A new approach to change and alternative designs - Page 2

thesleepofreason · ‎2022-02-10

This post was prompted by other recent wishes for changes to the renovation filter which got me thinking about how I wish a CAD/BIM application would handle change. I reckon that implementation of an approach outlined below would be technically taxing and likely too much a leap for now - so perhaps it's more of a dream then a wish.

I think that the current approach is limited in such way that it won't get fixed by adding more Renovation Statuses and the ability to set Show On Renovation Filter to multiple filters. Besides being hard to overlook and manage the fact that the current solution is nothing more than a way to control element visibility and element display leaves it with two crucial limitations:

the inability for one element to have multiple configurations,
the inability to sequence operations.

These limitations forces the creation of additional elements in order to handle change or alternative designs which is inefficient, increases the risk of errors/discrepancies, and at odds with the idea of BIM.

Outline to a new approach

The outlined approach hinges on the introduction of some new abilities:

Ability to set up different 'configuration states' for the model which are fundamentally distinct and across which the configuration of individual element can vary.
Ability to create monadic unidirectional and dynamic linkage between 'configuration states' so that a state can get it's initial configuration from one other state.
Ability to control which 'configuration state' is active for modeling input.

A setup like below could be used to model a project involving an existing building and alternative designs.

In the initial state A the elements of the existing building is modelled.
By creating a new state B and linking it to A its possible to represent changes to the existing building.
By creating additional states C1 and D and linking them both to B it is possible to represent alternative designs.
By creating additional states C2, C3 and link them linearly to C1 is possible to sequence the project into phases.

Each element in the model gets a status based on what is done to it and in which configuration state. So for each element in the model there is a record for its status in each configuration state with entries like: Created in A; Existing in B; Modified in C1; Demolished in D.

Views are created based on these statuses in a way similar to Renovation Filters with the difference that it is set for configuration states. This nullifies the need to set visibility at element level in order to view different phases or alternatives.

Francois_MCD · ‎2022-09-17

Good & valuable insights @Mahmoud Qenawi. It's always good to get feedback like this from someone with an outside viewpoint on our own thoughts of something like this. And you're right, these are 2 different approaches, but have the same / very similar outcomes. I also believe the summary of your understanding will contribute positively to the Graphisoft team's deeper understanding of our intended / suggested workflow.

Sculptdesign · ‎2022-09-20

How would this cope with, for instance, different furniture layouts? Don't MVO just alter how an item is viewed, rather than its location and visibility? My view is that Reno status could be expanded to deal with both options and phases.

Francois_MCD · ‎2022-09-20

Hi @Sculptdesign thanks for this valued point. You are right about one part, the current capability of MVO is to control model element visibility, level of detail & plan / model display, etc.

Layers are mostly used for your example of different furniture layouts. But be sure to check out CONTRABIM Blog - Using the Renovation Tool to Create Multiple Design Options and see how John do that, brilliant.

To get the full control that @thesleepofreason & I propose in this thread, we need Graphisoft developers to consider an alternative approach to take element settings control, view setup / settings combined with Layers, MVOs, Renovation Filters & Graphic Overrides to a new level.

jl_lt · ‎2023-02-28

Sorry that i resume this topic, but i still dont see the benefit of handling alternatives in this way as it would make the model unnecesarily complex. Imagine having objects on state A, others on C, others on W, and making all of them interact among them. Or are you imagining that all objects jump from state A to B to C and so forth? in that case what would be the diference with just saving as? ... Please help me to understand your point of view.

From my point of view, alternative designs are just that, alternatives. At the end, the posibilities collapse as desicions are made either in the project or on site, so having all this info of alternatives embedded in the model, most of which wont see the light, would be quite complex even for small projects if things are handled in the Archicad way, which is, not very automatically.

If we are talking of evolution of the project in time from a construction point of view, then it makes all sense, so all elements could have ordered timeframes embedded into them which then you could feed a gant chart for example that is related to the 3d model.

thesleepofreason · ‎2023-02-28

Regarding complexity. I can see how the ability for one element to have multiple configurations might be complex for the backend but for the user it should be much less complex than what we currently have with different layers, renovations states and files. All the user has to do is choose which configuration state to work in and the program handles the "ontological register".

Regarding alternatives. Note that this is not just about handling alternative design but more so about handling change. Currently change to an element implies duplication which is a an obvious flaw that needs to be addressed. A framework where you define different configuration states for which you can make changes to the model does that. The ability to branch is a natural next step and provides a quick and easy way to setup alternative rater then progressive configurations. How many and how long these alternative branches are is up to the user, as well for how long they should be kept in the file.

Tinou · ‎2023-04-19

Hello all,

May be it's not necessary to manage "phases" and "alternatives" with the same tool.

If some of us do that now, it's just because we miss an efiscient "alternative" tool. (even there is this "subject" tool that I don't use until now. )

To my mind, logically, the "reno" filter tool could be enlarged to a "phases" filter tool, with user's calendar. (In a gant structure or just a simple multi phases structure.) Just add 2 more reno status ("reused" and "renewed") to the 3 existing status ("stay", "demolish" and "new")

https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Wishes-forum/Re-Use-option-phase-in-Renovation/td-p/327248

And if possible the ability of changing some simple parameters of a "staying" element through phases.

Then, please do something with the "subject" tool do make of it a real "alternative" tool.

There are the multi "check" alernatives that we make in office, before choosing the good one for presentation, and there are other "customer" alternatives that remain until building begins. For these ones, we need to schedules the quantitys in aditional tables.

Tinou.

jl_lt · ‎2023-04-19

Yeah, precisely the branching is what i find impractical in the way that its too complex for a small return. What benefit would something like this bring vs just saving another file?

What difference would something like this have vs layer combinations? Or even more simple, just temporarily copying your alternative, group it and move a fixed distance (say 25m from your plan) so you have it temporarily on hand until you either delete it, implement it or send it to a hidden layer.

On the other hand, change in time, as a better alternative to renovation filters, is a different story that would have lots of uses if implemented correctly. Maybe both of these (design options and change in time) can be done at the same time with the ability to add an indefinite number of renovation states. If that is the case, i agree with You in that it's up to each user to manage complexity.

Anyway, according to the roadmap, they are actually working on the design options feature, so lets hope they do a good work on it

DGSketcher · ‎2023-04-19

Or just solve several issues at once by enabling Display by Classification. You create the classes e.g. Renovation, Phases, Options, Element Type etc set their visibility and job done.?

And you can still keep Layers before anyone has a meltdown. The Display by Classification is simply an additional filter to control visibility.

jl_lt · ‎2023-04-20

Thanks for thinking about the layers 😂

Tinou · ‎2023-04-21

One issue to solve in this case is how to manage the intersection of elements. For now, layers do that. I still don't imagine how classification could do this same job. Something to think with your suggestion.