Tomtomas wrote:
refs wrote:
Miki woodie/Tomtomas:
As I have mention before, for me it's not "true bim" to have to do parametric objects (windows, doors..Etc) with “slabs” tools, because it’s difficult to work with our parametric programming language. It’s like to use “ramp” tools in revit for wall under Spiral Staircases. This is “workarounds” …
.
So you want to have window frame tool and door knob tool to make them real parametric BIM objects? 😉
I think that approach used in probably all current AEC (BIM if you like buzzwords) applications - having different object types and different tools for walls, slabs, roofs, ramps etc is actually wrong (as shown by ramp under stair example). I see it as result of trying to dumb down the process of modelling. Use foundation tool to draw foundation, use slab tool to draw floor slab, use wall tool to draw some walls and use roof tool to make nice roof. That's ok if all you want to design is "traditional" boxy house (or you are teaching CAD/BIM in kindergarten). The problem is, that in "modern" architecture it's often hard to tell if the wall is the wall, and slab is a slab.
Please look at Kubuswoning: http://peetjuhsplekkie.web-log.nl/peetjuhsplekkie/images/rotterdam_casecubointero.jpg
Now could you model such house in Revit without "workarounds"? Just using "real BIM tools"? Just be honest.
In real life I don't care about "purity of BIM". If roof tool fit's me better to model walls than wall tool - I will use it. I would like to have some generic tool actually. I would like to draw some freeform 3d object, be able to cut any opening in any direction, insert any symbol in any opening and then jus set some property of the object to "wall", "roof", "slab" or "ramp". But I know that "ease of use" would suffer and "ease of use" is Holy Grail of CAD/AEC/BIM marketing.
Tomtomas,
I'm afraid we've heard this whole "true BIM" argument one too many times from lots of Reviters visiting this forum and in other places. And all it boils down to is the old "No True Scotsman" fallacy which taught in logic and argumentation courses.
In other words, a feature, tool or element is only "true BIM" is it conforms to what any particular Reviter defines as "true BIM" in that particular moment, in that specific mood and for that particular day. The moment the obbject in question can't fit the description any more, then either the definition of "true BIM" changes accordingly to fit the crime, as the goal posts shift, or said element, feature, tool in discussion ceases to become worthy, significant or relevant to the whole "BIM"....., I'm sorry, the whole "true BIM" philosophy and argument.
All of which flies in the face of the fact that at the end of the day, all our production and documentation for consultants and contractors in AEC, (at this point in time anyway) is primarily geared towards 2D documents with 2D information that doesn't care whether it was spawned by parametric or "true BIM" elements or workarounds, but merely that it is accurate and clear. Or the fact that even Revit still has to rely on workarounds itself, due to the fact that its own native modeling tools are just as - if not more so - lacking as ArchiCAD's in the area of organic/freeform/curvilinear forms, and that it has to rely on an intelligent object importer to aid its users with forms that it can't produce.
But like I had said before, the whole endevour is pretty pointless at the end of the day, because he's going to keep shifting his position and his points, to drive home his underlying argument that Revit is a far superior "true BIM" program to ArchiCAD.
Because, after all, none of us have heard that one before and need him to remind us.......again........and again. Right.
