BIM: myth or reality?

[Anonymous]

Four years ago, I worked at a firm which used Archicad. I liked the program but I basically used it as a 2D drafting tool. Nobody at the firm actually generated sections or elevations or details from the 3D model. At best, we'd use section cuts as an underlay to get the width (and to a lesser extent, the height) of the building right. The section cuts and elevations drawn from the model were not nearly presentation quality and even if we had invested a huge amount of time making the 3D model perfect which wasn't always practical, there would still be the issue of lineweights.

What I would like to know is if anyone here feels they are truly using archicad as a BIM program. Does anyone actually update something in plan and automatically have their elevations, section, details, schedules update?

I've used Autocad for the last 4 years and I plan to go back to Archicad regardless of whether I can realistically expect to use at as a BIM program. I like Archicad more than autocad because I feel it's easier to produce 3D renderings and I like how you can draw "walls" as opposed to drawing 2 parallel lines and then trimming the intersections. I feel like Archicad is making a strong effort to allow it's users to have linked drawings but I'm skeptical about whether we are actually there yet.

I hope I'm wrong- maybe my previous firm was a little backwards in it's methods or maybe a lot has changed in the last 4 years. I'm very curious to hear, for example, if people hear actually pull presentable elevations off the 3D model or if they draft them the old fashioned way? or maybe some sort of hybrid?
thanks!

[Anonymous]

Djordje wrote:

Ben wrote:

bruceprice wrote:
maybe my previous firm was a little backwards

hello! YES

This is putting it mildly ... 😉

Djordje- You and Dwight and a few others sound like the real Archicad pros on this website. I'd appreciate it if you could humor me for a minute and answer the questions in my second post.
I'm not looking for a step-by-step how to. I'll use a manual and training sessions for that. At this point, I'm just trying to figure out how in a broad way, how one goes about pulling CD's from a 3D model, specifically CD's for a wood frame house. I'm trying to get a sense of the major concepts so I can ask the right questions later. Thanks.

[TomWaltz]

bruceprice wrote:
If you do a section cut, can you automatically generate wall plates (and other standard wood frame structural details) by specifying 'wood frame' with the wall tool? Or do you have to add these manually every time you draw a wall? And do you do this by 3D modeling the wall plates? Or by 2D drafting them on to the section cut? And if you were to 2D draft lines onto the section cut, can the lines easily be linked to a 3D object so that if the 3D object were moved, the associated lines would automatically move with it? Can you automatically generate labels (i.e. you draw a (customized) wall with the wall tool and then open up the section and it already has cedar shingles, 1/2" plywood, & 2x6 @16" o.c. labeled?)

There is a 3D wall accessory that places wall head & sill plates, but most people I know prefer to use 2D wall plates, since they also have to place batt insulation.

Likewise with siding, there are several add-ons that model siding. We just have a 2D profile that we multiply up the side of the building.

All 2D work is completely independent of the 3D elements.

The labels are another story, but generally they call out wall types, door numbers, and other information assigned directly to the 3D elements. They are turned on and off in any section or elevation and do move with their respective elements.

bruceprice wrote:
Finally, regarding lineweights, can the same object have 2 different line weights depending on the context of it's edge? For example. can a cornerboard be automatically programed to have a heavy line at the outer edge of a building and a much lighter line on it's inner edge, adjacent to the clapboard siding?

No. You usually have to draw a heavier polyline to "pop" the building outline.

There are all kinds of workarounds to do these in 3D, but sometimes the simple 2D applique works best.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Tom for taking the time to answer all my questions. That's very helpful.
It sounds like a lot of the detail in your sections and elevations comes from 2D applique. And since this 2D applique is independent of the the 3D elements then, every time you move a 3D wall then you'd have to move all the applique and building outline polylines, etc.
I think it was for this reason that at my old firm, we did all of our sections and elevations as 2D drawings. Especially if you have a good 2D object and detail library, it seems like it could almost be easier to work in 2D than to invest a huge amount of time in the 3D model, then create all of the applique and then have to move around all of your applique in the 3D windows everytime you make a change.
Maybe once you get over the learning curve it's more efficient to take advantage of BIM technology but I get the impression that with the current state of the technology, it still requires a lot of extra work to flesh out the section and elevation views and to make them presentable.
I hope I'm wrong because I'd really like to make the leap to BIM as soon as I leave my job and go out on my own.
I'm curious to hear if others use basically the same method as Tom and whether they feel it saves a lot of time over 2D drafting

TomWaltz wrote:

bruceprice wrote:
If you do a section cut, can you automatically generate wall plates (and other standard wood frame structural details) by specifying 'wood frame' with the wall tool? Or do you have to add these manually every time you draw a wall? And do you do this by 3D modeling the wall plates? Or by 2D drafting them on to the section cut? And if you were to 2D draft lines onto the section cut, can the lines easily be linked to a 3D object so that if the 3D object were moved, the associated lines would automatically move with it? Can you automatically generate labels (i.e. you draw a (customized) wall with the wall tool and then open up the section and it already has cedar shingles, 1/2" plywood, & 2x6 @16" o.c. labeled?)

There is a 3D wall accessory that places wall head & sill plates, but most people I know prefer to use 2D wall plates, since they also have to place batt insulation.

Likewise with siding, there are several add-ons that model siding. We just have a 2D profile that we multiply up the side of the building.

All 2D work is completely independent of the 3D elements.

The labels are another story, but generally they call out wall types, door numbers, and other information assigned directly to the 3D elements. They are turned on and off in any section or elevation and do move with their respective elements.

bruceprice wrote:
Finally, regarding lineweights, can the same object have 2 different line weights depending on the context of it's edge? For example. can a cornerboard be automatically programed to have a heavy line at the outer edge of a building and a much lighter line on it's inner edge, adjacent to the clapboard siding?

No. You usually have to draw a heavier polyline to "pop" the building outline.

There are all kinds of workarounds to do these in 3D, but sometimes the simple 2D applique works best.

[TomWaltz]

I think the thing that I got through to my staff was to not draw their stuff in the same order they were used to, to hold off on placing the 2D extra bits on their sections until later in the process, and show their walls solid filled (with the Display Option, not real fills) until they were ready to really start Construction Documents.

Once people realized that they could perform tasks in a different order and avoid re-working, it didn't take long to spread through the office. I've got 25 users, and sometimes it takes a while to get them all on the same page. To me, that's when I know I've hit on something really good: If the next day the whole office is doing what I explained in our weekly training, or I overhear people complaining "I wish I had known that LAST week...."

I think drawings up to 1/4" = 1'-0" scale can be mostly modeled. I've got two guys who can model convincingly at 3/4" scale. I realize they are anomolies, but they can revise a project faster than you can imagine. Even the ones who can only model some and draw on top still see speed improvements over straight 2D drafting.

Strangely, our sections usually look good straight off the model, but require 2D content for completenesst. Our Elevations have tons of content, but look flat and need the 2D to pop out the line weights.

You can also use the Detail Tool to call out larger scale detail drawings to an area that might move around without worrying about constantly updating. You're only moving the marker around in section, while the detail itself never really changed.

Personally, I doubt we will ever hit a point (in any program) that is truly 100% modeling. I think there will always be some benefit of taking a 2D detail (flashing, roof membranes, etc) and calling it out with a reference tool.

I would like to see better detail linking (like you mentioned, plates, insulation, etc), as well as better 3D line weight control, but I think it may be a while before we get it 😞

[Anonymous]

thanks Tom- several great pieces of advice in there.
I especially like the idea of holding off on the finer detailing because I often find myself adding labels, insulation, etc. early in the CD process only to have the design change. Then I'm forced to move a million things around to clean up the drawing. So it makes a lot of sense as you say, to hold off as long as possible on everything that's not linked.

[Dwight]

Premature detailing is a major cause of productivity loss.

It is better to gather notes and labels into the drawing arena but not place them precisely, and do texturing and touch up at the very end. Save your energy for the high-level decisions - like solving the building.

In the old days, we put too much detail in at the beginning to avoid making scary design decisions.

The project seemed more complete if the drawings looked more done. It was a way to bully the boss.

ME: "Hey, like, don't change now, look at this art I just made."

BOSS: " You Wankadilly! Masons know how to place bricks. You don't have to draw them all!"

[Anonymous]

ME: "Hey, like, don't change now, look at this art I just made."

BOSS: " You Wankadilly! Masons know how to place bricks. You don't have to draw them all!"

The evils of pretty construction drawings.

A dejvu of last Monday when an architect I hired six month ago demanded his pay and stomped out of the office in part over this very issue. To him it was more important that the drawings "look pretty" even at the expense of exporting ArchiCAD drawings to PowerCAD to "tune them up". Even though doing this meant the construction drawings were months behind schedule and finally had to be issued with building and wall sections having few if any dimensions or notes. Needless to say he was strictly a 2D AutoCAD user who decided 3 month into the conversion that it was impossible to do construction drawings with ArchiCAD let alone "pretty" ones.

BIM myth or reality?

The key to this IMHO is the "I". ArchiCAD is an very useful building modeler. It's ability to easily input and extract accurate information about "real" building components is yet to be realized in any meaningful, useful way for me.

For example there are "materials" which are just "skin deep" surface images. Then there are "fills" which are used most generally to indicate the depth of these "materials". But there is no link between the two! So a brick "material" skin of no depth can go on any "fill" material from gyp board to concrete. Great for quickly generating pretty pictures but the "information" is bogus. My dream is that "fills" would be more intelligent, linked to the surface image,have a tear-off menu interface with visible names, that allowed them to be more full described in an expanded keynote type of format ie:

"09 28 00.1 CEMENT BOARD 5/8" cement board equal to National Gypsum Perma Base or equal. Full height under all ceramic tile installation. 18" high at all curbs on kitchen side. Screw fasten per manf instructions.

...and that if you mouse over that "fill" in a particular mode the number and name would appear....and that if in another mode you click on the material you could place the number and name in the note......and if you change the material the note changed everywhere......and that the interactive calcuate menu was really within the power of mere mortals.

....and beyond that until building materials suppliers really jump on the bandwagon and all offer "real" models of "real" components the BIM ship will remain in the harbor.

....and that probable won't happen until one CAD software company becomes nearly dominant worldwide....... a sorrowful thought.

and..... enough already.

Dave

[Dwight]

Dave wrote:
when an architect I hired six month ago demanded his pay and stomped out of the office
Dave

Did he have a dusty boot print on his butt?

[Anonymous]

Dwight
Did he have a dusty boot print on his butt?

Nah, I think the verbal boot prints prior to that sufficed.

Dave

[Ignacio Azpiazu]

bruceprice wrote:
It sounds like a lot of the detail in your sections and elevations comes from 2D applique. And since this 2D applique is independent of the the 3D elements then […] it seems like it could almost be easier to work in 2D than to invest a huge amount of time in the 3D model, then create all of the applique and then have to move around all of your applique in the 3D windows everytime you make a change.

A big factor you are not bringing into your math there is 'drawing coordination'. Lots of people devote a major part of their professional lives to 'drawing coordination', and then to dealing with the contracting, pricing, site problems that arise from the 'conflicts' they miss.

That simply goes away with the single database model approach. And when you bring in scheduling, which with the right setup comes 'for free' (and I am not even mentioning isometrics, perspectives, sun studies, animations) you will not want to ever be near uncoordinated 2D again. You are a human being, you have a mind and a limited life span, it is downright immoral to waste your life dealing with that drawing coordination and say manual door scheduling cr*p (and of course failing at it every now and then, so then you get the coordination problems cr*p) when a machine can do it right and fast. And of course it is not wise in business terms, and sooner or later it will be suicidal too.

Annotations, dimensions, and graphic finishing touches are needed at the end of the presentation process in the 2D world too. The huge difference lies in the work before that.