The problem with parametric modelling is that you are adding another layer of complexity, which may never have been part of the original plan. The big drawback to it, is that implementing complex features such as curved, tapered or sloping walls becomes almost impossible unless you create typologies for them, together with mechanisms to connect them. It's worth remembering that even Revit didn't have these things in the first couple of versions!

In addition, let's say you have even a simple shape as a rectangular room with a curved bay, it's easy to model the slab and ceiling, but making these both parametric and associative with the adjacent elements is a really huge undertaking. Much, much bigger than simply tagging geometry or building some tools to create appropriately tagged geometry.

There are so many examples of this kind of complexity (floors with holes for staircases are another example) that it is easy to see how the project could get bogged down with making a very complex plugin that can deal with associative geometry, but can only deal with the very simplest of building types! In that respect, it could have very little usability in real world situations. When I played around with version 2 of Revit, before Autodesk bought it out, I found that this was the case for me.

One could deal with some things (partition walls, doors, windows, arrays of joists and framing) with dynamic components, but other elements could be created by plugins, and others built from scratch and tagged. It seems to me to make sense to have more than one way to make geometry, for flexibility.

Agree 100%, I really hope these niggles can be fixed, because for lots of users it will be a 'must have'! The only reason I haven't persisted more is time unfortunately. All my spare time is taken up with SUPodium, and I would love to get the two to work together nicely.

Actually this could be the basis of a tree/plant generator, to make any kind of plant. Huge undertaking though I suspect...

The added value of the first approach, is that SU can be integrated into an existing (or new) BIM workflow.

So users can use SU in conjunction with Revit, Microstation, Archicad, Vectorworks etc.

I think the 'thick faces' approach sounds great!

There are a number of ways you could create them though. Tools which specifically create the wall and slab objects would automatically set up the relevant tags/labels sound to me to be the most efficient solution.

However - ultimately there may be more complex wall types to build though. Angled, curved, stepped, tapering walls are all not that unusual. It may be that the 'thick faces' approach won't quite work with stepped, angled or tapering walls. If you could maybe allow each wall to be created in native SU geometry, and made into a group and tagged with an attribute, it gives you the benefit of modelling however you want, with flexibility to do pretty much what you want.

If you extended the attribute tagging principle and defined an open schema, any of the plugin authors here could build an integrated set of tools for all sorts of BIM elements, based on some of the plugins that they already have. A true community approach!

Someone would need to create an IFC export script though.

I have just checked out bimserver, sounds great! Would it work with large/complex models?

@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!

I didn't have your patience to get it to work. I did install it and the dialog worked fine. It just didn't seem to 'grow' the ivy, and it's not like I didn't check the installation and read up about it. The reality is that I didn't need the functionality enough to put the time and effort in.

The frustrating thing is that it looks like a really excellent plugin, but it needs sorting out before it's ready for most users.

If a lot of people have to make a considerable effort to get it working after 25 pages of posts, it shows that more work is necessary.

Sorry - I don't mean any criticism or disrespect to the author in the slightest, it seems to be a wonderful plugin and the effort you have made is very much appreciated!

@pbacot said:

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

1. Parametric or systematic creations of building elements (walls, floors, foundations etc.) that can be modified later based on intrinsic qualities of each.
2. 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:

3. Ability to work in plan view, adding or editing elements and have automatic model updates.
4. Schedules for rooms, doors, windows,and equipment. Hot linked details. Automated notation systems.
5. 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.

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?

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.

OpenStudio does a good job simplifying EnergyPlus for SketchUp users, but its usability was (when I last used it, and I suspect still is) a bit complex and involved compared with what most of us are used to.

I'm sure it will be a must-have tool in due course, but I can't see how it could be practically linked to SketchUpBIM.

In OpenStudio you have to redefine your spaces in SU using new geometry which OpenStudio understands. There are strict rules about relationships between spaces and whether they touch or not. How spaces are created is (or was last time I used it) critical.

It's very very complicated to turn a complex 3d model into a simplified energy model automatically, and even if you do it, there may be so many anomalies and things that need to be corrected, that it will probably be a lot quicker and easier to remodel your spaces from scratch, snapping to existing surfaces.

So quite apart from the complexity of linking with OpenStudio (there's a lot here for the guys to do in making the basic BIM premise work well), I wonder whether there is much point in doing it at all.

Keep on going as you are d_e_x, we're all pumped and rooting for you

I wonder if there is room for harmonisation of this plugin, and this one:- http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=323&t=35798

This is such a huge task that I do wonder whether it is too much for one person. The point I made some time ago for creation of a 'framework' which could be used by lots of Ruby coders might still be a relevant one.

We have lots of plugins, for windows, doors, stairs, roofs, joists, slabs, foundations, columns, beams etc. Wouldn't it be cool if they were all compliant with this BIM principle!

I accept that ensuring consistency with the standard might be tricky, but it might be worth looking into.

Yeah, I would agree - that was a bit steep! It's integrated in the latest build though.

If you already use Podium, you'll have a new toy to play with. If you don't, Edit in Place is not going to make you buy it

Sometimes you have to create the folder manually.

On SL, the location is here:-

Macintosh HD:Users:username:Library:Services

Should be the same on Lion too.

On Lion, you will need to use something like LionTweaks (http://ifredrik.com/applications/ it's wonderful, the guy is only 16, if you use it, please consider donating, I have) to make your Library folder visible.

Really nice work Jeff!

Oops, sorry - I did mean 'Edit in Place'.

There's nothing wrong with agreeing or disagreeing, as long as we having an amicable and reasoned discussion

Of course everyone is perfectly entitled to their own views, but if you haven't tried the alternative, it's a bit difficult to compare.

I don't want to risk sounding pushy, because I'm really excited to see someone add this functionality to SketchUp, but as I see it, IFC is the de facto standard for BIM interoperability.

ArchiCAD and Revit are great products, but there are Microstation and Vectorworks as well in the BIM market. IFC ought to be completely independent of any of this, and I think all the apps support it.

My greatest fear with BIM is fragmentation and lack of interoperability, which will mean that the industry could take 2 steps forward, but 3 steps back.

Having said that, it's fantastic that you're doing what you're doing, so please keep it up

[Edit: there is already an app called ifc2skp, and I can put you in contact with them if you want]

Sorry Jeff, have to disagree. The Paste in Place method I find much more convenient and reliable.

I'm sure HDT's tool will be similarly effective

If you could add IFC export to this, you've got a solid gold winner!

I have been using a 15" Core i5 mid 2010 MBP for a while. I have 8Gb of RAM and it works perfectly. I use it for fairly big/complex models for SketchUp and Podium. It's fast enough for me, and I have an 8 core Mac Pro in the office. Considering what desktop machines some people have (and there are lots of people still using XP) this machine is plenty fast enough for serious SketchUp work and rendering.

Before I had my current machine, I had the old model 15" Core 2 Duo MBP with the Santa Rosa Chipset and 4Gb of RAM. I didn't have a problem with that either.

Any decent spec MBP ought to be better than any Desktop PC running XP 32 bit.

The DVD writer in my old machine failed 5 times over the space of 3 years, and just before my AppleCare warranty expired, Apple replaced the machine for free with a brand new model of the latest spec.

AppleCare is awesome! I would advise anyone who buys an Apple machine to budget for this if remotely possible. If you don't live close to an Apple store, ring them up and they'll send a courier to collect your machine, and return it around 3 days later. They'll even supply a box

I haven't seen any reports of MacBook Air machines with SketchUp. I would have thought it would be fine for smaller models, but for rendering or very complex models, the 15" Pro model is the best balance between power and portability - IMO.

Windows only though isn't it?

At least that's what the posts seem to indicate, unless TIG has fixed it

Epic work Jan! I think we actually only need a few IFC compliant object types to get basic interoperability with the major BIM apps.

Walls and openings are of course the most important, but when we have floors and roofs as well, I suspect most of the work will have been done.

When it's working on the Mac, I'll definitely try it out - excellent!