ArchiCad-REVIT-State Governments

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[matjashka]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[matjashka]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.