topic Re: ArchiCad-REVIT-State Governments in Modeling

ArchiCad-REVIT-State Governments

Anonymous — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:11:10 GMT

As you may know various state governments are beginning to require BIM. Texas now requires BIM plus REVIT. Texas does not want projects in any other platform, and it is not necessarily easy to convert ArchiCad to REVIT (REVIT Architecture) and accurately maintain the intelligent data. As goes Texas so may go other states and the Federal government - VA/GSA/HUD/Coast Guard/Army Corps of Engineers, etc. Note that Wisconsin accepts ArchiCad.

Graphisoft needs to work with various state governments and the Federal government to encourage them to accept ArchiCad.

Re: ArchiCad-REVIT-State Governments

Anonymous — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:30:18 GMT

It's not all bad news...

The US Army Corps of Engineers is in the process of switching from requiring Microstation to the open COBIE standards. These are strongly favorable to IFC and seem to be very committed to open standards.

The Coast Guard has been using ArchiCAD for quite some time.

The GSA has selected five BIM teams including a strong representation of ArchiCAD users.

Texas may be an anomaly (it usually is), but of course it is a major state and the Revit requirement sets a bad example.

It is clear though that GS really needs to address the issue of meeting official submittal requirements or even devoted users may be forced to abandon the program if they can't submit their designs for approval.

The situation in Portugal is particularly worrying. It seems that it is easily fixed since DWF is an open and documented standard, but it isn't clear yet if GS is taking this seriously.

Re: ArchiCad-REVIT-State Governments

Bricklyne Clarence — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 00:00:21 GMT

Matthew wrote:
It's not all bad news...

The US Army Corps of Engineers is in the process of switching from requiring Microstation to the open COBIE standards. These are strongly favorable to IFC and seem to be very committed to open standards.

The Coast Guard has been using ArchiCAD for quite some time.

The GSA has selected five BIM teams including a strong representation of ArchiCAD users.

Texas may be an anomaly (it usually is), but of course it is a major state and the Revit requirement sets a bad example.

It is clear though that GS really needs to address the issue of meeting official submittal requirements or even devoted users may be forced to abandon the program if they can't submit their designs for approval.

The situation in Portugal is particularly worrying. It seems that it is easily fixed since DWF is an open and documented standard, but it isn't clear yet if GS is taking this seriously.

The GSA has always seemingly been ArchiCAD/IFC friendly and definitely more software neutral if not leaning towards open standards. Ditto the Military.

I think Autodesk realize this, as well as the dead-end of trying to make the US-GSA and by default the US government, a major and exclusive Autodesk client (Conflicts of interest, constitutional regulations, lobbying and all that), and thus their marketing strategy seems to be aimed at the States and at state-level, and specifically the larger States in making them believe and thus adopt Autodesk products and 'BIM' principles as Industry defaults.

I think it begins to become a problem when some of the other larger states (California, Florida, NY, Mass. etc) begin adopting Autodesk and Revit as exclusive BIM submission formats for state government projects, first and then for other projects in general. Other states are sure to follow.

I'm not sure what leverage Graphisoft has, or would have in terms of reversing or arresting this trend - or what Will, for that matter.

Beyond putting out a better (more superior) product and having a more concerted marketing effort and certainly more pronounced presence in the North American AEC scene, beyond free licenses for students.

Re: ArchiCad-REVIT-State Governments

Anonymous — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:22:07 GMT

Matthew wrote:
The situation in Portugal is particularly worrying. It seems that it is easily fixed since DWF is an open and documented standard, but it isn't clear yet if GS is taking this seriously.

Albeit some the-sky-is-falling alleged Portuguese architects that have been posting here, the DWF format is only asked on some towns.

Not wanting to excuse GS for not having provided a quick solution (I know they are working on it, but we are after all a small market), the solution is quite simple: Bootcamp, Windows, DWF converter.

Bootcamp is free, Windows is a must if you are serious about your work (there are so many programs that only run on windows, even with ArchiCAD), and the DWF is also free.

Not a major investment, and certainly not in the same league as demanding Revit models. That would, at the present state of the art, simply trash ArchiCAD.

Re: ArchiCad-REVIT-State Governments

ternullomelo — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:47:02 GMT

Dear Krippahl,

Albeit some the-sky-is-falling alleged Portuguese architects that have been posting here, the DWF format is only asked on some towns.

By some towns you mean Lisbon (amongst others), which is only the largest city in Portugal and the third in the iberian peninsula... therefore a huge market for architects (even if it is small for GS).

Not wanting to excuse GS for not having provided a quick solution

But by accepting this workaround you're doing so. The only reason we post here is to let know GS that they have to improve ArchiCAD. Otherwise it seems that everything is fine.

... Windows is a must if you are serious about your work (there are so many programs that only run on windows, even with ArchiCAD)...

Being a Mac user for almost 20 years now i never felt the need to use windows (besides games and some other not so interesting CAD software).

Not a major investment...

I would have to disagree, windows doesn't come for free and besides using it for DWF conversion purposes, it would be pointless.

Also i would suggest you read those municipalities DWF requirements... probably you would need to add that other CAD software (which by the way is ridiculously expensive).

Re: ArchiCad-REVIT-State Governments

Anonymous — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:05:25 GMT

Krippahl wrote:
Not a major investment, and certainly not in the same league as demanding Revit models. That would, at the present state of the art, simply trash ArchiCAD.

Not exactly.
Autodesk hasn't done it's homework properly.
The local code states that the required DWF format must have a internal layer organization. And Revit only uses layers for DWG export.
So, instead of a 1 click export command, Revit users have to export it's sheets in the model to Autocad (or compatible) and then convert all the files to DWF.
And that's not the perfect workflow.

Re: ArchiCad-REVIT-State Governments

Anonymous — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:00:36 GMT

feio49 wrote:
So, instead of a 1 click export command, Revit users have to export it's sheets in the model to Autocad (or compatible) and then convert all the files to DWF.
And that's not the perfect workflow.

Depends. If you are in the 2D software selling business, it is more than perfect 😉

Re: ArchiCad-REVIT-State Governments

Anonymous — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:14:23 GMT

feio49 wrote:
Krippahl wrote:
Not a major investment, and certainly not in the same league as demanding Revit models. That would, at the present state of the art, simply trash ArchiCAD.
Not exactly.
Autodesk hasn't done it's homework properly.
The local code states that the required DWF format must have a internal layer organization. And Revit only uses layers for DWG export.
So, instead of a 1 click export command, Revit users have to export it's sheets in the model to Autocad (or compatible) and then convert all the files to DWF.
And that's not the perfect workflow.

Hi.

As you can see in this example, there is no idea of giving Autodesk a favored position in the market. Nor any business connection to Autodesk. Revit users have the same troubles as ArchiCAD users do.
I personally assisted Graphisoft in making ArchiCAD compliant with the new regulations by providing detailed DWF specification to Infor in Portugal. As far as I know Graphisoft implemented those in ArchiCAD V12. This can make ArchiCAD users more suited to comply than Revit users.
Believe me, the idea has nothing to do with Autodesk's business. It is an honest step that will surely accommodate BIM in the future.
DWF simply is the best format for this purpose.

By the way, I am the guy responsible for current DWF mandatory usage in Portugal.
Henrique Saias

Re: ArchiCad-REVIT-State Governments

Anonymous — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:38:45 GMT

Good to hear from you Henrique, and thanks for your clarification.

While we are on the subject, can you tell us if there is some work being done in Portugal to implement BIM mandatory usage? The DWF sure was a bold step, but it falls short of realizing the whole digital potential, and seems to be at least a decade behind (better late than never, but why not aim higher?)

And if so, who is involved?

Thanks a lot

Re: ArchiCad-REVIT-State Governments

Anonymous — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:35:54 GMT

Krippahl wrote:
Good to hear from you Henrique, and thanks for your clarification.

While we are on the subject, can you tell us if there is some work being done in Portugal to implement BIM mandatory usage? The DWF sure was a bold step, but it falls short of realizing the whole digital potential, and seems to be at least a decade behind (better late than never, but why not aim higher?)

And if so, who is involved?

Thanks a lot

I'm not so sure about being a decade behind. Switching to all digital submission is ahead of most jurisdictions, and from what I've seen the states and agencies that are requiring BIM don't know what that means yet (I don't think anyone really does) which may just mean they are getting ten years ahead of themselves.

Re: ArchiCad-REVIT-State Governments

Anonymous — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 19:35:18 GMT

Krippahl wrote:
Good to hear from you Henrique, and thanks for your clarification.

While we are on the subject, can you tell us if there is some work being done in Portugal to implement BIM mandatory usage? The DWF sure was a bold step, but it falls short of realizing the whole digital potential, and seems to be at least a decade behind (better late than never, but why not aim higher?)

And if so, who is involved?

Thanks a lot

Not that I know. No.
I am working on that, but there is still a lot of backoffice work before we are in condition to achieve that with the desired results.

Re: ArchiCad-REVIT-State Governments

Anonymous — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 19:37:14 GMT

Krippahl wrote:
Matthew wrote:
The situation in Portugal is particularly worrying. It seems that it is easily fixed since DWF is an open and documented standard, but it isn't clear yet if GS is taking this seriously.
Albeit some the-sky-is-falling alleged Portuguese architects that have been posting here, the DWF format is only asked on some towns.

Not wanting to excuse GS for not having provided a quick solution (I know they are working on it, but we are after all a small market), the solution is quite simple: Bootcamp, Windows, DWF converter.

Bootcamp is free, Windows is a must if you are serious about your work (there are so many programs that only run on windows, even with ArchiCAD), and the DWF is also free.

Not a major investment, and certainly not in the same league as demanding Revit models. That would, at the present state of the art, simply trash ArchiCAD.

You don't need BootCamp. Try this: http://www.parallels.com/eu/products/desktop/. Cheaper then a home printer.

Re: ArchiCad-REVIT-State Governments

matjashka — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 17:31:52 GMT

We tried to get into doing work for Chicago Public Schools. Our understanding is that they chose to require information specifically in REVIT format, for archives (as if any proprietary data format ever worked in a long haul).
Great lobbying, Autodesk.

Re: ArchiCad-REVIT-State Governments

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 20:59:44 GMT

matjashka wrote:
We tried to get into doing work for Chicago Public Schools. Our understanding is that they chose to require information specifically in REVIT format, for archives (as if any proprietary data format ever worked in a long haul).
Great lobbying, Autodesk.

So translate via IFC and send them the Revit file. They'll probably never even open it.

The idea of requiring a proprietary BIM model for archiving demonstrates a complete failure to understand the nature of both BIM and archiving. BIM is for producing designs and completing buildings now. Archiving is for preserving information for long term use. At present these two functions are almost entirely incompatible. There is presently no BIM format suitable for archiving.

I started using ArchiCAD a little over 20 years ago with version 3.43. To update one of those old files is quite a trick now. Revit has only been in existence for about 10 years. I wonder what it would take to open a Revit 1.0 file in 2011. It is interesting to note that "archival" quality CD/DVD disks are rated for 25 years. Most archivists are accustomed to working with documents well over 100 years old and 25 years from now is like tomorrow.

Re: ArchiCad-REVIT-State Governments

matjashka — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 21:52:31 GMT

What they would use it for, is my educated guess.
I would think that typically you can't just take somebody else's source file (but that's what waivers are for), add a few walls and dimensions and have a project for an addition ready for permit. But this is what one does with original, old construction blueprints, when used as backgrounds for redevelopment.
Could be that somebody wanted to do it the smart way and assumed that Revit was the most progressive data format.

Re: ArchiCad-REVIT-State Governments

Anonymous — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 19:38:50 GMT

matjashka wrote:
What they would use it for, is my educated guess.
I would think that typically you can't just take somebody else's source file (but that's what waivers are for), add a few walls and dimensions and have a project for an addition ready for permit. But this is what one does with original, old construction blueprints, when used as backgrounds for redevelopment.
Could be that somebody wanted to do it the smart way and assumed that Revit was the most progressive data format.

Based on my experience I don't think they have a clue what they want it for. They've just been hearing all about this BIM stuff and figure it would be a good idea to have the files.

The well educated agencies (GSA etc.) understand the process much better (and realize how little anyone really knows yet) and so their requirement is more to the effect that BIM be used on their projects (they may be requiring BIM implementation plans be submitted) but they understand that the BIM files themselves are not necessarily deliverables unless there is a clear and immediate use for them.

As far as submittals for permits and approvals (and maybe archiving) I think the Portuguese are on the right track. DWF is really the only reasonable choice for 2D and also offers the possibility for 3D submittals as standards develop. PDF is an alternative but not necessarily best for technical docs and 3D PDF is still pretty limited from what I've seen.