Design Software
-
First, let me say: I do not want or intend to start a cad war. I wish to discuss the merits of multiplatform designing, data flow and coordination vs.the all in one cad softwares (BIM) and whether it is worth the transfer of all the archive data and work flows to have a new better way.
In the past year I have become aware of the new BIM movement and the distinct possibility I may need to change my software. Not that the vendors 'got me' or anything like that but because software seems to have suddenly become adept at the things I hate doing; like referencing marker bubbles to pages no.s and details. Soft ware like SU is letting me work with one version of my drawing, instead of several (like; flr plans, elevations, sections,etc). I will say I do hate trying to coordinate different software platforms about as much as I dislike coordinating changes through many drawings of the same building.
The big cad toys out there have substantial pricing and though it looks like 200,000 cadologists have no problem coughing up the cash and the promise to pay each year at the appointed time, I am wary of having all the cad eggs in the same basket. One thought is to use several less expensive programs to get my product, thus no single vender has me tied up in their product and their development, and their gun point pricing. catch my drift? The other concern is with all the seats sold, apparently not all are being used, some big cad co's will let licenses transfer without restrictions, while some strictly prohibit it. Is the restriction on reselling to quench the market from being saturated with software that users figure out wasn't worth the expenditure?
I think the biggest hurdle is the learning curve, and the possibility that I may have to switch back to the previous method of doing things to get details on paper. I have to keep production up, no matter what kind of transition I am making.
I think the paying public is expecting miraculous flexibility from the building designer, and their software. They want to defer making decisions and thus the design has to stay flexible, So more powerful easy to manage software can definatly be a help.
Some of the avatars on this site have an impressive arsenal of software at their disposal, and I think they can see both sides of this puzzle, so I want to ask: is the newer BIM software worth the process, or/and is it better to keep the computer loaded with many softwares to produce drawings, thus being more lateral and able to shift with the new software developers offerings..
-
I will take the first stab at this one.
First of all I have only been using Revit for less than a year. I have been to 2 formal training sessions (4 in each) and use it maybe 40% of the time. Other software I use regularly are Photoshop, AutoCAD and of course SketchUp
I am split between departments, Architecture and Landscape Architecture. I use AutoCAD for the landscape architecture department for two reasons: one is that the landscape architect refuses to step up to the Revit plate and two, Revit does not have much at all in the way of plant material symbols (families) and setup would take some time. While I have offered to upgrade the LA department to Revit, there is resistance, so I use AutoCAD.
@unknownuser said:
In the past year I have become aware of the new BIM movement and the distinct possibility I may need to change my software. Not that the vendors 'got me' or anything like that but because software seems to have suddenly become adept at the things I hate doing; like referencing marker bubbles to pages no.s and details.
This is huge. I cannot tell you how much time and confusion these features have saved us so far. Revit is ideal in this department.
Another thing that is big on my "Good for Revit" list is Design Options. You can draw a base model, as much detail as you need, then start adding different design options. I recently did a bank renovation and had 3 options for the front entry. It is as easy as clicking on a page in SU, moving from one D.O. to the next. Setting it up may take some getting used to but it is worth it.
@unknownuser said:
I think the biggest hurdle is the learning curve, and the possibility that I may have to switch back to the previous method of doing things to get details on paper. I have to keep production up, no matter what kind of transition I am making.
There is no doubt that there is a big learning curve. Especially if you are going to have more than one person sharing the model. This is called creating Worksets. If it is done properly, many people can work on the same model, save and update changes in near real time. If it is done wrong, well, there will be some strong language.
However, some of the tools are more simple than AutoCAD (I use AutoCAD as a reference because that was my main program). Thus, once some of the basics are "down" you can go much faster.@unknownuser said:
Soft ware like SU is letting me work with one version of my drawing, instead of several (like; flr plans, elevations, sections,etc). I will say I do hate trying to coordinate different software platforms about as much as I dislike coordinating changes through many drawings of the same building.
Revit does exactly the same; you are working on one model. You can have several views open, Elevations and plans, make a change on one and you see it move on the other.
Again, I am pretty new to Revit and BIM. Our firm just finished a large government project that would have taken 3x as long had we not used Revit. Unfortunately for me I was not involved in that project.
I give the BIM one program to do most everything a thumbs up, when it comes to Architecture.
Now I still use SU for the first stage in some projects but there have been many so far that I have only used Revit.
I use Photoshop to make it all look pretty
Please ask more questions if I have not been clear.
-
Thanks Eric, your work speaks volumes about your abilities, There may be some salesman that will owe you a commission one day. I appreciate your input.
I was a pencil pusherat at one time. The adventure of easy 3D was the bait that enticed me to switch to cad. My hand renderings were good, but having perspectives of what you were drawing instantly was captivating. I am still captivated..... by cad etiqutte, file and layer structures, and hard drive organization. I think the BIM revolution has opened more doors to better file integration and improved graphics for all cadologists. But SU feels better than any cad program I have ever handled, and I find myself thinking that whatever work I am doing should be in SU; then export for plot. I like the simpleness of the component structure and the reliability and swiftness of imports, exports, basically the ability of SU to play with others is very nice. So SU lacks the complexities of cad; this is not necessarily a inhibitant, but more a freedom.
Cad systems are built on a file structure that may be decades old, but even when these files structures are old, they still dont seem to change much. It seems that SU, is very versatile and more easily customozable than other drawing programs. I mention this without ever tried Chief, Datacad, or Softplan, or VectraWorks, or the plethora of systems that remain to be named. But this file structure seems to have the ability for manipulation and improvement...there are rubies that count componenets, and when SU exports to cad the results are very clean and detailed.
Is there a possibility to make SU the type program Revit is? Or are there other softwares that have the ease of SU and the cad capabilities of Revit? Are there any Spirit users that can make a comparison? I ask this squestion because I feel Revit has set a standard and there are many smart software engineers out there who could write new programs.
-
I have to tell you, when I joined this firm we were using Datacad. It was like drawing in Word compared to Autocad. Spirit, unless I am wrong, is Datacad's answer to BIM and I would not touch it with a 10' pole. IMHO.
I do find SU easier to use than Revit however Revit is much more powerful. One thing that gripes me is that in while you can view your model in perspective to set up your renderings you have to work in parallel projection, otherwise it is elevational and plan views. I know some people who use SU in parallel projection more than perspective but not me.
-
I wanted to share a project that I "finished" today. This shows how easy Revit is to use and that you do not have to model everything perfectly.
This is a Guard House for a development in the area. I spent about 6 hours drawing this. I have not done the wall section yet but that is all that is lacking for the project to be out the door.
As you see, the plans and elevations are all just one model, like if you used layout. However the sections are also linked. If I moved a window up 2 inches in the section the elevations would change. If I changed the door size in the Schedule, it would change on the plans and elevations.
Now the 3D image (and skp model) shows the building brought into SketchUp. Notice in the model that everything you see on the plans is not there. This is one of the nice features of Revit, no need to model what you do not need if it can easily be drafted in.
One thing about bringing a Revit model into SU is that you must save the Revit file in 3D mode, as a 2004.dwg SU will not recognize a 2007.dwg
Also, I did nothing to the model once importing into SU so you could see the initial result. Now with a little tweaking and some of Tom's 2.5d plants...
-
gutters dn spouts, cornice, bell dormers, curved eaves on the roof!!!! that is quite an extensive revit model, I'm impressed.. So you just addressed a couple of my other thoughts about roofs in this program. (side note.I bought my current cad program almost solely on the basis of how it built complex roofs...it was THE only one at that rime that built any roof, except archicad ..which was my other strong contender and point of this thread.)
And the other one was: Does it allow you Time: I mean you have a system to design buildings in... so your not just guessing at stuff... you build many custome details into your work.... gotta detail it... and...you have to finish the plans....finish...finish.... hopefully todsy... but I degress... the families make the project comee to finish and give you some off time..
How about file management... if you did something like move the data... for whatever reason... whether in the computer, from a file location to another drive,(maybe too extreme,but for example, you need referencing files to be addressed easily, cause you want the entire drawing to be there a year later when you open it kind of example.) or 2) move data inside the revit files. (for instance) a 4 floor-4 unit condo, that you drew as one building, four units per floor; and very late in the process, the realtors called and want you to reorganize drawings so they have one unit per document with 4 floors eash. does that kind of stuff send the job file into total disfunction.... I know it does mine, cause i use that draw it once mindset and I draw some entities one time but use them (layer) repeatedly.
I get the idea, when looking at Revit City site Gallery, that either there are difficulties making complex models (there are a few significant buildings) most are fairly contemporary. and that due to the LARGE # of entrants the model aspect in general is fairly simple. I have made the tutorial models in Revit myself, but I certainly couldn't call them real life modeling. mine tend to be similar to yours, high in detail, far from builder grade, but they definatly need to be documented cause the contractors I deal with are not mindreaders. It looks like you can generate substantial dimensional features in Revit in a reasonable amount of time.
Thanks for your input, I like software that works right, and you are helping me understand Revit . I never know when to trust those salesmen. -
I am glad to help.
As far as file management, there is only one model, so you can move it wherever you want. Just like a SketchUp model. I have copied a file for future reference but find most of the time I do not need to. Maybe in the future.
That said, if you break your model into worksets, meaning more than one person working on the priject at the same time, then there might be problems. Like I said before, I have not been using it long enough to give accurate input on how a workset project would behave. However others in the office have and I can certainly ask them at some point.I hope that was the response you were seeking, did I understand the question?
-
I am now a 1 man shop, and hope to keep it that way. But you never know. Thus the question about can you get more done and finished. The other question comes from the how files are referenced through a pc. I guess the file question comes from the aspect of system dependability, and requires a proficient user,...I havent taken the time to understand the file structure of revit yet, and that will be the best way to answer this question. But a good example is I have different degrees of files systems in my pc and after all the preliminary stuff, I usually move a good file to a client folder in another location where all the factual informatin for the project is kept, like rasters, specs, selections, civil, clients dream list etc. Then when I back up I can grab it all from one location. My cad system has a file structure that keeps me on my toea keeping up with all the supporting cad info.
This may be because the windows environment was not it's native file system. -
I will say that Revit is a memory hog. The small building I posted here is a 15mb file. We do have quite a bit built into the template though. Elevations, ceiling plans, schedules etc... already set up so you can start drawing and then just tweak them as you go. So it could be purged down some.
Also, depending on how many you want to keep, Revit creates autosaves automatically (I guess that is why it is an autosave). We keep 3 going so this one little job is using up 60mb on the server right now. Why 3, I am not sure. Personally I would only save 1 but I am not the computer admin.
-
models from revit.. imorted to SU renders very well too!
hope u dont mind Boofred!
just playin around with some dirt mapping and stuff.. so it looks kinda dirty!
-
Ha, that is great. It is starting to feel like a guard house now. Don't mind at all.
-
nice job rendering the gate keepers digs,
With the greening of construction, and the complications pertaining to availability of materials, the cad software has to be flexible so design can be accomplished using methods other than stud construction. There are references to alternate methods on this forum, (carpet tiles to build walls, Joe Woods query for building materials in Europe), where it sounds like quality material is scarce. The quality of framing lumber in the US is no secret, and if we (collectively) develop a new technique or system in the near future (like the robotic layering of concrete slurry, where the bot reads directly off a set of digital drawings, grabs the market,..... Point is...can the formentioned cad program alter its wall composition significantly enough to be useful? or would you be using a simpler program. -
In Revit, you can make your wall out of anything you want. For example you can make it out of 4" thick peanut butter and add a texture and cut pattern to match, I doubt a structural engineer would stamp that set of drawings however. And I have no idea which hatch would represent peanut butter 8O
Point is, the program is flexible enough to allow you to incorporate many of the new building methods coming on the market.
Here is a screenshot of a basic brick on metal stud wall assembly dialog box.
Now if I select the metal stud for further editing(layer 6), here is the materials dialog box.
-
I know this is weird, but relevant in the green world:
tires, adobe, icf, logs, and I hate to say this.....strawbale -
Well, each of these has a nominal thickness right? Then just set up your walls to reflect the thickness. Again, I think it would come down to the sturctural and/or other engineers to decide where and how much of each material but it is definately do-able.
Edit: And I had to copy/paste your Strawbaletext to see what it was
-
youdonthave to YELL
-
Sorry, I was trying to be funny, as you typed it really small, I did so really large. I was not yelling at all. If it seemed so to you or anybody I apologize. Just trying to have fun.
-
It all was intended to be Fun, Dont worry no offense was taken at all. Messin around.
-
The more I look at my reply above it does seem as if I was yelling. I am so sorry. My lack of foresight into how people read my posts sometimes gets me into trouble.
Edit: Thanks.
The fact is I never even thought of using Revit in a manner you are talking about. Not being an architect or engineer I see the solution as just tweaking the program to show what needs to be on paper. I believe it would be up to the engineers to decide exactly how such building methods would come together.
-
@unknownuser said:
I see the solution as just tweaking the program to show what needs to be on paper
Revit is defiantly a good program if it is that versatile, and you dont have to be a Computer Science Guru to make it work dependably.
Advertisement