Sketchup needs to be BIM
-
@jbacus said:
This is an interesting topic for me, and it speaks to a number of other discussions I have had around the internet lately. If SketchUp were to be "BIM", what entities, tools or other features would have want it to have?
sawhack: It sounds like you're thinking of a set of new parametric entities (wall, floor, roof, window, door, ..?) with new tools to make them? Is there more to BIM than this?
john
.Hi!
I work at a large architectural company where BIM is growing into everything we do and leadership is pushing towards starting all new projects in BIM.
There are still quite a lot af architects that start designing their buildings in SketchUp and then have to start all over in the CAD/BIM program. (In our case Revit.)IMHO, for SU to be a key player there would need to be better ways of getting the SketchUp model into, for example Revit, as a intelligent BIM model without the need to start all over.
Having parametric entities would be a good start.
Maybe some kind of solution where any SU entity could easily be linked to its Revit counterpart as some kind of preset so that it would be automatically substituted upon export?Quite often when I modify a Revit model in SU for (rendering purposes) I hear "Oh, I wish it was that easy in Revit" so I believe SU still have strengths that makes it useful in these BIM times.
(As a side note, importing a Revit model with materials would be great.) -
Thanks Alvin for starting this topic.
I imagine its the way you put your proposals that 'hooked' John B
I hope we see lots of suggestions / proposals that might seed some ideas for John and in turn he will travel down the road of an SU Pro Arch version.In the last couple of editions of Catchup 15 and 16 I wrote about this subject. 'What is BIM' in Catchup 15 and 'Sefaira Sustainability for SketchUp' in Catchup 16. The latter article on Sefaira, from my perspective, covered how in the early stages the building designer can to a large extent, 'get it right', from a sustainability stance. Sefaira works well with SU and is reasonably priced which is important for the 'one man show' Achitect! ...... there are a lot of them out there!
Chris raised the point about taking landscape into account in the early stages. I couldn't agree more and have always done this in my projects and feel its does pay off. The building will only last for a number of years, whereas the land will be there always ..... well at least until that Neutron star decides to head our way
For me, I have felt for a long time that SketchUp needs a simple 2D 'sketching' front end, possibly for execution on a tablet, that would allow the designer to freehand bubble diagrams to get to grips with the initial design concept. This SketchUp 'front end' could also be tied in with something like Sefaira that would in turn analyse the sustainability of the proposed design concept. I never go straight into 3D when designing a building. For me and imagine many other designers the thought process is via 2D first, then sections and then 3D! Of course its possible do the initial 2D in SU but now as a 'doodle' or rough loose sketch! This ability would be good I feel.
Above it is mentioned that many architects / designers give the impression that they would like their buildings for be detached from the earth! I tend to agree with this suggestion. I highly recommend viewing 'How Building Learn' by Stewart Brand http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvEqfg2sIH0&hd=1 This BBC six part series (30 min segments) is both informative and quite entertaining. Its also turns, on its head, many preconceptions folks in general have about buildings.
Mike
-
Do a Google search on "Sketchup to Revit". There are quite a few references. One tutorial/demonstration showed that a simple model for quick visualization could be constructed in Sketchup and brought into Revit as a "mass". From that point on, all development of the model would have to be in Revit to retain the attributes applied to the model.
-
Thanks guys for all your reply
Here in our country, the most widely used 3d platform by small architecture firm is Sketchup because of its handy UI, easy to learn and the plus factor is its cost. I like the idea of Sketchup getting into a BIM industry because it needs to. the market of competition is now on the BIM especially all architectural firm. You guys were right that BIM only focus on a Building and its lifespan, but not on exterior such as landscape, terrain etc. It might be a plus factor if Sketchup become a BIM which also integrates the exterior sorroundings and that will become very useful especially in Landscape Architectural firm.
-
According to the 2012 "AIA Survey Report on Firm Characteristics", of the 38% of U.S. architects who have purchased BIM tools for their firms, 91% are using those tools for "Design Visualization." I guess that's something that SketchUp does pretty well already.
edit: I should also mention that only 27% of them are using their BIM tools for "Quantity Takeoff" or other related data/analysis tasks.
-
I think the biggest drawback to BIM is the interoperability between all the various softwares that professionals use.
I'm not talking about just Cad software, but all the various software used in structural analysis, lighting analysis, mechanical systems......, I think you get the picture.
I agree with John that parametric tools would be nice, but that they are not the end all. For example sake, lets look at what would be required in changing the parameters for a wall thickness. BIM is information oriented, and so the information affected in the simple change of wall thickness could mean changes to beam sizing, structural loading, any servicing that is within the wall cavity such as electrical, mechanical, (does your duct clear the new beam) etc.
So taking the design graphics to the level of building information, that is the new essence of parametric modeling.
Now all of this has to talk a language that all of the various software that is used by everyone on the integrated design team, can easily converse in.
So in my opinion, when I look at the exporting for instance dxf/dwg to other software, not just SketchUp, the outcome of this in reality, can be less than satisfactory.
I'm not sure if it just companies guarding their proprietary systems, because they want me to purchase their product or not, but without a universal language that has true inter-operative capabilities,.... well I just don't know. -
@jbacus:
According to some comments on the AIA sponsored forums for special interest groups (egroups), many who are using BIM determine first whether to use BIM "if it has any value downstream". That is, if the project size or complexity warrants the effort, and if the client is one who may require long term BIM. Otherwise, I assume, they use their favorite 2D CAD program. Some mention their use of Sketchup, and some others pose the question of whether Sketchup would be of value to them. Still others have discussed the best alternative programs to Revit due to its first cost, even in a multi seat environment.
Many may not realize that there are several programs purporting to be BIM. "cad-addict".com blog has an ongoing list. -
Dale,
"Now all of this has to talk a language that all of the various software that is used by everyone on the integrated design team, can easily converse in."
Why shouldn't this be Revit? Why would "the industry" seek a common language (a file format that contains all modelling data)? Isn't this optimally done by one software or suite of applications? This is how ESRI pretty much fills the needs of the GIS world.
Mike,
I would find it disheartening if John B is not already looking deeply into BIM. What are they doing at Trimble then?
So are you saying you think buildings should be separated from the earth? From the book 'How Biuldings Learn" I gathered that buildings are more flexible, or could be, than we might think, and certain buildings can be reconfigured, but I didn't see that it speaks against buildings relating to their site. I agree that some architects give the impression that siting is less important than what they want to design at that moment.
-
@mike lucey said:
For me, I have felt for a long time that SketchUp needs a simple 2D 'sketching' front end, possibly for execution on a tablet, that would allow the designer to freehand bubble diagrams to get to grips with the initial design concept.
My script Calculator and My script Memo are two very interesting free IOS apps that let's you write with your finger and then does a very good job on translating your crappy handwriting to text. Calculator does the same with numbers and math. Like a hand drawn calculator. Something along the same lines would probably be doable and would let you draw a rough hand drawn line drawing and then recognize lines and annotations and automagically translate it to a cad like drawing with straight lines and arcs and such. There are already drawing apps that can recognize if you try to draw a circle and make a perfectly round one for you.
-
@pbacot said:
Why shouldn't this be Revit? Why would "the industry" seek a common language (a file format that contains all modelling data)? Isn't this optimally done by one software or suite of applications? This is how ESRI pretty much fills the needs of the GIS world.
I guess because Revit isn't used universally. I have dealt with consultants that use CivilFEM, Solidworks, Bentley, Civil3d, InteliCad, Vectorworks, the list goes on.
People use the software suites they use for various reasons, but I just can't see everyone suddenly switching, or the developers of the alternative software just fading away. -
Dale,
Good ideas. My question is quazi-rhetorical. I actually have not used AutoCAD for instance since I studied it, and don't like being pushed in one direction. I don't see though where such an effort would come from, as it doesn't seem of great benefit to the bigger players. Perhaps the revit file would be highjacked like DWG but look how after over 20 years we cannot get full, worry free dwg translation in many common applications. Maybe an open source platform would be the only way. And there MUST be enough CAD geeks to pull it off.
This is also theoretical for me. I want to see my favorite platforms succeed, but I doubt BIM will be much use in my work, except some parametric tools. John B. mentions few architects use it for take-off in the US. That's how it is in the US. Architects don't do take offs, contractors do.
-
I like sketchup for it's simple straightforward tools. One thing I really dislike about modelling stuff in bim software (archicad in my experience) are all the workaround methods used to build stuff even slightly off the catalog. I mean, using slabs to create stairs, empty doors for hollow spaces, beams for trellises, roofs for ramps, etc. One of the premises of bim is modelling with real world equivalents, but they often are very limiting, and when methods like the ones described above, not so useful when generating quantity takeoffs.
Sketchup generic tools allow you to create any kind of real world equivalent structure, without bim specific limitations; for example, a box can be a slab, a wall, a door, etc, and each of these can be as simple or as complex as one needs. Not so in bim.
If sketchup was to compete with bim, i personally would not invest a second of trimble's time in creating arch specific tools, (door makers, stairs, etc.), but would focus in core capabilities such as solid elements (stuff that not only gives out volume, but when sectioned show as filled, not hollow, better qty takeoff tools (improvements to component reporter) (fredo's area takeoff tool is a wonderful example), speed, and LAYOUT!!!! I remember waaaay back, there was some talk about "fat faces". This, if all technical limitations were solved, would be a very versatile addition to sketchup's core tools. Modelling in Bim is horrible!!
-
We do takeoffs all the time. We have to come up with cost estimates for every project. I don't do it in any sort of automated fashion, I just count things one by one.
-
@chris fullmer said:
We do takeoffs all the time. We have to come up with cost estimates for every project. I don't do it in any sort of automated fashion, I just count things one by one.
that's pretty much how i estimate as well.. (not necessarily one by one as i don't always draw every single element but in a more area based way of thinking)..
generally, everything i draw is highly customized in that it's either site specific or a new shape..
point being.. i don't really see an advantage of someone like me working in a bim environment.. so if "sketchup needs to be BIM", where does that put people that don't really need it?.. do those features etc disappear unless called upon or will they change the flow/conventions for everyone using the app?
-
We do not only estimate probable construction cost at various stages in a project, we often estimate our design time and documentation for some clients who view us as contractors, when we compete for projects. We offer our "estimates" as "opinions" for liability reasons.
Certainly, only the construction contractor can know how much a project will cost for him, as he is typically, and contractually the one in charge of means, methods and sequencing in executing the work.
In order to gain accuracy in our construction cost estimates, we rely on some available national publications, past experience on similar projects, and even stick by stick analysis/scenario of a construction sequence involving time at task, construction phasing, materials and number of persons at the task. -
Think of BIM as a manual of a building, that can be referenced for the full life of that building. And in the early stages, a platform that can ensure that the building will perform up to the standards it is touted to.
We do that now, but it is all fragmented, and requires referencing outside the documentation of the building.
So if your a facilities manager now, and you have a mechanical problem. You go to the blueprints, find the reference to the mechanical page, and when you get to it you will find written words that tell you that the problem is a Honeywell A2446 pump. Trouble is the change order that authorized the Grundfoss pump your looking at isn't necessarily stapled to the page, so it's really worthless to you, so you begin your search.
In a BIM world the full set of electronic documents, would not only contain the page with the pump on it, but BIM management would have required the changeout documented, and when you drill down, the pump itself would be a full set of schematic diagrams, so you could get the part number for faulty O-ring and get it ordered.
Not necessarily a great example, but you get the picture.
But the statement that started this discussion is "SketchUp Needs to be BIM".My answer would be "Yes", if it plans to be a vital part of the Architectural Industry in the future. But I believe this to be a monster undertaking, and also may trigger a review of who the core users are, and if they, like Jeff, actually require BIM integration.
-
I am a "architectural engineer"(i hope it's correctly translated
, and in my spare time I try to make a BIM plugin for sketchup, but it would be great if the SketchUp team would make a real SketchUp BIM-addon(without losing sketchup's coolness and simplicity )I think BIM should be all about cooperation, between parties in a construction project AND between all pieces of software used to realize and manage a building.
Thinking in revit=BIM won't help anyone in the long run, because Autodesk is only interested in information exchange between different autodesk products.
I know there is a long way to go before information exchange using the IFC file format will be perfect, but I think IFC is the only way to go.SketchUp should not be cluttered with too many different IFC entities, just the basics. So a design made in SketchUp using these elements can be the base for a FULL building model hosted on some kind of BIM server for access by all project members(and softwares).
And even these basic elements can be very simple:
- Sketchup's "face" object is a perfect base for a "wall", a "floor", a "roof-slab". All you need is to add thickness and a few properties.
- Sketchup's edge object is a perfect base for all "columns", "beams" and window frames. Just add a profile and some properties.
It wouldn't even be necessary to add a separate button for all these elements. For me they are all "planars" and "linears".
For my plugin I try to stay as close to the sketchup-workflow as I can while adding the needed properties to export useful elements to IFC(and in the process to Revit, Archicad Tekla and whatever). But I still have a long way to go before it is really stable, the observers I use to monitor the base-geometry are still a bit tricky/unstable. I bet the SketchUp team could do a way better job!
If someone likes to check it out, especially the "workflow" (which I think is pretty sketchup-like), check out: http://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=323&t=34007
-
@unknownuser said:
sawhack: It sounds like you're thinking of a set of new parametric entities (wall, floor, roof, window, door, ..?) with new tools to make them? Is there more to BIM than this?
John, I see a few additional things. Above you described the key planer BIM objects. We also need static objects, like casework, furniture, lights, etc. I think Dynamic components cover this well, but we hit some issues because they are built on ruby, and our plugin relies so heavily on observers. It would be nice to see that in C++ if that would make things more stable. The other important object is the "room" or "space" object. This is key for organizing the model.
In an OpenStudio model surfaces, lights and other objects are a child to a space, while in gbXML surfaces stand on their own but then refer to one or more spaces. I don't think either way is wrong or right, but just something that you will want to give a lot of thought. Then constructions, schedules, and light definitions (vs. an instance) are resource. Much like a component definition vs. instance. One limitation of working with OpenStudio models in SketchUp is that you have to work in a prescribed workflow. The more BIM-like SketchUp can be I think the more free the workflow can be.
I think another key BIM characteristic is Interoperability with other tools. For us that means gbXML, or direct translation between tools. Anyone can write translators to or from OpenStudio, and since it is OpenSource they can extend the model to add objects it is missing. For instance we support EnergyPlus and Radiance for energy and daylight analysis. If someone wants to write a translator to a model format for acoustic analysis, they will need to extend the model to for additional material properties. I think the attribute library in SketchUp generally supports this approach, it may just be formalizing the attributes more.
http://openstudio.nrel.gov/
http://www.youtube.com/user/NRELOpenStudioDavid
-
Hi there,
I'm a UK Architect and Master-planner, who has foregone the traditional CAD programs in recent years. I have designed extension to towns and extensions to listed buildings in SketchUp alone (Sir Walter Raleigh's mansion, none the less).
BIM as a 'process' is either helpful, or not depending on the result you are looking for. The St Martin's Centre, Cambridge, UK did a nice piece about the ^benefits^ of re-drawing a scheme as it passes key gateways. I favour this.
-
Sketch schemes and initial massing studies can be quite loose.
-
More detail studies,that might look at the 'spatial puzzle' that is a building, need to be more precise. I myself model at a scale, that on paper (yes, I did that too), would probably be 1:50 (maybe, 1:20). However, I do like the rigor of attributing data - i.e. taking off key metrics.
Personally, I end up 'simplifying' many BIM models, yet try to keep the attribute intact.
SketchUp is a wonderful workbench for designers of all flavours; if one 'corner' wins, by inference, the other looses! This would be a shame.
Garbage IN: Garbage OUT (GIGO) is the old saying. If BIM = less garbage = Great!
We have been working on a daylight and sunlight analysis plugin for SketchUp that is about 'less garbage' at the other end of the spectrum - the massing model end! This offer levers off SketchUp in the same way BIM does (by using sensible atributes to calculate lux levels, daylight factors, ADF, Vertical Sky Components and Insolation/Solar Gain).
Our hope is to turn SketchUp into 'the platform' for creating urban plans that facilitate low-energy construction - with a 40%-70% energy saving across larger scale development.
Again, SketchUP is an excellent spatial workbench. So, I only ask for 'less garbage', less 'tunnel vision' and point out that occasionally its is ^actually better^ to re-draw. In which case, everybody can have what they want!
-
-
[quote="brewsky"]I am a "architectural engineer"(i hope it's correctly translated
, and in my spare time I try to make a BIM plugin for sketchup, but it would be great if the SketchUp team would make a real SketchUp BIM-addon(without losing sketchup's coolness and simplicity )As a user of both Revit and Sketchup, I agree with Brewsky's idea of a BIM plugin that doesn't sacrafice Sketchup's coolness and simplicity. I think the idea of plug and play is a good one. To me trying to transform Sketchup into a Revit knock off, would be a huge mistake, because it would mean losing the things that make Sketchup great. Currently, Revit and Sketchup are two unique tools in my tool box that are used for different purposes. Sketchup is used for design and visulization, and Revit is used for documentaion, coordination, analysis, and basically taking a project from design development through CD's and final construction. To me Sketchup's current strengths lend themselves to the beginning phases of a project, and Revit to the later phases. Given the choice between the two I would choose Sketchup hands down when it comes to modeling and visualization. It is more inuititive, faster, and easier to learn and use. If I am on a Revit project and have to produce renderings, or model design options, I often export my Revit model and bring it into Sketchup. I can model 3 design options for a project, to a nice rendered quality, much quicker in Sketchup than I can in Revit. But it is hard to make those modeling efforts pay off after one of the design options is chosen and we move to construction documents. As others have said we need to find ways to make the Sketchup model more beneficial down the pipeline in the design process.
There is so much discussion and much confusion on what BIM is. I have had wade through a lot of it in order to help our partners, colleagues, and clients understand. There is BIM the tool and there is BIM the process. The process of BIM, which has been described as the 'Integrated Design Process', is as much more about a different way of thinking and doing architectural design than it is about software. While the goal of a more seamless process, and more integrated building are the goal, both the tool and the process have been very hard to implement. Revit as a tool is not intuitive, there are many menus and schedules to drill through. It requires heavy front end loading. It is very data driven. It is challenging for visual thinking, intuitive designers to adopt to this kind of tool. I have modeled projects, using with SketchUp alone, that have been very integrated in terms of the design process and how Sketchup was used on the project. We used the model for design purposes, we did take offs, we did analysis, we coordinated building systems to some degree, we even exported views of the model into AutoCAD line work for CD's, and we used the model to help the contractor understand and building during construction. BIM does not equal Revit. My hope is the Sketchup / Trimble team come up with something very different than Revit, that builds on Sketchup's strengths, and that approaches the process of BIM much more intuitive, way. A good first step would be to make the going from Sketchup to Revit and vice versa much more seemless. That would allow Sketchup models developed in early design to have more of a payoff through out the process.
Advertisement