TheSwamp

CAD Forums => CAD General => Revit => Topic started by: hudster on October 03, 2017, 04:29:51 am

Title: BIM Better or worse
Post by: hudster on October 03, 2017, 04:29:51 am
After using BIM for the last 4 years on a wide variety of projects, all I'm seeing is more work, taking a lot longer and with more responsibility.
I'm not sure it is valuable to my company ife.

How about yours?
Title: Re: BIM Better or worse
Post by: alterego on October 03, 2017, 04:40:57 am
We are in the first full year of BIM here... and there still seems to be a lot of confusion as to what people want and to what level. 
Title: Re: BIM Better or worse
Post by: rvhwlc on October 12, 2017, 07:40:31 am
better for us.. more work.. less phone call says " hey this does not fit.." in auto cad 2d i am scared when i send plans out.. but yes more work but not a bad thing..
Title: Re: BIM Better or worse
Post by: Master_Shake on October 12, 2017, 08:00:08 am
There is a reason it was the buzzword a few years ago. I think the concept and overall intent of BIM is good but on normal, run of the mill projects the time investment just does not seem worth it. Also it creates coordination headaches for smaller firms.

I'm curious how many building owners actually use the finished BIM package during their maintenance and repairs?
Title: Re: BIM Better or worse
Post by: MSTG007 on October 12, 2017, 08:22:34 am
How often do you guys coordinate with Civil Site guys? What do they usually deliver to you guys?

We are not really using BIM here yet.
Title: Re: BIM Better or worse
Post by: dgorsman on October 12, 2017, 10:20:27 am
If we extend the idea of BIM a bit (i.e. not limited to just buildings or Revit) and consider that it's a process rather than a program or file format, then we've been doing it for some time.  Working with data-rich models has solved a lot of traditional problems of coordination, accuracy, and checking.  It does involve a little more responsibility up-front and restricts the designers a bit (they have to do things correctly, not how they feel like it should be done), but overall it's been a benefit to us and our clients.
Title: Re: BIM Better or worse
Post by: lamarn on October 13, 2017, 07:16:40 am
How often do you guys coordinate with Civil Site guys? What do they usually deliver to you guys?

We are not really using BIM here yet.

BIM (or whatever you mean with it) did not make anything more simple for civil/infra. In contrary, it introduced a whole bunch of conversions. When I comes to 'using more 3d' equals 'BIM' I will say i'm glad people want it and happy providing views/visuals/insights with whatever I need. But stop asking to put it in ONE file, IFC, mandates, protocols, etc.. Managerstalk like there is a thing like 'a single source of truth' really pisses me off! With 'this thing called BIM' it even matters more who are the pilots flying 2d/3d/ other resources. The plane ✈ can crash a lot more easy than staying on flat ground...

O.. And take my advice, Revit was not meant to do civil (coordination)..
Title: Re: BIM Better or worse
Post by: MSTG007 on October 13, 2017, 07:24:33 am
Interesting... Thanks for the thought...
Title: Re: BIM Better or worse
Post by: lamarn on October 13, 2017, 08:25:42 am
 
 "..  In 2017 you might think that being able to import and export files correctly shouldn’t be a hassle, but it came in as the second most common complaint among CAD users. Rasmussen explained that when CAD users are importing and exporting files, the primary problem is that the 3D object loses features—it has no parameters, no intelligence—and is no longer parametric. Sometimes the object is incomplete or just a partial translation, meaning that surfaces are missing. .."


This is more than one persons reality in 'BIM'.
Was reading it today at Engineering.com
Like to read other opinions as well.
Title: Re: BIM Better or worse
Post by: dgorsman on October 13, 2017, 10:22:26 am
From a design perspective, yeah - trying to everything in one package, in one file format, isn't going to work.  Piping design software isn't going to do structural design well; mechanical design software isn't going to do architectural software well; architectural software has zero need for spec-driven piping design.  Most of them have little reason to do 2D schematics.

"Single source of truth" is not about everything in one application/one format though.  That's where review and collaboration software comes in, bringing in objects from the many different sources along with the intelligence.  From there data from the many different sources can be reviewed in context.
Title: Re: BIM Better or worse
Post by: Matt__W on October 13, 2017, 12:43:13 pm
Two words.... "Project Quantum"

But in the meantime... The AEC Collection makes it so much easier to transfer data back-and-forth between InfraWorks to Civil 3D to Revit back to Civil 3D to Navisworks to Revit to...
Title: Re: BIM Better or worse
Post by: mjfarrell on October 13, 2017, 12:47:12 pm
Two words.... "Project Quantum"

But in the meantime... The AEC Collection makes it so much easier to transfer data back-and-forth between InfraWorks to Civil 3D to Revit back to Civil 3D to Navisworks to Revit to...

yeah, in reality that transfer of data 'should' never have been a problem/challenge in the first place, i.e. without any need for Infraworks at all
mostly a solution looking for a problem, that autodesk created all by themselves
Title: Re: BIM Better or worse
Post by: lamarn on October 13, 2017, 02:15:27 pm
Two words.... "Project Quantum"...
One word :Marketing
.. Or two.. : Promiseware

The AEC Collection makes it so much easier to transfer data back-and-forth between InfraWorks to Civil 3D to Revit back to Civil 3D to Navisworks to Revit to...


Easier than.. what?
What wonderfileformat to use here?

(at the end ALL leads to DWG delivery, at least here at my end)
Title: Re: BIM Better or worse
Post by: Krushert on October 13, 2017, 02:31:43 pm
Two words.... "Project Quantum"

But in the meantime... The AEC Collection makes it so much easier to transfer data back-and-forth between InfraWorks to Civil 3D to Revit back to Civil 3D to Navisworks to Revit to...
(https://youarenotsosmart.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/dale.jpg)
Title: Re: BIM Better or worse
Post by: MickD on October 13, 2017, 06:57:20 pm
BIM is a great idea on the face of it BUT... IFC is fundamentally broken.

The problem with using IFC is it's too specific from a data perspective and not general enough with the geometry. The IFC classes list is huge and still doesn't cater for all feature types so it will be an ever growing problem and CAD vendors will always struggle to keep up. I've yet to have a smooth import of an IFC file from another CAD package without having to build some sort of mapping file.
That's the problem, you should be able to at least import the file and be able to view the model without having to worry about the data, the data is just data attached to the entity.

Another part of the problem is no one uses a schema for data validation, this is very important otherwise you will get any old crud from a consultant that has either too much or not enough data for the project as a whole. The project management team should create or use an agreed upon schema that gets handed to all consultants at the start of the job.

Then there's the problem of mixing design and engineering data, who fills in what parts of the entity data and who is responsible? Currently, there is no way to control this so we end up with an IFC file from each supplier and they could all be different because there is no schema!
You 'should' be able to submit a schema validated file then the project lead can overlay everyone's data to create the final validated file to be of any use in the future. Currently, it's only good for passing models around in a neutral format for reviewing and maybe clash detection etc but that's missing the real point of BIM and even that's broken.

BIM is a great idea and it initially creates more work for the drafty but the real payoff is in the richer data for processes further up the line such as asset management. At the moment, the BIM files being created are almost useless once the project is built.


Title: Re: BIM Better or worse
Post by: MSTG007 on October 16, 2017, 09:22:45 am
Can I ask... Where would "Facility Management" fit in with all this?
Title: Re: BIM Better or worse
Post by: mjfarrell on October 16, 2017, 09:33:20 am

BIM is a great idea and it initially creates more work for the drafty but the real payoff is in the richer data for processes further up the line such as asset management. At the moment, the BIM files being created are almost useless once the project is built.

To this point in regards Civil Data....yes the data is nearly useless because the data is embedded in the civil objects.....AND
the endstate of most civil projects is GIS of some sort, and MAP, nor ESRI either one can use the data from a civil model directly.
So without a great deal of data extraction, or otherwise the civil model does not feed into the downstream, or is it upstream purpose of BIM as it relates to civil projects.
Title: Re: BIM Better or worse
Post by: dgorsman on October 16, 2017, 01:04:46 pm
Can I ask... Where would "Facility Management" fit in with all this?

They can inspect the model e.g. when a motor is replaced with something from a different vendor, the model would be updated to indicate this.  There may also be information on when the work was done/under what contract, although it may just as well be a link to an external database.  Same with regular servicing.  Facilities with large numbers of certain components can use it to track down actual locations of those components for regular maintenance or product recalls.  Going back to that motor example, they would know to skip that one as it's not what they're looking for; with traditional drawings or data-less 3D models they'd still have to physically check that location, possibly arranging shut-downs in advance.  In really bad situations, the object may have been removed completely (although that's more bad as-building than a BIM failure).

There's also some non-traditional ways to use it.  For example, setting up remote monitoring using links from cameras and sensors in the model to actual data readouts.  Or virtual operations training.
Title: Re: BIM Better or worse
Post by: MickD on October 16, 2017, 05:07:43 pm
...
To this point in regards Civil Data....yes the data is nearly useless because the data is embedded in the civil objects.....AND
the endstate of most civil projects is GIS of some sort, and MAP, nor ESRI either one can use the data from a civil model directly.
So without a great deal of data extraction, or otherwise the civil model does not feed into the downstream, or is it upstream purpose of BIM as it relates to civil projects.

You're right Michael, and the CAD vendor isn't interested in adding the extra data fields required to create a valid export file that conforms to the BIM/IFC standard so it only exports the fields that it can/is interested in and hence you end up with rubbish/incomplete data. As you say, upstream/downstream wants the "GIS of some sort" and BIM is a way of achieving this but it won't work how it's implemented at this time.
Unless the government agencies enforce some kind of standard with an associated schema it won't happen. Without a schema, the data will most probably be junk. I wouldn't be holding my breath for all the CAD vendors to get their heads together and agree on one either.

I've written an app that works with CAD files to create XML and validate that data with a schema[1] and it works very well. The file I create can be passed to another CAD vendor that has implemented the schema and it just works. They can import my XML file and create a complete drawing with over 70 different asset types with all geometry and data attached, as can I with theirs.
That's how BIM is supposed to work! :)

[1] The schema was created by a consortium of councils who all wanted a standardised way of receiving a vendor-neutral file format of as designed - as-built asset data as part of their DA documents submission process, they were sick of receiving excel or word doc's or whatever export the CAD system used was exporting.