BIM for SketchUp - again?

ArCAD-UK

So what do you think BIM offers that can't be done already?

I'm a one man band and still working through using SU for full CDs, but I see a versatile tool which through the use of layers & components allows for output in LO that does everything ArchiCAD has done for me over the last ten years. OK there may be speed benefits using some aspects of ArchiCAD, but the limitations are also frustrating and on balance if you know what you want, SU is in my view quicker and more adaptable for type of project and level of detail I put in to my drawings.

When it comes to analysis, SU can "Generate Report" to extract basic information or you can pull the figures direct from SU. Not used it in anger yet, but with Excel I'm sure I can get out what I need. As an example of using SU for analysis, I had a complex loft conversion a little while back modelled in ArchiCAD which required areas for heat loss calculation. I couldn't extract accurate figures from ArchiCAD and ended up producing a shell model in SU which gave me the figures I needed simply by labelling the various faces and adding them up. (Is it still ok to do addition manually? )

bigstick

@arcad-uk said:

So what do you think BIM offers that can't be done already?

Exchange data via IFC with other applications. I use SU with Vectorworks to prepare tender drawings. The import process is not 'intelligent' though and I get dumb geometry. If you have seen the German application Sprit (http://www.softtech.com/) which allows the whole round trip to and from SketchUp, it looks brilliant. Imagine having that facility with all the BIM modellers.

ArCAD-UK

An appropriate architectural reference that comes to mind is the Tower of Babel. CAD software companies will always have a hidden agenda that will confound the development of IFC or even 2D exchange, either for commercial advantage or purely down to the economics of developing a global data exchange mechanism. Don't hold your breath for a common solution anytime soon. In the mean time choose the tool that best fits the task.

Quite like the look of Spirit, but no advertised price on their web site?!

bigstick

In part, I agree. However IFC has been gaining ground for a while. Sure it's not perfect, most data translation isn't. However I don't buy the argument that says, "Companies have a vested interest in the status quo, so why bother?"

The common solution is here already. It's IFC. Other companies have invested in it and it definitely works - at least in part. The ability to create proper reports and exchange data with other disciplines using the easiest (and most enjoyable) tool to work with would be great.

If having IFC support in SU would be a good thing, why not? I defy anyone to look at what Spirit can do and not think that potentially there is a big missed opportunity. Even if all the functionality does is extend and improve the ability of SU to integrate with CAD applications in a similar way to Spirit, it would be a fantastic productivity boost.

George Bernard Shaw wrote, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

Putting up with a sub-optimal situation denies progress. I'm sure lots of users took the view that Sketchup wasn't great at complex curved geometry, so why should they bother trying. SketchUp has had such amazing advances due to some of the amazingly talented and generous plugin writers here, that this sort of thing ought to be perfectly achievable.

The debate isn't about whether IFC support should be implemented, because I think the benefits (at least for some users) are self-evident.

The questions for me are therefore about 'who', 'what' and 'how', not 'why'.

fionmacool

Hi there,

I recently gave a talk to the institute of architects in Dublin about advanced SU which I called "SketchUp to BIM". This title was chosen carefully to avoid the usual "heat" generated by using the words "SketchUp" and "BIM" in the same sentence, paragraph, chapter, book, or encyclopedia.

The talk didn't quite go as planned, in that it was (almost) taken over by a debate about why I was giving the talk in the first place. Wierd, seeing as most architects are using SU anyway, and if they weren't into SU, why didn't they let other more interested members attend? I will never know.

Rudeness and disrespect were also on display. Lets just say that I won't be giving any more free talks to architects institutes in Dublin. I am stronger and fitter since my talk. (cue insane laughter)

Here is a website I started on the subject. http://sketchup2bim.com/ Any information from interested parties to add to this website will be most welcome!

mitcorb

You asked for some thoughts: (they may be naive, uninformed, but here they are.)
From what I have seen of Revit(admittedly limited), as an example of a BIM tool, it appears at least on the information input side of things that the process is way too formalized and elaborate, requiring a whole new lexicon for some of the same elements in "traditional" data input. The program is so different that it has no(?) interoperability with Autocad, which itself has an abstruse, arcane menu heirarchy (meaning where to look for what tool?)
The point here would be if the industry is demanding the change, why build a product with such operator hurdles?

As far as Sketchup is concerned, What would this program be like if all of the usual complaints about the internal measuring units, small face thresholds, large distance difficulties, and large file obstacles were resolved in order to become a workable BIM solution? Would it become as unwieldy as the programs above? Could there be really two or three Sketchup's? The Free, the Pro, and the BIM Pro?

bigstick

There seems to be quite a lot of dissent in some quarters about whether it ought to be done. My view is that it is 'just' (I know I'm simplifying) attaching data to geometry and converting it to a new format. I was chatting to one of Bentley's senior programmers recently and I understand that there are inconsistencies with IFC data translation in other applications. This doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be done, but if there is enough demand (and come on, the ability to use SU models as part of an integrated BIM solution is rather cool) anything can be done.

The big benefits of SketchUp are its ease of use, affordability, massive user base and thriving community of developers.

@fionmacool - There doesn't seem to be a lot on your site right now. Are you familiar with Secom's IFC2SKP (http://www.ohyeahcad.com/ifc2skp/index.php) plugin?

I'm a bit intrigued as to why you had such a negative reaction to what sound to me like very useful ideas. I'm reminded of the famous quote by Henry Ford, "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."

@mitcorb - I think you have made some very valid points about the formalized input in Revit. It concerns me that the inflexibility of the tools might get in the way of elegant design. I do think SketchUp needs to evolve in terms of its geometry handling because working with large models can be painful, but I don't think any SU BIM solution need be anywhere near as complex as Revit. As far as I have seen, Autodesk buy applications that threaten their business model, then screw them up in an attempt to integrate and rationalise functionality with their existing products.

Pixero

+1

d_e_x

I'll re-open this thread with some fire: check this out - http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=323&t=41840

I think I have got the "framework" bit right. The intention is to create smart architectural objects in SketchUp, so that they can be exported as parametric primitives to other BIM engines. Although, the plugin does not have the import/export functionality yet, but I do believe that I have the right pieces in places to do so in a future version.

brewsky

Hi bigstick!

Count me in on this!
With a basic framework, anyone can create a building-part-exporter(whether it is for IFC, Revit-api or Archicad-api), without having to assign ALL that building-meta-data themselves!

In my opinion a greatly needed part is some sort of thick-faces-class.
Then you have basic properties for all planar-building-elements(wall, floor, roof). And an extrusion-class(based on the follow me principle) for all lineair elements(columns, window frames, architraves).

And only after these basic classes, start designing the upper level classes(with properties), like walls etc.

That's the way I'm trying to design the new version of my plugin.
But it would be great to create a common sketchup module that contains all that!

Cheers,
Jan

ZFRPS

BIM for sketchup +1

jim smith

I just saw this in "ArchDaily"

http://www.trelligence.com/demos/Affinity7_Sketchup.mp4

A plug in that links rooms and floor level information to a data base. Seems to add an interesting feature to the BIM potential of SketchUp. Has anyone on the forum tried it or have an idea of the pricing? They are very coy about giving a price, which is usually indicates it is out of sight.

bigstick

I saw that too. I have to say that I don't quite understand the point of the Affinity product. If it's just for scheduling areas, it seems a bit overkill to me.

This does highlight a very interesting question though, "To what extent should SketchUp implement BIM features?"

From my own personal (selfish) point of view, I could see how creation of 'intelligent' BIM objects like walls, doors, floors, roofs etc, that allow data exchange with other BIM apps via IFC would be the only real features I would need. The complicated stuff like scheduling rooms and objects could be left to the pure BIM applications.

This I suppose raises the even more fundamental question of, "What is the actual objective of implementing BIM features in SketchUp?"

Again (just) for me it is data exchange with other apps, so that I can keep modelling and designing with SketchUp, but keep my model, imported into another application, for creating 2d documentation.

The ability to have a round trip from SketchUp to a BIM app, then back into SketchUp (and back again) would be the ultimate solution. Spirit CAD already does this, but I don't know how it works with IFC, or how data translation works with other BIM apps.

My own view on the business of BIM is that it will never work effectively unless there is proper data translation between applications. Having the whole design team just use Revit is great for Autodesk, but no-one else. However if the architects could use ArchiCAD, the Engineers Revit, FM managers something else, all operating from the same geometry and attached data, that makes for a much neater solution. Each discipline only needs to concern themselves with the tools they need. The building data then becomes the focus, not any particular software package.

Pout

It's a lot on how far do you want to go? And how many Sketchup users have the need for BIM?

Get/Send data from and to a database from Sketchup is not that hard, we already do it in our software.
Link images, costs, planning, resources can be done already. Show it in charts, automated powerpoints, movies, automatically created BOQ or BOM. We have prototypes developed for this.

I'm not trying to sell anything here, I'm just saying that the technical part is not the issue.
The main issue is the communication between all CAD/BIM software and Sketchup in both ways. And if IFC is the 'magic' format.

I'm very fond of the idea of trying to create a certain level of BIM into Sketchup, to have the opportunity to get the information you want into the model and get added value out of it. But the interchangeability is an important factor.

pbacot

"What is the actual objective of implementing BIM features in SketchUp?"

I think it will be driven as far as it goes, given the enthusiasm shown so far.

For my own purposes and I think for many users, the front-end promises of BIM will be more important:

Parametric or systematic creations of building elements (walls, floors, foundations etc.) that can be modified later based on intrinsic qualities of each.
Placement of elements (windows doors equipment) based on defaults that make sense for those elements. Ease in revisions for these.
Ability to work in plan view, adding or editing elements and have automatic model updates.
Schedules for rooms, doors, windows,and equipment. Hot linked details. Automated notation systems.
Generation of structural elements inside model based on designated assemblies.

I am less concerned with the high-end details for "real" buildings (skyscrapers, museums etc.) than some features close to Chief Architect, for example. I don't need to make take-offs or maintenance schedules, or show all piping and wiring for the types of projects I do. I know this is important in large projects and in some cases the architect or designer must do more of this. I think it is true of most of the US, architects don't provide a bill of materials. That's the contractors' job. And few contractors in our milieu even use CAD. I understand it is different in Europe.
I think this is probably true for a lot of users, but BIM will be driven by the needs of high-end users, and we all can benefit.

bigstick

Translating data in theory is easy enough. It depends on the amount of the data, how well the standards are documented, and how easy it is to format the data. The more complex it is the more likely it is to create problems.

Even translating dwg data between different packages is not always 100% consistent. Sure the lines work, but things like viewports, dimensions, symbols and attributes (particularly when these two are linked) are more complex and don't always translate neatly.

The point about BIM is that you need confidence in the validity/consistency of your data after translation. The true benefits of BIM can only be realised if the whole design team make use of it. If one wants to use this type software in a meaningful and flexible way, it needs compatibility with as many other apps as possible.

Only IFC will do this with 3d data. What other open BIM formats are there?

Pixero

I'm very exited about the possibility to "sketch" BIM in SU and export it to Revit (which is our companys software of choice for the future).
For me the most important feature is a working exporter so we can start using what's been done already and find what features we "really" need.
Haven't seen any exporter yet though...

bigstick

@pbacot said:

For my own purposes and I think for many users, the front-end promises of BIM will be more important:

Parametric or systematic creations of building elements (walls, floors, foundations etc.) that can be modified later based on intrinsic qualities of each.

Placement of elements (windows doors equipment) based on defaults that make sense for those elements. Ease in revisions for these.

Agree with this. I don't need parametric components, push/pulling will do for me, as long as the modified objects retain their 'intelligent' properties.

@pbacot said:

Ability to work in plan view, adding or editing elements and have automatic model updates.

Schedules for rooms, doors, windows,and equipment. Hot linked details. Automated notation systems.

Generation of structural elements inside model based on designated assemblies.

I wouldn't personally do schedules in SU. It's not good enough for 2d documentation. Your CAD application is better for this, and should already have competent scheduling and reporting tools. Also - why would you want to work in 2d views in SketchUp? It kinds of defeats the object

@pbacot said:

I am less concerned with the high-end details for "real" buildings (skyscrapers, museums etc.) than some features close to Chief Architect, for example. I don't need to make take-offs or maintenance schedules, or show all piping and wiring for the types of projects I do. I know this is important in large projects and in some cases the architect or designer must do more of this. I think it is true of most of the US, architects don't provide a bill of materials. That's the contractors' job. And few contractors in our milieu even use CAD. I understand it is different in Europe.

Actually SU is currently fundamentally unsuited to being a fully developed BIM app. It simply can't handle a massive polygon count. It's essentially a design & modelling application and that's where its real strengths lie. The main BIM apps just don't have SketchUp's ease of use and flexibility for 3d modelling, but are good at 2d drawing, scheduling and reporting.

Making it a high end BIM app is misguided in my opinion. I would just settle for the ability to model the basic structure/layout in SketchUp, and transfer it to a true BIM app for 2d drawings and reporting once the basic design is done.

In the UK at least architects produce schedules, but don't do take-offs. We have a whole profession devoted to cost management in construction. Quantity Surveyors are responsible of Bills of Quantities and Cost-planning. During construction they are responsible for financial management of the contract.

Contractors and subcontractors are starting to use BIM more and more for larger or more complex projects. This is certainly the case with my £20m school.

pbacot

@unknownuser said:

Also - why would you want to work in 2d views in SketchUp? It kinds of defeats the object

IDK. Seems obvious to me. If I am working on a model for a house, for example, I would rather plug in windows in plan where the horizontal dimension and relationships are critical. The default is already set for window height, the types of windows are easily chosen etc. Why fiddle with this in 3d? I've seen others do this in Chief Architect. They also just pick parameters for a roof, siding etc. It's all there when they go 3d.

I wouldn't expect schedules to be created inside the SU drawing. That would have to be Excel or some other program linked to reports from SU.

As for my CAD, it sounds like you are saying that should be my BIM. I don't have Revit and probably never will. I am just discussing the interest here in BIM for SU, not other programs. I have a pretty good working setup otherwise, between 2d CAD and SU. I am addressing the previous question, and saying that I think for many people the ease in creating "smart" building models is the first desire, but it will probably be more complex than that.

@unknownuser said:

Making it a high end BIM app is misguided in my opinion.

I agree. Different tools for different tasks. But something is happening in the plugin level and it could lead to third party integration. I wouldn't anticipate the basic program changing, except higher poly count. (I hope!)

bigstick

@pbacot said:

IDK. Seems obvious to me. If I am working on a model for a house, for example, I would rather plug in windows in plan where the horizontal dimension and relationships are critical. The default is already set for window height, the types of windows are easily chosen etc. Why fiddle with this in 3d? I've seen others do this in Chief Architect. They also just pick parameters for a roof, siding etc. It's all there when they go 3d.

Surely not? You have to switch to whatever storey you need to modify, hide the rest and switch to a plan view. It's got to be faster to position in 3d with the right inferencing. The 2d multiple view way of working is old-fashioned to me. It's one of the reasons a lot of us love SU, everything is 3d, you seldom use the 2d views.

@pbacot said:

As for my CAD, it sounds like you are saying that should be my BIM. I don't have Revit and probably never will. I am just discussing the interest here in BIM for SU, not other programs. I have a pretty good working setup otherwise, between 2d CAD and SU. I am addressing the previous question, and saying that I think for many people the ease in creating "smart" building models is the first desire, but it will probably be more complex than that.

Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. I think that making SU the BIM tool (as opposed to adding BIM-friendly features to enable it to work effectively with the existing BIM apps) would be extraordinarily complicated, time-consuming and expensive. Way too much for one or two guys. This would be a Linux-like community coding effort!