Just throwing this out there...

[Laura Yanoviak]

Our firm decided to move to ArchiCAD 4 years ago now, and implementation started 3 1/2 years ago. Everyone has been trained (50 or so employees -- due to layoffs over the summer, we are now down to 20 users), and 100% of our current projects are on ArchiCAD.

So, the PAs (Project Architects) of my firm were called into the conference room this morning and asked how to improve the inefficiency we've been experiencing over the past 6 months. One solution was to become a 'hybrid office' and leave it up to the PAs whether to use ArchiCAD or AutoCAD for production.

I said this would be a disaster... what do y'all think?

[Laura Yanoviak]

NandoMogollon wrote:
In the other side, The way i se it (for the near future) IFC is a means to interchange more than 3D geometry...

This is the goal; however, currently, this is not the reality.

[TomWaltz]

Having actually tried to move project models between Archicad, Revit, and Autocad MEP, my expectations of IFC could not be any lower. The results were truly pathetic.

Even simple elements, like square columns and rectangular concrete beams, aren't always recognized correctly.

IFC needs to go beyond modeling anyway. Until it can include things like section markers and detail windows, it's not much more than a 3D DWG. If you want someone to build from it, they need to be able to see ALL the data from the native application, not just the 3D window with a little data attached to it.

IFC has been moderately useful in early design phases, but its usefulness declines greatly as the project progresses.

[NandoMogollon]

Laura wrote:
This is the goal; however, currently, this is not the reality.

I Agree, it is not happening, nor in the practice of Design Firms, or in the architectural legislation (except for some attempts in the U.S. and Germany none that I know).

For Some other companies, like Lucas Film, Disney, Ghafari, HOK, and a couple more the game is different, they sell an entire package: Design and Construction, and they take advantage of the available technology... name it GIS CAD, BIM...IFC as a Join Venture.
As a Production chain, having an open standard format goes along with the free market idea. In that way we as designers, contractors, builders, operation/maintenance managers, etc.. are supposed to be welcome to join the AEC game using any software if it reads and exports IFC files.

Time will tell the end of the story.
Regards

Nando

[Rob]

IFC needs to go beyond modeling anyway. Until it can include things like section markers and detail windows, it's not much more than a 3D DWG. If you want someone to build from it, they need to be able to see ALL the data from the native application, not just the 3D window with a little data attached to it.

The problem with this implementation would be tremendous as any derivatives from 3D model are subject to a strict revision system. In other words any 2D linework or schedule (composed by any party) has to be revised and issued as it is not a subject to BIM. This is a task of a project management software rather than ifc.

[Da3dalus]

I think this can be reconciled with simple hyperlinked markers in 3D space. They can link to a DWG detail, DOC spec, PDF cut sheet, XLS schedule, or whatever, that can be zipped for inclusion with the IFC file. I'm not very well versed in the details of IFC, so it may even have this capability.

I think this would best be done with a whole new class of 3D objects that act as placeholders, section/detail markers, or just tags. Section markers, for instance, could be shown as a plane defined by four points and a vector arrow in the direction of the cut. I imagine these being represented just like markers on Google Earth or Maps; an icon that highlights the object it affects and pops up information when you click on it. Each software importing this info can do with it as it wants.

I would love to experiment with this stuff, but no one wants to pay me to design anything, in 2D much less 3D. I mostly write reports about toilet room accessibility and exiting code compliance. I guess I still have a job, at least!

[Anonymous]

as the complexities of the software increase - and what we want to do with it - expectations of 'translators' can only dwindle.....
that is why I suspect as the momentum builds behind (a given) package, the others will become increasingly irrelevant.

It took GS years till they could get on top of the DWG format....to a point where there is meaningful translation possible (albiet still with some hairs).

But if I can model and know I can seamlessly share it with consultants natively, the alternatives become less and less palatable. My model should not have to be re-modelled in another package when i have already drawn it. I should not have to learn about how to best configure my translator for a given (target) package. I should not have to expect the recipient to spend ages trying to sort out what i give them into something they can actually use. And yet these are the realities an ArchiCAD user faces every day.

All rather depressing for a long time GS-ArchiCAD user....because I am totally unconvinced they have really understood what is going on around them.

[Rob]

My model should not have to be re-modelled in another package when i have already drawn it. I should not have to learn about how to best configure my translator for a given (target) package. I should not have to expect the recipient to spend ages trying to sort out what i give them into something they can actually use. And yet these are the realities an ArchiCAD user faces every day.

mate diversity is the reality of this industry and the reason for this is a better ability to survive as our project variations are virtually infinite. I have to laugh here because you are hoping for something that could not have been sorted in a century at least.... look at the way the structural engineer or mechanical or you name it documents a project. The 3D model you use is just an another piece to a big puzzle.

So the native data of whole project should be in ifc sitting on ifc server - all of us would just plug in and filter/reprocess data that virtually does not belong to us. If everything will be based on a proprietary platform (aka ACAD) sooner or later we would be screwed as our projects are subject to a huge number of input points based on zillions of other software platforms.

Personally I think GS should stop fucking around with engineering packages and focus on what they do best - tools for architectural design

[Anonymous]

while conceptually a 'neutral' model in cyberspace is attractive, I think ' translation' will become a defining issue

look at the aerospace sector - they are adopting "a CAD platform" across the whole team/ industry (CATIA). Admittedly even there they have had problems (Airbus & the A380: different versions of the same software created errors in the central model!!).

so it's coming; I just think if the translation is not robust (which I don't believe it is) consolidation to one software is inevitable

of course either approach has some big questions:
who owns the model? who stores it? who can change what? can the engineers move stuff placed by the architect etc etc?! with higher internet speeds, powerful desktop processors etc all the technology is in place

[Rob]

who owns the model? who stores it? who can change what? can the engineers move stuff placed by the architect etc etc?! with higher internet speeds, powerful desktop processors etc all the technology is in place

this is actually the point I am getting at. I would like to see shifting whole model storing/maintaining to an external service away from architects (as if we did not have enough liability on our shoulders).

I am working on a fairly big residential project (450 units) where we are using a completely outsourced internet service for project management - all issues, revisions, transmittals, emails basically the lock-stock document control. It is great! - I do not have to worry about import/export tracking and I had stopped having nightmares about who and when issued what etc.

At the moment the system allows working with PDF and DWG file formats as a common standard but if we had ifc model service implemented I honestly cannot see a single reason for having unified software platform.

As far as data ownership goes - client owns it.
The project management service provider is obliged to store/back-up and maintain data however the provider is not responsible for the data content (obviously).
All parties - architect, client, builder and consultants just log in and filter through information which is the principle I am hoping for in the case of ifc server... and I do not have to be bothered if eg. my structural engineer uses Tekla, Revit, ACAD or whatever.

I am sick of pushing consultants to get moving and advising them on appropriate CAD or BIM software. They should make their own decision and plug them self into an universal data server model. They work differently and I can not see reason why they should be using tweaked software that was developed for architects! I do not understand why ADESK thinks that is the right way... but that is not my problem.

I have mentioned somewhere else - I am not choosing my consultants because of the software they use and I think we all agree that the probability of getting all consultants working of the same software platform would be a really tall order.

[Da3dalus]

I'm afraid that the wish for simple, complete, and cohesive file sharing without need for tweaking is going to be a real tough issue in BIM. They haven't gotten it right in DWG! I mostly work in AutoCAD at the moment, and there are still compatibility issues... with other AutoCAD consultants! There are 2 problems:
1. We use the least-paid staff to do the majority of our drafting, and
2. AutoCAD, ArchiCAD, and most other programs allow for a great deal of customization to fit each office individually.

The answer? Make CAD/BIM software a dictatorship with only one workflow (layer sets, notation types, etc.), and only allow your experienced staff operate it. Unfortunately, no one would buy it because that is impossible.

The REAL answer: do the best you can to coordinate with consultants up front, and figure in time to polish the information you receive for your own uses. It will never be a completely automated solution.