in one app while a message from another app comes in and... app ....app ....app makes me feel this is a perspective from the app generation that doesn't mind apps having different GUI's and workflows. It also seems to be oriented towards the (very) big companies and not the small practices. From a workflow perspective having to use multiple apps for different kinds of functionality seems detrimental in the long run because one keeps switching apps. Research has shown that this kind of workflow is actually less efficient, unless all apps adhere to a similar (G)UI and workflow and paradigms. There are reasons why some CAD software works better for one and another CAD program works better for another. I have read articles that Autodesk wants to go the CATIA way, no longer a file format but a database format that is proprietary and results in vendor lock-in. It is easy to get your data into CATIA but very difficult to get it out in way that is useful and efficient to be used in another program so people are not likely to switch from CATIA to something else. The same more or less applies to OnShape, as long as you are within OnShape it is all nice and dandy but once you want to get out you are left with mostly dumb files and lose quite a bit of functionality. It is already possible to diff regular files, to avoid having to send the entire file over and over again, so to me the issue that needs to be solved is relatively simple... data and object definitions/geometry interoperability. e.g. when I import a 3D model from AutoCAD it should preferably be translated into the proper geometric equivalent of a VW object instead of a bunch of triangulated surfaces. BricsCAD already does it nicely when importing from e.g. SolidWorks it may not be able yet to use the constraints from SolidWorks but I can work with the 3D model without too many issues and re-parametrize it to create a functional mechanical model. It is far less messy than importing a 3D DWG into VW. Then it doesn't matter what software you are using, as long as the data and geometry are interoperable and exchangeable/transferable without loss of information. Whether that is an app in the cloud or a big program on a local computer. 1 Quote Link to comment
jmanganelli Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 Look at the bimstorm and seps2bim links above. Great work. They have made non proprietary, non-tool-specific ways to store project info and use them to populate bim and cad models with platform-independent project information. 1 Quote Link to comment
Art V Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, jmanganelli said: Look at the bimstorm and seps2bim links above. Great work. They have made non proprietary, non-tool-specific ways to store project info and use them to populate bim and cad models with platform-independent project information. I'll read up on those later, but based on your post it seems to be mostly BIM oriented. What e.g. BricsCAD (and probably Hexagon when they start integrating their products more and more) is doing is put everything into DWG, i.e. general 2D/3D, BIM and Mechanical so that you can develop e.g. a rolling stairway in BricsCAD as a fully mechanical model and integrate it in your BIM model of the building while having all data available within the same (set of) file(s) without translation issues that you would have between e.g. Inventor (rolling stairway) and Revit (building). Because Hexagon is also into manufacturing, measuring (GIS and measuring instruments for manufacturing as well as structural analysis software) etc. they may have an advantage over most branch specific software products that are not well integrated (e.g. Inventor/Revit). Whether this will hold ground against the developments you mentioned will of course remain to be seen. One of the reasons I am using BricsCAD besides VW is that it can do general 2D/3D, BIM (though not yet as far as VW Architect), mechanical, Civil/GIS well enough to make it have an advantage over using multiple CAD programs aimed at mostly a single discipline. It may not in all aspects be the most efficient program but it is good enough for practical use and is still improving. Siemens is probably in the same ballpark as Hexagon as it is also a huge manufacturing company active in a lot of areas unlike e.g. Autodesk and Bentley which definitely gives them an advantage. Dassault sits somewhere in the middle between Hexagon/Siemens on one end and Autodesk/Bentley on the other end. Autodesk has bought a lot of their products instead of developing them themselves, which could/does explain the interoperability mess between their products. Though they seem to be working on a somewhat universal system as well, but it is taking them a long time to get this done. Their cloud attempts haven't been that successful yet. I'll try to find the online article on that. Given their market penetration they may have a chance if they are capable of deploying it in time to stay ahead. Whatever the outcome will be, it will be an interesting time. Edit: Found the link for Autodesk's attempt to develop an interoperable platform: https://architosh.com/2020/10/whats-beyond-revit-anagnost-on-autodesk-aec-futures/ Edited October 5, 2020 by Art V 1 Quote Link to comment
jmanganelli Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 @Art V Seps2Bim is a space and equipment planning system that geolocates geometry --- anything. It could be used for BIM but it could be used for a lot of things other than BIM. Also very cool that the developers have done extensive implementation with the Veterans Affairs Administration, so the technology and workflow are well developed and tested. The BIMSTORM information is kept in regular spreadsheets and databases, in some cases. Very flexible. Again, beyond BIM. These can also be used for asset management, operations and maintenance, and other usages. Quote Link to comment
elepp Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 6 hours ago, Art V said: It is already possible to diff regular files, to avoid having to send the entire file over and over again, so to me the issue that needs to be solved is relatively simple... data and object definitions/geometry interoperability. e.g. when I import a 3D model from AutoCAD it should preferably be translated into the proper geometric equivalent of a VW object instead of a bunch of triangulated surfaces. BricsCAD already does it nicely when importing from e.g. SolidWorks it may not be able yet to use the constraints from SolidWorks but I can work with the 3D model without too many issues and re-parametrize it to create a functional mechanical model. It is far less messy than importing a 3D DWG into VW. That would be basically the final edition of ifc. At least I think that's what they are going for at building smart. But given the time it takes to develope a file format that is agreed upon by all parties involved and is natively translated by all programms/apps, we are already working in the cloud. In terms of apps that are seemlessly interconnected via api, I agree with you that it will take a generational shift for it to become a standard workflow. May sound utopic. The problem with interrupted work is already happening between vectorworks, excel, email, telephone, photoshop, etc. We should programm an AI to take care of the important work so we can focus better on the distractions. 😉 Quote Link to comment
Art V Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 12 minutes ago, elepp said: That would be basically the final edition of ifc. At least I think that's what they are going for at building smart. But given the time it takes to develope a file format that is agreed upon by all parties involved and is natively translated by all programms/apps, we are already working in the cloud. Yes they are already working on that, there are two types of file formats for this that could be chose. ODA (Open Design Alliance) that is also responsible for the DWG, DGN and Revit libraries that VW and the DWG alternatives to AutoCAD are using, is working on this with Building Smart. You can read more about that, if you want, in this article: https://www.upfrontezine.com/2020/09/upf-1065.html 16 minutes ago, elepp said: In terms of apps that are seemlessly interconnected via api, I agree with you that it will take a generational shift for it to become a standard workflow. May sound utopic. The problem with interrupted work is already happening between vectorworks, excel, email, telephone, photoshop, etc. We should programm an AI to take care of the important work so we can focus better on the distractions. 😉 Perhaps IBM's Blue is available for purchase by now? It should still be powerful enough to handle this and you could practice your chess playing skills along with the rest. 🙂 1 Quote Link to comment
zoomer Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 I am asking myself, if you create an Architectural (CAD) App today from scratch, if it would be useful to build a design file system, based or oriented on IFC ? (Or USD for 3D) 1 Quote Link to comment
zoomer Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 (edited) BTW IFC larger, commercial offices may use IFC as intended, as a Referencing Format so that any party can work in its appropriate Software but to complete a holistic BIM Model controlled by a BIM supervisor and Management. While we smaller offices and freelancers just misuse it as a exchange and import/export format. (Because of missing reliable alternatives) Currently my exchange test show that I need 3 VW exports to a DWG based Application. 1. DWG Which brings out most geometry as true Solids (beside Walls and other VW PIOs that tend to end as lose 3D Faces) 2. IFC2x3 Because it does lose the least amount of objects. (While offering very lossy geometry and less Solids) 3. IFC4.0 Because it offers much better geometry, more true Solids, more features. (but loses the most objects) And was warned here from being used in production as not yet ready. And manually combine the best of all back into a project. (Mabe even 4. 3DM or 5. FBX to have the most resource to have a choice between all individual export qualities) So I hope for a (open source) future in BIM where we can exchange our work and information, without any loss because of proprietary policies. Edited October 5, 2020 by zoomer 1 Quote Link to comment
Jeff Prince Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 Return to ink on mylar and pin bar, join the revolution! I could see it happen if all these software vendors don't figure out how to play nice. That or something like the blender community will step up and fix the problem. I have kept my drafting table and rapidographs just in case 🙂 1 Quote Link to comment
Matt Overton Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 9 hours ago, zoomer said: I am asking myself, if you create an Architectural (CAD) App today from scratch, if it would be useful to build a design file system, based or oriented on IFC ? (Or USD for 3D) Put it on GIT or an other Subversion tool and multi-user is taken care of. Quote Link to comment
elepp Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 6 hours ago, jeff prince said: That or something like the blender community will step up and fix the problem. The BlenderBIM Community is gaining traction. With all the positive publicity blender.org recieved lately no surprise. It could turn into a viable alternative. 1 Quote Link to comment
Helm Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 All I want at the moment is a file format I can send a client that he can read in 3D and comment on. What should I use. Quote Link to comment
line-weight Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 3 hours ago, Helm said: All I want at the moment is a file format I can send a client that he can read in 3D and comment on. What should I use. send them the VW file and ask them to download the VW viewer? https://www.vectorworks.net/support/downloads/vectorworks-file-viewer Quote Link to comment
Helm Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 53 minutes ago, line-weight said: send them the VW file and ask them to download the VW viewer? https://www.vectorworks.net/support/downloads/vectorworks-file-viewer Yeah I know, but that does not seem to work for clients, not totally sure why, Quote Link to comment
jmanganelli Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 7 hours ago, line-weight said: send them the VW file and ask them to download the VW viewer? https://www.vectorworks.net/support/downloads/vectorworks-file-viewer Have you looked at Bentley imodel? what about a 3D pdf? or the vw viewer Quote Link to comment
Art V Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 22 minutes ago, jmanganelli said: what about a 3D pdf? @Helm 3D PDF is what I have been using so for almost 10 years, the advantage is that all you need is the free Adobe Reader or another PDF reader that can view 3D PDF (Bluebeam Revu can do this as well, PDF Xchange to some extent as its view is still B/W in most cases that I have seen it used but they are working on it). Because most companies do have Adobe Reader installed this is by far the easiest way to share a 3D model. If you want you can include the file structure so that they can turn classes/layers on/off as desired. Commenting on a PDF may be possible but it depends a bit on the PDF reader being used. For more extensive commenting one would probably need the full Adobe Acrobat or a version of Bluebeam Revu. The ODA file viewer can view quite a bit of 3D formats, though 3D PDF unfortunately isn't one of those. It is free. But it would require to export the model to another 3D format and then you would be sending an editable file. If you want a file that is a bit of a hassle to edit in another CAD/3D program but can viewed in a free and widely available and used viewer (Adobe Reader) then 3D PDF is probably your best option for now. 2 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.