Archicad PR

[KeesW]

My favourite (but sad) topic. Attended the National Australian Institute of Architect's conference and Designex in Sydney last week (Designex is probably the largest interior design/building product show in Australia and is held annually in either Sysdney or Melbourne). Revit was there but, alas, no Graphisoft. This is, of course quite normal since Graphisoft believe that customers can be conjured out of thin air from existing users. More serously, Revit told me that Woods Bagot, one of Australia's largest architectural practices, with a humungous number of Archicad licenses, was changing to Revit. I hope that this is untrue because they have made enormous investments in creating templates and GDL objects to suit their practice. Can a better informed AUS AC user can allay my concerns?

[Rob]

what makes you think Adesk is sabotaging their IFC export?

well simply because it is much easier to portrait IFC as an unreliable exchange format as opposed to proving that rvt format can actually cover all disciplines (which can not obviously). So it could be quite effective technique to discourage potential new users to not even bother with looking into IFC option.

Otherwise I fully agree with your comments in regards to the proprietary formats. Spot on mate.

@mikem oz: ...and I know so many companies in Australia that are so discouraged with Revit so they will not. How about that?

[Anonymous]

Rob there are many reasons that people switch or don't switch. Unfortunately in my neck of the woods Revit is beginning to gain traction and people are switching to it.

The biggest determinant will be what the engineers (structural and MEP) choose when they are forced into BIM. Autocad became dominant primarily because it is what the engineers decided to use. Collaboration in their own file format is the Achilles heel of all of the NAG architectural programs. Allplan has a structural version but Archicad and Vectorworks don't. None of the three have MEP programs that they can collaborate with in their own file formats.

There are significant advantages to exchanging information in the same file format and minimal risk. Doing it via IFC will always be time consuming and involve risk.

The inherent problem with IFC is that it only translates 3D information. All of the 2D information like notes gets left behind. Therefore for the recipient to fully understand what is going on they need to consult a 2D copy of the drawings and mentally match that with the 3D information they have received. The quality and completeness of the 3D information in the source program is also critical. If that isn't up to scratch then the recipient will probably not interpret the intent 100% correctly.

The big question is what NAG are going to do about this. At the moment there is very little evidence that they are doing much other than putting all their eggs in the IFC basket. They need to be doing more than that.

[Rob]

The inherent problem with IFC is that it only translates 3D information. All of the 2D information like notes gets left behind. Therefore for the recipient to fully understand what is going on they need to consult a 2D copy of the drawings and mentally match that with the 3D information they have received.

This is the fundamental misunderstanding of IFC exchange process. All information is in fact preserved within the element itself (not just geometrical properties but e.g. structural like bearing/non-bearing, all physical properties etc..) You just need to have the UI that filters and sorts all this information into some understandable format (e.g you can obtain annotation of particular element in a label-like form if your software allows it)

Imagine that IFC is tagging-like language or a container so e.g a slab under IFC consists of 3D description + approximately 100+ tags describing its reinforcement, manufacturer, construction process specification, and it goes on and on...

It is up to the particular software then to filter relevant info for you....

AFAIK Revit Structure does not do analysis so a structural engineer has to actually export this to some other analytical software by using (ironically) IFC perhaps?

[Anonymous]

Most of structural programs import revit directly ie: risa

AFAIK Revit Structure does not do analysis so a structural engineer has to actually export this to some other analytical software by using (ironically) IFC perhaps?

[Anonymous]

AFAIK RISA do not read rvt files but use clever software (plugins) that control information exchange process.

[Anonymous]

AFAIK RISA do not read rvt files but use clever software (plugins) that control information exchange process.

[Rob]

AFAIK RISA do not read rvt files but use clever software (plugins) that control information exchange process.

And this is the whole point... add-ons and plug-ins etc...
if everything was in one open-standard file format there is significantly lower chance of marginals errors during translation no matter what software/tool you are using.

Also IFC carries information that is not so obvious during pre-construction and construction phases and that is post-construction and building maintenace data again very specific to building/asset management.

Squabbling about a superiority of each individual proprietary format is counter-productive by default.

[Rafal SLEK]

Woods Bagot Job Board:

"...We are seeking 3 experienced CAD Technicians to join our London studio.

The ideal candidates will have;

A high level understanding of CAD software, particularly AutoCAD.

A minimum of 5 years of experience using ArchiCAD and AutoCAD..."

...

"We are currently seeking an Architect with three or more years experience to join our Sydney Studio on a short term contract basis.

To be considered for the position you must be able to demonstrate that you posses the following attributes:
Demonstrated understanding of CAD software
Minimum of 3-5 years experience using ArchiCAD or AutoCAD
Ability to prioritise tasks & manage time effectively
Can do attitude and a willingness to learn
We are seeking applications from candidates who are available for an immediate start..."

If you are interested in job in china you should be:
proficient in AutoCAD, Sketch-up and hand sketching and fluently speak Mandarin and written Chinese...
🙂

[NandoMogollon]

We should have a topic exposing all of those job opportunities out there..... I was looking for one some time ago....

Nando

[Anonymous]

I worked at woodsbagot London for 3 years.

They use 4 different Cad platforms. excluding the visualisers. It was a disaster. The CAD management was dictated by the Australian managers who had no idea about local work environments & trends. ArchiCad had a bad name because of the apparent lack of DWG compatibility which was unfortunate because those of us in the know, know better. & user availibility which was predominantly Kiwis & Aussies.
The CAD training & project mangement was terrible & as a result the CAD & project documentation suffered. drawings were produced depending on the users preference rather than the management decision. which inevitably led to collaboration problems. Studios as large as woodsBagot London need a CAD manager, as do most larger projects, which wasnt considered an important role whilst my time there. despite constant recommendations.
All decision come from the top. Cad users can only offer their opinion. however the users are to blame when mistakes occur.

If you are to work at WB London. & want to use a particular platform, do so with caution. They hire staff for specific projects & not for CAD preference.