!Restored: Vectorworks 2009 BIM: Its Happening... Its Not Happening

[Aaron Bourgoin]

The press release and the white paper on this product are reminiscent of the American Presidential Election: casting doubt on the competition's experience and outlook.

"From a conceptual and philosophical perspective, BIM is a better way to design, construct, and manage buildings. It allows architects to design more efficiently, construction firms to better manage costs, and owners to stay on budget and control day-to-day operational costs. BIM fulfills the promise
of economic gain and also better business relations. Excessive change orders, resulting from communication errors or missing information, negatively reflect on owner’s perception of architects and construction firms. Architects and construction firms with a reputation for costly overruns tend to lose business.

"As the key technology shared between architects and construction firms, CAD applications have taken center stage in the movement to take BIM mainstream. CAD’s ability to capture and represent the geographic information, building geometry, component relationships, and quantities and
properties of building components is at the heart of BIM. Several CAD vendors tout their applications as central to the BIM process, capable of managing the complex 3D information model generated on a BIM project. But are they really? As BIM evolved, architectural intelligence was built on top of primitive foundations. Many BIM applications have limited functionality and key elements of the model cannot be represented in 3D; most do not have a modeling kernel reliable or fast enough to handle large, detailed 3D models. Without the efficiency of a purpose-built 3D modeling kernel, good visualization becomes an extremely time-consuming process.

"We have the answer to BIM’s technological problems: adopt the time-tested platform used by the MCAD industry to build the best architectural 3D CAD solution available. With a purpose-built 3D modeling kernel, Vectorworks 2009 manages building complexity which previously tested the limits of
most BIM applications."

But then, Boingo:

At the Nemetschek Press Event, Ralph Grabowski reports this about Jim Flaherty's keynote theme which is

"BIM Isn't Happening...

...because it costs architects to implement BIM [building information modeling], but they do not get paid more for using it. (In the row ahead of me, Ed Goldberg was vigorously nodding his head in agreement.) Architects want a payback for themselves; they care not if the owner saves money down the road with BIM, because architects don't get any of that savings paid back.

"The key strength of Vectorworks is its free-form modeling, which products like Revit can't do. Mr Flaherty is pleased that Autodesk helps out Vectorworks by marketing BIM and Revit -- but then ends up selling AutoCAD.

"For five years, the #1 selling point of Vectorworks has been its presentation graphics -- outputting good looking drawings with gradients, transparency, 2D Booleans, and non-photorealistic effects in 2D and 3D. All this generated within Vectorworks, again something competitors can't do.

"Now there is a new key mission: Design. Mr Flaherty segregates design into four steps:

I. 2D.
II. 3D Conceptualization or Visualization.
III. Integrated Design and Development.
IV. Model-centric BIM [building information modeling].

Most customers are at step II, 3D Conceptualization; he's trying to get users to the next step, Integrated Design.

Step IV? It's a long way off. Model-centric BIM is the future that everyone talks about today. But there are lots of holes in the process, such as legal issues. Today, BIM works only for owner-builder-operators, such as GM building its own plants.

So, what are some of the limitations of competitors -- Revit, in particular?

* Modeling limitation; freeform modeling is needed to design things like spline-shaped roof edges. Vectorworks is the only one with NURBS surfaces.
* 3D speed and robustness; purely parametric modelers can't handle the model size once details are added.
* Complex UI; users face varying user interfaces when they switch between 2D and 3D packages from the same vendor. Vectorworks has the same UI for all its software.
* BIM slows down design; users spend too much time wrestling with the system.
* Good visualization is hard to get; customers find they have a hard time reproducing the beautiful renderings pictured on the vendor's Web site.

Mr Flaherty sees BIM as something that excites accountants, but not architects, and thinks that paper drawings will be the preferred output method for his lifetime -- as opposed to exchanging drawings electronically."

see the whole article at Issue #572 : : Setpember 16, 2008
http://www.upfrontezine.com/2008/upf-572.htm

Seems Mr. Flaherty has a different idea of what BIM is. His approach seems to be to say, everyone else's ideas about BIM are wrong or wrong headed. And then to take BIM back to CAD circa 1993.

[Anonymous]

Mr G

Your facility with VW/MC is duly noted -- I did the same myself on a project circa 1999 or so with MC7.

Later, in 2001, I was part of a committee that was evaluating proposals from the then Revit Technology Corporation and Autodesk on Arch Desktop. It was clear to me then that full BIM was the future -- the ADT model is a series of essentially disconnected pieces. Geometry in one xref/construct/element does not inform another xref regarding changes in geometry -- you have to go through the pieces and change them all. With ArchiCAD and Revit (unless you're linking files on a large project) the whole model is available as one pool of data that's interconnected. Needless to say, that evaluation was a Revit smackdown -- it was clear from that meeting that the Autodesk product didn't work the way I thought we ought to be working. But Revit at the time was an immature product.

Rebuilding a section or elevation in VW is still a laborious process (less so with each release, granted), but the fact that me and a colleague can be working together in the very same room, in the very same file means that we are reaching a more elevated state of BIM -- and who doesn't want nirvana? So VW is a partial implementation of BIM, and the reason I must have "total BIM" is that it allows me to design, document, manage and coordinate the building all in one file. The building is a whole, not a kit of parts. There is no redrawing sections, no cleanup: just build the model, add the 2D details where needed, and you are done.

[Anonymous]

metanoia wrote:
Mr G

Rebuilding a section or elevation in VW is still a laborious process (less so with each release, granted), but the fact that me and a colleague can be working together in the very same room, in the very same file means that we are reaching a more elevated state of BIM -- and who doesn't want nirvana? So VW is a partial implementation of BIM, and the reason I must have "total BIM" is that it allows me to design, document, manage and coordinate the building all in one file. The building is a whole, not a kit of parts. There is no redrawing sections, no cleanup: just build the model, add the 2D details where needed, and you are done.

Thanks for illustrating the practical side! I didn't know the specific shortcoming of VW and why it is not considered BIM. More importantly from a practical side, having to redraw elevations is a major drawback.

In the end, the practical solutions will win users. Not high-minded discussions on where the profession should be.

[Anonymous]

I'm agree with both of you . But, where you see weakness, i see the strongest condition. Vw is the ideal application on BIM transition, it let's you think hybrid (Cad and Bim). Right know it's difficult for the people to think "the way of Bim"; for a regular cad user, it takes time to make the transition.

The user base of Vw is making the transition without notice.

Vw don't have the sections abilities of archicad or revit, yet. But in time it will. The program functions as database from Vectorworks 2008, and with the adoption of the parasolid kernel it will have interactive sections, parametric geometry and 3d dimensioning. Those things will start arising on 2010 for things I heard. I think it will be an interesting competition, because Vectorworks started to approach the Bim condition from another point of view. That is important, for us, the users.


Archicad and Revit are Bim since the beginning. Vectorworks came from the world of Cad, and it's evolving in interesting ways to the Bim world. Maybe for that Vectorworks user base is growing.


PD. You don't have to redraw sections or elevations. They are linked to the model.

[Anonymous]

Mr. wrote:
PD. You don't have to redraw sections or elevations. They
are linked to the model.

Right... I should have said 'rebuild' not 'redraw'...

[Anonymous]

I don't know if VW's base is growing, but I'll tell you -- people think all CAD apps are equal, so they buy them on price!

Edit: I figured it was time to blow the dust off my Vectorworks bookmarks, so I surfed over and had a look at VW 2009. The modelling tools have gotten even better, but the workflow is still the same -- you build the whole out of a series of files, which creates barriers between the pieces.

Their BIM white paper (available at http://www.nemetschek.net/bim/articles.php ) waxes long about how important the Parasolid geometry kernel is to BIM. It is if your model is very complex, so pity us in North America because we rarely need such complicated geometries Which is to say: Parasolid and BIM is for most of us in North America a non sequitur.

What it all comes down to is that if everyone were experts at Revit/ArchiCAD and VW, which app do you think you'd find them on? The kit of parts, or the holistic model-based approach? VW's selling point is that you can retain your existing VW workflow because you don't know how to do BIM, or you can't afford to buy the software and learn how to use a "total BIM" app like AC or Revit. This is the price tag that makes Ed Goldberg nod his head in empathy for all the architects out there. If you knew how to use Revit or ArchiCAD, the cost of the software is nothing.

Knowledge, or the lack thereof, is the main problem.

[Anonymous]

Metanoia, if Vectorworks isn't like Archicad and Revit surely that is what you want because it emphasises how different Archicad and Revit are.

People have different needs and preferences about how they want to work, and some will want to model in detail and others will just want to draw. Let them choose.

Having program choices is important to most of us though because it means we are not at the mercy of just one or two vendors who can then set a price that screws us, and benefits their bottom line. Competition also encourages development in order to maintain market share. Without that competition there wouldn't be an imperative to improve, and we would suffer because of it.

[Anonymous]

Oh ya: I totally agree with that... choice... competition... monopolies are bad for everyone. But when I show a newbie to the world of CAD (I teach at a local technical university), nobody wants to use VW. The wow factor of working on single-file BIM means VW *might* face eventual extinction unless it moves to that model, too. Kids prefer Total BIM...90% of moms agree

For years Adesk flogged Arch Desktop (edit: sorry, I had said AutoCAD) and people ignored that noise, or if they bought in, they realized that getting to total BIM was going to be nearly impossible, and not fun. Revit changed that, and while it's no picnic to learn, if you keep plugging away at it, you are guaranteed a rewarding experience that only Total BIM can offer. I think ArchiCAD users would agree that their cereal tastes just as good

[Anonymous]

metanoia wrote:

What it all comes down to is that if everyone were experts at Revit/ArchiCAD and VW, which app do you think you'd find them on? The kit of parts, or the holistic model-based approach? VW's selling point is that you can retain your existing VW workflow because you don't know how to do BIM, or you can't afford to buy the software and learn how to use a "total BIM" app like AC or Revit.

It's not that way.

Now people can choose. As Mike says.

If Vw *might* disappear is for tactics of companies like Autodesk. Buying everything to maintain the monopoly (ecotect is a good example), not because is a bad software. I don't think Autodesk is the main head on BIM, they adopted it because Autocad does not have a clear future. Autodesk always monopolize and then put development backwards. That's why Industrial Design softwares are years ahead of architectural ones.

Archicad, Vw, Allplan, Scia... are committed to 3d an Bim development, from years before autodesk...Things has started to evolve since the moment autodesk realize that they are serious competition....and bought Revit.

Simple: Let's people choose.

[Anonymous]

metanoia wrote:
. But when I show a newbie to the world of CAD (I teach at a local technical university), nobody wants to use VW. The wow factor of working on single-file BIM means VW *might* face eventual extinction unless it moves to that model, too. Kids prefer Total BIM...90% of moms agree

I guess you may wish to correct yourself,"that tech university is BCIT?",and according to their website you are not listed as staff ? Also in your web profile
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/568/007
you are not Qualified as an Architect ?Seriously, I would need to question your BIM credentials.There's one thing I agree with your "Career goal is to complete the RAIC Syllabus before I die" Keep studying.
Cheers

[Dwight]

WES MACAULAY is hereby pronounced to be not-a-duffus when it comes to BIM, so lay off.