UK BIM Standard launches - forgets that ArchiCAD exists

[Anonymous]

So today I read that the AEC (UK) Standards Committee today announced the Phase 1 release of its new BIM Standard documents with accompanying content libraries, however ...

A number of content libraries are currently being prepared for use by companies and individuals to aid in the implementation of a BIM-enabled workflow and standards based on AEC (UK) guidelines and best practices. Initially this includes Autodesk Revit and Bentley Building products. Expanded as and when further involvement is possible... Content libraries will be made available through the aec-uk.org website.

Where is Graphisoft when these kinds of things are being discussed??

(if you are not signed up on Linkedin you can see the original blog post here)

[Christiaan]

owen wrote:
If you had a choice of using a mixed bag of applications and having 80% of your data work with each exchange, or use a suite of applications using a proprietary file format and have 100% of your data intact then it is totally understandable if you pushed for the latter.

I don't think so. I think it's only short-sighted numbskulls that belong to one of the least efficient industries in the world that ultimately think this way. It's so depressing to see this industry edging toward the same mistake it made with DWG (enough to make me wonder whether I even want to stay in the industry). The potential if we can settle on an open standard not controlled by one vendor is huge. Look at the internet as one example. It might not even exist if the underlying language and protocols were not open standards.

It is up to the competing products to develop a viable alternative in IFC unless they are prepared for the consequences

True but it also helps if clients and governments require models to in an open format, such as IFC.

Development of IFC really needs to be sped up - it is falling behind what the applications can feed it.

Agreed but, generally speaking, open standards can never be developed faster than closed proprietary formats. But, as with the internet, the advantages lie elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Interesting read regarding BIM in Texas....

http://www.bdcnetwork.com/blog/BuildingTeam360/30249-Texas_Facilities_Commission_recommends_Autodesk...

G

[Gary Lawes]

The UK BIM layering standard seems to be a reworking of the old UK (Autodesk driven) CAD layering standard, and as such seems to have limited value to any BIM product. The original UK CAD standard was established with two aims -

1. The comply with BS1192 - in that all common elements should be placed on unique and clearly identified layers.
2. To ensure most drawings used more than 100 layers.

The CAD standard used CISFB codes for element identification, which in my view does not comply with BS1192 in that you have to be quite a nerd to be able to identify any element by its CISFB code.

The second objective was purely to blow out Microstation, as at the time it was limited to just 99 layers.

This process delivered a cumbersome layer naming convention, which could be made to work with products that had a high degree of automation, but fell down in interoperability terms, the very reason for setting up the standard.

A BIM solution has far less reliance on layer naming to identify elements, I cannot see how these people can suggest a naming convention that was cumbersome for 2D CAD could be suitable for BIM

[owen]

AECMagazine now has an article/ad on the AEC (UK) BIM Standard:

http://aecmag.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=333&Itemid=36