Well ... less responses than expected, so I will chime in as my alter ego 
First, the history - Graphisoft did produce the first software that implemented the Virtual Building approach, that lately has been known as BIM. They also produced the first FM solution based on the Virtual Buidlign model (ArchiFM). So, the experience is there.
In general, whatever you do, try first. Get a few people who know the software inside out, for a time, and try whatever you want to. Ignore the marketing, concentrate on the reality. Do NOT save on research - whatever you spend there, including consultancy and special need development fees, will pay back very soon!
The current projects should be finished as they are, and the transition should be done on a project with a comfortable deadline and not too big. This is probably a very optimistic approach ...
By all means do NOT mix the processes; it will be hard enough to get the people to think and work in the Virtual Building way.
XRef support is present, no problems there.
For multiple users on the same project, the TeamWork approach is in use since 1995.
There is no limit to what any software can do - there is only the limit of the knowledge of the users. Yes, the word is that ArchiCAD is not the strongest in the freeform shapes. Some even say that GDL is hard to master. The trick is - if you do not know, ask someone who does.
While not obvious, nothing is impossible. Libraries for any software are never sufficient for the scope of the designer's imagination. I yet have to find something that cannot be done with the full set of tools available for ArchiCAD - meaning freeform modeling Add Ons and the GDL scripting included. Don't be afraid of GDL - it is nothing more complex than BASIC, and gives incredible powers to the good user/developer, many of which are in the Forum. Check for example the GDL Alliance web site.
The Construction Simulation function is a simple but efficient way of showing what can be done; ask for a demo.
One important point, that cannot be stressed enough:
Software does nothing, people do. If you do not have the implementation plan, and do not hire a consultant, you will have a hell of a time implementing whatever you choose. Don't get fooled by the Autodesk badge in the case of Revit - probably nobody will tell you this, and most will state the opposite, but implementing any of them (ArchiCAD or Revit) is the same fight between the flatland and the space. Knowing AutoCAD is more of a hindrance than an advantage in both cases.
You should contact your local people representing the vendors, and even the GS US, or Autodesk for that matter, and try to get the answers to the same questions. There are people here on the Forum that work in big companies that got ArchiCAD tailored to their needs, so about that, they are better to say anything than I am.
There is one more point in favour fo ArchiCAD, that any Revit supporter will tell you is a disadvantage - 21 years on the market. That means broad experience all over the world, and a big (comparatively) user base. The Autodesk user base has no significance in this case, as working with AutoCAD based products has no bearing on the matter.
Whatever the decision, welcome to the world of virtual building
First, the history - Graphisoft did produce the first software that implemented the Virtual Building approach, that lately has been known as BIM. They also produced the first FM solution based on the Virtual Buidlign model (ArchiFM). So, the experience is there.
In general, whatever you do, try first. Get a few people who know the software inside out, for a time, and try whatever you want to. Ignore the marketing, concentrate on the reality. Do NOT save on research - whatever you spend there, including consultancy and special need development fees, will pay back very soon!
bferrer wrote:No software in the world will help you here. The only thing that WILL help is a thorough implementation plan with either advance training or a consultant on site. This goes for whatever software you choose - don't get fooled by labels. Implementing Revit or ArchiCAD is the same.
1. Past, Present, and Future.
The current projects should be finished as they are, and the transition should be done on a project with a comfortable deadline and not too big. This is probably a very optimistic approach ...
By all means do NOT mix the processes; it will be hard enough to get the people to think and work in the Virtual Building way.
bferrer wrote:ArchiCAD is at present at the forefront of the IFC implementation; however, the whole IFC movement is very much hindered by the proprietory file formats and the slow transition of the whole industry. Try and ask for examples before you buy anything!
2. Interoperability. What software will support the 3D interoperability between all the above disciplines? The software needs to support the old way of 2D xrefs, but it must now support 3D interoperability(Industry Foundation Classes).
XRef support is present, no problems there.
bferrer wrote:In general, no problem. The DGN transfer might be problematic, some DWG flavours can also cause hiccups. In general, again what will help you is the organization. Judging by your inquiry, that does not lack.
3. 2D Drawing Coordination. How does the software interface with multiple users and with users who are using different software?
For multiple users on the same project, the TeamWork approach is in use since 1995.
bferrer wrote:As much as you know how to do it.
4. Design flexibility. How customizable can the building be?
There is no limit to what any software can do - there is only the limit of the knowledge of the users. Yes, the word is that ArchiCAD is not the strongest in the freeform shapes. Some even say that GDL is hard to master. The trick is - if you do not know, ask someone who does.
While not obvious, nothing is impossible. Libraries for any software are never sufficient for the scope of the designer's imagination. I yet have to find something that cannot be done with the full set of tools available for ArchiCAD - meaning freeform modeling Add Ons and the GDL scripting included. Don't be afraid of GDL - it is nothing more complex than BASIC, and gives incredible powers to the good user/developer, many of which are in the Forum. Check for example the GDL Alliance web site.
bferrer wrote:Again - It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it. ArchiCAD can handle extremely complex and huge stuff (see the articles on Eureka building on the GS Web site). The more compelx, the better organization is required.
5. Building Size and Complexity. Can the software handle the complexity and size of our buildings?
bferrer wrote:Yes. ArchiCAD project can contain all the data necessary very early. The person that should explain this in more depth is, for example, the local database guru, Karl Ottenstein. ODBC connectivity is now two way.
6. Scheduling and Cost Estimating. If you are familiar with BIM, you understand the BID process is getting pulled closer and closer to the early part of the Construction Document phase and even into Design Documentation. Does the software support the ability to view or export out a broad range of building data for early bidding and cost estimating?
bferrer wrote:The name escapes me right now, but I KNOW that there IS a third party application that does just this. Will get back when I get the info, and hope someone chimes in.
7. Error checking. Does the software support a “building spell check?” Can we perform coordination checks between disciplines and consultants on major aspects of the facility?
bferrer wrote:Don't know; only someone from the Graphisoft development can answer this one.
8. Code Checking. In Asia there are a few governments that are working on programs that code checks your BIM model. When USA code officials adopt this methodology will the software be ready to support it?
bferrer wrote:Already working in Europe, with locally developed methods. Check the Web site of ANull, the Austrian distributor, for example.
9. Analysis Reports. Will the software support the future of Wind or Energy analysis on a facility?
bferrer wrote:See the example fo the use of ArchiCAD by Kajima, in this very same topic and on ArchiCAD University Web sites. Third largest in the world? Must be they know something others don't.
10. Construction. Does the software fit the BIM process beyond the design phase? Can contractors use the software or the BIM model to do 4D construction?
The Construction Simulation function is a simple but efficient way of showing what can be done; ask for a demo.
bferrer wrote:This depends on your (designer's) follow-up. Or the contractor's, as the case may be. If you are asking whether the As-Built model is useful for the future use as the database for building maintenance and FM, the answer is yes. Provided, of course, that the owner goes hat way.
11. As Built BIM Model. How will the software encourage the creation of an As Built BIM Model for the owner? -
bferrer wrote:The same basic engine is the foundation of ArchiFM.
12. Facility Management. Can the software support facility management? Does the software help the owner to better understand the facility and how to manage every complex part of it?
bferrer wrote:For the time being, the backwards compatibility is the problem (you cannot open new files with older versions). I did not have any problems with old files, but this is something that only someone that lived in 2009 can answer ...
13. Building Lifecycle. Because our facilities are design to evolve with the changes of science and technology, can the BIM model be reopened in five or more years to support major changes to the facility such as renovations and additions?
bferrer wrote:I answered to the best of my knowledge, most of it from own experience. Now - I doubt that one person can give you the answers to all the questions. I also agree with Stefan that one software can not do all that you want.
If you have managed to read through that entire list then I ask you to comment on how ArchiCad or ArchiFM fit into any one of the above points. I am not asking and I know that ArchiCad or ArchiFM cannot do all these things. I am also not look for one single application that can.
One important point, that cannot be stressed enough:
Software does nothing, people do. If you do not have the implementation plan, and do not hire a consultant, you will have a hell of a time implementing whatever you choose. Don't get fooled by the Autodesk badge in the case of Revit - probably nobody will tell you this, and most will state the opposite, but implementing any of them (ArchiCAD or Revit) is the same fight between the flatland and the space. Knowing AutoCAD is more of a hindrance than an advantage in both cases.
You should contact your local people representing the vendors, and even the GS US, or Autodesk for that matter, and try to get the answers to the same questions. There are people here on the Forum that work in big companies that got ArchiCAD tailored to their needs, so about that, they are better to say anything than I am.
There is one more point in favour fo ArchiCAD, that any Revit supporter will tell you is a disadvantage - 21 years on the market. That means broad experience all over the world, and a big (comparatively) user base. The Autodesk user base has no significance in this case, as working with AutoCAD based products has no bearing on the matter.
bferrer wrote:I would be interested to read your responses and opinions! The dicsussion will probably heat up when you do post your opinion ...
I will also reply to this thread on how I think these applications are fulfilling the above points. Also feel free to add any points that I might have missed.
Whatever the decision, welcome to the world of virtual building
Matthew wrote:Thanks
Excellent work Djordje!
Got stuck this afternoon between a plot limitation and client's desire to use all of the 60% allowed and found refuge in tyoing a three screen message ... Matthew wrote:IMHO this is the only way to approach the problem; rather than "my daddy is stronger than yours" and " two million people cannot be wrong" or "we are ht ebest and do not have to prove it" approaches, one should ANALYZE. Maybe the 2D CAD came on inertia, now a couple of decades have gone on it, and at least CAD managers (if not principals) know what the words "upgrade" "memory" "license" and other arcane stuff mean
I think most of us have been too intimidated (at least I have) by the scope of the task to respond to such a long, thorough, thoughtful and though provoking inquiry.
Matthew wrote:I wondered why you, and especially David L who arguably does have the most experience in this matter did not chime in earlier ... so, the icebreaker has passed, sail on!
I will try to find some time to add my 2¢. There are some subjects I would definitely like to expand upon. In the meantime, thanks for taking this on.
Vitruvius wrote:Mentioning HOK is enough ...
By way of explanation, I've been doing projects of 200,000 sm+ using a combination of AutoCAD and an HOK proprietory programme called Drawvision (fundamentally 2D).
Vitruvius wrote:... but such projects do not exist, really. My case of today - the total value is maybe a million US$ - the proposal went out first in 2001. It cam eback today. Luckily, I did the proposal freelance then and kept the file ... so I can work on it now.
I agree that, ideally, new software should be introduced on work which has schedule flex and is not too daunting in scale.
The workaround of this problem - or, better, reality - is to get a couple of consultants on board that will do the handholding. Works quite well, provided everybody keeps an open mind and the management is convinced.
Vitruvius wrote:This is VERY dangerous, and ultimately loses money. Surely HOK has CAD managers? Now, the "only" thing to do is to present the software in NUMBERS and SAVINGS.
But if our projects span years, and as fees (and penalties) are "up there" no one will take the risk. Inertia rules the day. And, the managing professionals making decisions about software, in most cases, don't know how to use CAD.
Vitruvius wrote:Ahem! This is the way to present it! 2% is someone's fee on a huge project!
PS - Did my flat in AC and blew the contractor away. And the kitchen contractor. Net result - no extras on the kitchen and 2% on the main contract.
So think about it and present it to whomever is to be persuaded in these terms.
Still looking?
