Architectural-Structural-MEP Interoperability

[Tom Weir]

Hi all,
The day is fast approaching when Revit will not be one product anymore. I know that for those of you who have used this product for many years this could be a big disappointment since you will be losing some functionality.
But we are moving into a new era where each discipline can fully model their portion of a building and we can fully model a building with architectural, structural and MEP. That's a very exciting prospect.

So as a structural cad manager with a consulting engineering firm I am wondering what you architects out there expect from us? How would we communicate and trade our design information back and forth as the design process progresses?

Does each discpline make completely seperate models akin to the 2D workflow? Or do you divide up the objects in the model by discipline and manage them by worksets?

If you are a full service firm with all disciplines in-house the workset secenario seems appropriate. But if you are using a team of consultants how would the architects want them to approach it? Seperate models or not?

I keep thinking of a block wall example. Normally I am not concerned with the texture or color of the block. There also might be an interior finish on the wall that would not fall into my scope of responsibiliy. So my wall definition would not include those layers or textures. How would we coordinate that?

The final goal is to end up with one inter-disciplinary model that can be delivered to the client at the conclusion of the project.

So who "owns" what objects on that final model?

Thanks and have a great day...

Tom Weir
Los Angeles

[Scott D Davis]

My thought is that each discipline will have their own RVT file. The Arch's will do their portion first, then hand off a copy (or publish to a central location) of that project. The structural Engineer will take that RVT file, and Link it into a new project. The structural systems will then be applied over the 'background' model. Those structural systems will then be 'interferenced checked' by the architect, and changes made according to the structure. Then that new Arch Project with a linked Structural file will be sent to the MEP engineers, who will link it into a new project of their own, and they will input their systems.

[Tom Weir]

Scott,
I can see that working for the design portion of the project. But then we would not end up with one model to give to the client at the end of the process.
Like my wall example I am not sure how we could combine them at the end of the design process.


Tom Weir
Los Angeles

[rodneyf]

Tom,
Great question I was just pondering over this very situation last week. We are an Architectural firm and we deal with Structural, MEP, Civil engineers and sometimes other consultants and I was thinking along the same lines as Scott was and I understand your point about giving one model to the client at the end of the process and this is how I see it. We follow the steps Scott outlined and then as the Architect we collect all the model files and send them to the client for their use. (i.e. one file with all the disciplines files linked together.)

My .02 worth

[Tom Weir]

Rodney,
OK I can see us linking our seperate models together. But what about the duplication of objects? How would my wall example work for you? We would have two walls in the overall model we deliver to the client. Mine would not contain texture or color, but would be structurally accurate. Nor would mine have reveals.

Wouldn't that be a problem?

[neb1998]

How often do clients actually ask for files anyway? And what are they going to do, purchase a copy of revit just to have someone at their company or residence learn and operate revit just to print a few sets?

Why not call the firm, pay 100 for the hour and have done what needs to be done at the arch office?

bk

[Scott D Davis]

That's true, Tom! How will we combine instances like that? Let's say I have a school classroom building, and its all one story, wood stud construction. Obviously my Arch model will contain all the walls...it would be redundant, and not very Revit, for you to draw in your own Structural walls over the top of mine. The Arch walls currently have settings for bearing/non-bearing/shear/etc., so maybe there's a way to control these settings through a linked file??

In your example of 'finishes', obviously you wont show the finishes in your plans...is this a sign that we might have visibility control over the layers of a compound wall, so that you could turn off finishes, showing only the structural core?

[Tom Weir]

BK,
One of the things we are striving for with BIM is to be able to hand over a complete building model so that the faciliites engineers and the client will have that as an ongoing resource. Some people even speculate that the Revit model is the final deliverable I believe.
And yes they would need Revit.

Scott,
<The Arch walls currently have settings for bearing/non-bearing/shear/etc., so maybe there's a way to control these settings through a linked file??>

Perhaps when a wall becomes structural, i.e. a bearing or shear wall, it can then be placed in a "structural workset" which I would have control over. When you send me an updated model, I could only activate those particular structural objects, by a workset, so I could adjust them.
There's also the liability issue of you being able to change my "Drawing" to worry about.

The rest of your model would need to be blanched out somehow, in order to show your work toned and my work full tone

<is this a sign that we might have visibility control over the layers of a compound wall, so that you could turn off finishes, showing only the structural core?>

That would be excellent. It would also be nice if to have one overall setting that would display each discipline as full tone and tone the others.

Tom Weir
Los Angeles

[bpayne]

Hi all,
The day is fast approaching when Revit will not be one product anymore. I know that for those of you who have used this product for many years this could be a big disappointment since you will be losing some functionality.


What functionality do you expect to loose? My understanding is that Revit Building will not be purging any content due to MEP and Struct.

[Tom Weir]

<My understanding is that Revit Building will not be purging any content due to MEP and Struct.>

Then why would they sell seperate products if it was all in Revit Building? But you may be right....

[bpayne]

Because Revit Structural & Systems will have greatly expanded tools and functions that Architects don't need, but are absolutly necessary for putting together an actual Structural or MEP set of drawings.

[sfaust]

Personally I don't expect to lose anything that we already have, but will have limited access to the new tools...

just my interpretation.

[Phil Palmer]

The current thinking of Linked revit files seems to be the way to go. Our MEP engineers require a 'frozen' design scheme at a point in time(this could be achieved with a linked model approach)
And would be more harder to achieve with a dynamic all embrassing central file.

Problems with the current linking method I see at present is the lack of 'intelligence' passed between the linked models. For example the Architect will set-out the rooms and assign them names/numbers etc. This is then not available in the linked file so the MEP or structural engineers will have no way to assign additonal properties to these rooms i.e temps/loads etc etc

Same thing could be said for design development changes. If I move certain walls and this affects the structure - the engineer needs to know this and must have some way of this being made very obvious to him.

Some more 'exposure' is deffinately required between linked files for this scenario to work and I am sure the Factory will be well aware of these issues.

[Tom Weir]

Phil,
<Some more 'exposure' is deffinately required between linked files for this scenario to work and I am sure the Factory will be well aware of these issues.>

Yes, I think you are correct.
Trouble is I have only heard vague generalities on this issue from the developers.......and I have a job to start in the next few weeks in which the architect wants to go 100% Revit.

And so do I!

So I am trying to map out a scenario that could be used right now. It does not seem that Revit is ready for team consultant work that produces one final BIM model.

That accepted I think I will have to concentrate on making my own model for the forseable future until these issues can be addressed by the programmers level.

[bowlingbrad]

With regards to handing off files to a client/owner... Don't we already hand over tens, or even hundreds of dwg files? I don't see any problem with handing over an Architectural file along with a handful of consultant files. Initially, we may even export all of the Revit sheets to dwg anyway :?

[sbrown]

Our MEP consultants say the same thing, they want NO PART of and allways updating model. They want us to give them the project at any given state and they do their work. Then 2 weeks later get an update. While ideally everyone would be on the same page, in practice it is too time consuming to all be on the same page. As an architect I may study many diff. design options, the MEP could care less about those and it would mess him up. So for now I too see linked models as the answer.

[Dimitri Harvalias]

They are sold as separate packages because each discipline requires different functionality from their software.
I don't need to 'design' ductwork I just need to know how big the duct is and its path through the building. From an architectural standpoint if a column is 20MPa or 30MPa is irrelevant just as the structural engineer is not concerned if the column is painted or strapped with studs and gypsum board.
I am eagerly awaiting the chance to look at the structural package in action and see 'workflow according to the factory'. They have managed to get most things right so far and I am guessing they will do a pretty good job of this as well.

[Dimitri Harvalias]

WOW! Hot topic. Six responses between me starting and finishing my post. Are we interested in this or what :!:

(or me not flipping to the second page of the thread :Oops: )

[Rols]

We're actually already there. We are currently working on a project with which the structural engineer is also using Revit 7.0.
I created linked models to hand over to them (struct.). They have their model with grids, column, beams, structural floors, foundations and footings. They link our model right over the top. It works great.
The questionable thing is where we both need control of an object, like foundation walls. Structural needs control to be able to step footings and such. We need control because we need to detail those as part of our garage level plan (underground garage). In these cases, I've duplicated the objects so that they appear in both models. We will just have to coordinate between the two and copy changes from one to the other.
The floors work fine. They have the structural floor, everything up to subfloor level. We have a finish floor with the topping and finish on top of that.
I don't quite know about bearing walls. We need control to be able to tag them, so we have them in our model for now. If structural feels the need to have these in their model, then we'll either hand those over or duplicate them.

Structural actually seems to be the easy one. What happens when a electrical engineer wants to place a light switch in a wall? How does one discipline place a family in a host object of another disclipline???

[Lashers]

Perhaps this will encourage consultants to work closer as a real team, to integrate working practice and ensure that the final product is something they can all sign up to!

For instance, I would expect to have a say in what and where the electrical consultant wants to place lights and switched, as this is an architectural issue as well, but would stand back when it comes to planning the wiring looms and routing.

Whilst the technology may need to catch up, I cannot imaging why a close knit team cannot work together for a change!

Just off to Utopia for a bit
:-)

[Tom Weir]

I think Scott Brown makes a great point about the consultant not being interested in a lot of the stuff that is going on with the architect between updates. That could be a real fee buster for the consultant

And Rols has a good approach too. Objects are parcelled out per discipline, then linked into a master overall model. Then that would reduce the duplication to those areas where we both need some control.

We still don't quite reach the BIM promise of one dynamic model this way but that seems to get much closer.

[Rols]

Good point, Lashers.
As the software enables/demands greater coordination, I would hope that it would also include specific tools for it.
I could see a simple tool that would highlight any changes in the model from the last time you "published" it to the consultants. The MEP engineer would link my new file into his/hers and then simply pick a button to highlight any changes I made.
Better yet. How about a built in instant messenger!?! I could highlight a structural column and open a IM console and send a question to the engineer. The engineer, upon receiving my message, would be taken to the item I highlighted to see what the question was about!

Excuse me, I have to run. Starfleet is pinging me on my Tri-Corder :)

[Scott D Davis]

Tom,

So you think ultimately, we need a (for lack of a better term) BIND function, to take linked models and combine them into one editable model?

(There's a better term, we'll call it Combine Linked Files)

[Tom Weir]

Scott,
Yes, in order to achieve the true BIM solution there would have to be a final integration of objects at the conclusion of the project.

Tom

[Lashers]

Hear Hear Rols!

[hand471037]

Scott,
Yes, in order to achieve the true BIM solution there would have to be a final integration of objects at the conclusion of the project.

Tom

Also, another big-picture thing to consider is the fact that in order for it to be a true BIM solution the Revit Model will have to be able to be used by non-Revit software as well. What I'm talking about is, say, eSpecs or Cost Take-off software that reads the Revit model or ODBC out and lets someone who knows nothing about Revit (but plenty about Specs and Pricing, let's say) be part of the Building Team working off the same information.

Or, another example, is that not all of the information concerning a building needs to be within Revit. The Specs are a good example, we don't commonly specify which brand & model number of drywall we're using within Revit, we just say 'drywall' and spec a thickness. However, someone has to at some point know which drywall brands they can use, and how much is needed, and that info needs to be coming at least partially out of or derived from the Revit BIM model.

Not saying anything about longterm FM management, like how often certain light-bulbs need to be changed, the contract on the leased carpet, etc.

So there are still some gaps, and some large gaps, within the BIM project. For now, the BIM solutions have largely focused on the Design phase of the Project and a little on the Construction. However, there is market pressure in filling these gaps. I just got hired by a company that's looking to do just that by generating various Manufacturer's Products as Revit Content and Applications that run within or interact with Revit's data to fill in these gaps, like Pricing, Ordering, Pre-Construction, Planning, etc.

So there's a big picture out there that we're only starting to scratch the surface of. Very exciting times indeed!

[Lashers]

. . . . within Revit. The Specs are a good example, we don't commonly specify which brand & model number of drywall we're using within Revit, we just say 'drywall' and spec a thickness. However, someone has to at some point know which drywall brands they can use, and how much is needed, and that info needs to be coming at least partially out of or derived from the Revit BIM model.

Not saying anything about longterm FM management, like how often certain light-bulbs need to be changed, the contract on the leased carpet, etc.

So there are still some gaps, . . . . .

So there's a big picture out there that we're only starting to scratch the surface of. Very exciting times indeed!

Jeffrey you make a good point.

I don't find it difficult to imagine that some day . .maybe soon . . that when defining a wall type, that you could pick "plasterboard" and have a query window open with - British Gypsym/Lafarge/some other manufacturer - as a choice, along with the standard sizes and types of board to pick from. This could then be scheduled according to m2 used in the wall construction with the user defining the % for waste . . . or! . .

If I am placing a new light fitting, having the bulb type included in a parameter which would therefore self define its replacement schedule!

Unfortunately this will need Revit to completely take over the CAD world and therefore force manufacturers to providing this level of info (data) so that their products can be specified . . . a man can dream can't he??

:-) BTW Utopia is wonderful!

[PeterJ]

On the issue of functionality and perhaps a loss of certain parts of the modelling environment I think a point is being missed heer. My assumptions, based on some real intelligence and some guesswork, is that as an architect or any purchaser of the base package you will be able to model anything you want and retain control of it, so a beam will be a beam and a duct will be a duct just as they are now, with whatever degree of parametric control you, the factory or another supplier chooses to embed in the element.

If you buy the MEP package and wish to place a duct however, I think there is also likely to be a set of tools which are outside the parametrics of the duct itself but which will consider air volume, flow rate, duct drag and so on and will spew out data so that you can place the same parametric ducts much as you would if you were dragging out a railing in the underlying Revit. There will be similar above-the-line type functionality in a structural pakage to enable input and output to analysis packages, or even direct interaction with analysis packages but which would not materially change the placement of the structural elements once the design work was complete.

None of the above seems to lead to a diminution of functionality in the architectural base-set of tools but enables the other designers to have a quicker means of working up their parts of the building.

I agree that the big challenge will be how we all work together and imagine some kind of super set of worksets, but this is purely guesswork. In my thinking I would hold a central file and the structural engineer would save a local copy of that which would in turn become his teams central file that they would update with whatever frequency they favoured. The MEP consultants would have a similar super-local file acting as their own central file and thus all the information would link together. I imagine that, as each element has an id, if a structural engineer moved a wall, when he saved back to the super central file when the architectural team (or whoever was acting as the lead consultant and hence file controller) next came to open the file they would be asked to accept or reject the changes.

[khomburg]

If you buy the MEP package and wish to place a duct however, I think there is also likely to be a set of tools which are outside the parametrics of the duct itself but which will consider air volume, flow rate, duct drag and so on and will spew out data so that you can place the same parametric ducts much as you would if you were dragging out a railing in the underlying Revit. There will be similar above-the-line type functionality in a structural pakage to enable input and output to analysis packages, or even direct interaction with analysis packages but which would not materially change the placement of the structural elements once the design work was complete.
.

When I lay out receptacles or lights on a plan the architect couldn't care less what panel or circuit the device is connected to or have any desire to edit that part. I would be willing to pay big bucks though to have devices that are aware of the room that they are in so that when I generate a panel schedule I don't spend hours matching things up manually.

[Lashers]

When I lay out receptacles or lights on a plan the architect couldn't care less what panel or circuit the device is connected to or have any desire to edit that part. I would be willing to pay big bucks though to have devices that are aware of the room that they are in so that when I generate a panel schedule I don't spend hours matching things up manually.

Unless you are an interfering architect! I love lighting and have always been involve in deciding light setups and defining circuits to get the dimming controls to give me the effects I wish :-)

Other than that i couldn't agree more, It would be great to draw a circuit route from the panel to the room and have it understand that it is a circuit with a certain load capacity, and when you attach the light "parametric" fittings that it calculates the draw on the circuit until the capacity is reached - when the alarms go off and tell you to upgrade the fusing!

[khomburg]

Unless you are an interfering architect! I love lighting and have always been involve in deciding light setups and defining circuits to get the dimming controls to give me the effects I wish :-)

Other than that i couldn't agree more, It would be great to draw a circuit route from the panel to the room and have it understand that it is a circuit with a certain load capacity, and when you attach the light "parametric" fittings that it calculates the draw on the circuit until the capacity is reached - when the alarms go off and tell you to upgrade the fusing!

Great indeed. It would give me more time to complain to the architects for giving me a pie shaped electrical room because he couldn't find a use for the space otherwise.

[Lashers]

LOL be thankful you got any space at all!! heh heh . .

[Steve_Stafford]

...I would be willing to pay big bucks though to have devices that are aware of the room that they are in so that when I generate a panel schedule I don't spend hours matching things up manually...So...you are aware that Revit electrical families are room aware now? yes? I'd be interested to hear what your experiences are, trying to use Revit for electrical design assuming that you are doing so now?

okay...you ask isn't this getting off topic? Not really since the subject is about interoperability. How does khomburg get to use a Revit Bldg model from an architect and use that project's rooms to define his components location? Right now the only way to do it to duplicate the rooms over the top of ours I believe?

[gsHoeflinger]

My biggest question, or as like to call it the gaping hole of unknowingness, with integration is the shared elements (primarily a structural issue and those fun RCPs).

Current processes during initial design have the architects locating grids and placing initial columns (rough sized from the engineers). And this is what we have been doing in Revit for 2 years now. Unfortunately, I have been unable to get our engineers to buy into the concept, we still have the out dated concept of drafters and designers in our MEP/S disciplines.

Now this is before the structural engineers do a single drawing. Now should i wait till they get ready to draw? Do i place them in a separate model (the preliminary structural model) and have to manage two files? Or do i place then in the architectural model and break them out into another file at a later date? Seems like there are a lot of ways to do it, but i am not sure which is the best. I think the most important point is we will need to get the engineers (not drafters) started at an earlier point in design, regardless of procedure.

Lots of questions and with footings, foundations, and bearing walls, lots of shared elements. I think the next 2 years are going to be an experience.

Course it might be just me as an architect, but who else thinks the modeling procedure now in 7.0 for structural is arse backwards... top down columns? squirrelly behavior of located columns...

[Tom Weir]

<Now this is before the structural engineers do a single drawing. Now should i wait till they get ready to draw?>
If we agree that we are using a linked files from each discipline I think you should put in your own columns first as mere place holders. Then when you get your first file from the structural group you could delete out your columns. I think I would want to closely define a set of building objects for structural.

< I think the most important point is we will need to get the engineers (not drafters) started at an earlier point in design, regardless of procedure.>
Revit definately requires more attention in the initial phases than we might be used to with Autocad.

<Lots of questions and with footings, foundations, and bearing walls, lots of shared elements>
We will have to try to narrow down those shared objects

<Course it might be just me as an architect, but who else thinks the modeling procedure now in 7.0 for structural is arse backwards... top down columns? squirrelly behavior of located columns...>
Revit has been working hard and listening intently. They are well aware of this point...that's all I can say right now.

And to comment on Jeffrey McGrew's statement I think we are now seperating out fact from fiction on the ultimate "BIM Solution". Many of us need to make a business decision now on how to procede. Like he says there are major gaps to be filled. We are starting down a long road....

[hand471037]

And to comment on Jeffrey McGrew's statement I think we are now seperating out fact from fiction on the ultimate "BIM Solution". Many of us need to make a business decision now on how to procede. Like he says there are major gaps to be filled. We are starting down a long road....

Yes, but at least we're not alone. One part of this new company I'm working for now is planning on providing Revit Family Generation for Building Product Manufacturers, and we can't be the only ones out there getting into this Market. So soon I think there will be a lot more Revit Content available direct from Product Manufacturers.

We're also started a service where we will model any Building that's at least finished with 50% DD as a full BIM Revit model with proper standards for a flat fee and time (for buildings under a certain size) so that people who want to get into Revit with less pain, or those firms who are using Revit but don't have time or fee to go back and remodel older still-running projects within Revit, can have a full complete well-modeled Revit model available to them for FM, Visualization, and some future stuff I can't talk about 'till Friday :D

And again, we're making some tools for Pricing and Reporting and more that run off of or (in the near future) within Revit. And again, we can't be the only ones doing this, and Autodesk I think understands that it's not going to be just them providing all of the pieces and parts to the whole BIM picture, but that it's going to be several things with Revit holding it all together... and making it really work this time :D

[sjsl]

Currently, Vectowroks does exactly as you are requesting. Revit should buy Vectorworks and take all of their good ideas, electrical, site, etc. and assimilate them.

[Tom Weir]

Jeffrey,
I do feel that Revit and 3d modeling are gaining momentum. That is something I never could say about ADT.
And with firms like yours leading the way we can expect some excellent support from manufacturer's.
Thanks guys for a great dialogue.
Tom Weir
Los Angeles

[Wes Macaulay]

Currently, Vectowroks does exactly as you are requesting. Revit should buy Vectorworks and take all of their good ideas, electrical, site, etc. and assimilate them.Huh? I don't see what VW has that we would want at all... Autodesk should buy it to vaporize one of the more buggy platforms I can ever recall using.

Sorry to bomb your post, but I used VW back when it was MiniCAD then used it up to VW8.5. They've added some modeling tools and bits and pieces, but workgroup references still don't work, they bloat out the file, and their sections and elevations are dead, not to mention they take forever to create in the first place. There's a lot of seats of VW here in Vancouver because people think it's a bargain. Ugh.

I would like to see some comments from the Factory with regards to where all of this might be going. We've had conversations in our office about how the interdisciplinary sharing of a 3D data model might be resolved, and there are many problems to be overcome. I suppose none of it is insurmountable, especially when you have as bright a bunch as you have developing Revit!

[Dimitri Harvalias]

especially when you have as bright a bunch as you have developing Revit!
Ooo Wes, good approach. Butter them up and maybe they'll throw you a bone ;-)

[edaniels]

This has been a great discussion threat so here are my 2 cents. A product will be developed from Autodesk that is similar to buzzsaw and Autodesk Vault that was created for Inventor.

I think that it should be a web base product with ties directly into Revit, a "dashboard" it what I will call it. A central file is created that the MEP and Structural models pull data from and publish data into for coordination by the project team. As the team publishes data everyone could then be notify when some one publishes to that central file thru the dashboard. Arch, Struct, MEP each will have their separate central file in the office for the worksets creation. But each office central file will be based off the vault product.

In terms of what each discipline see could be change with display settings, ie coarse, medium, and fine and VG with each disciplines software package?

[jbalding48677]

One potential solution to this discussion is Model Servers, a central location for the model. This was discussed at the BIM Conference earlier this week. Whether or not the industry goes that direction or not is to be seen.

[Dimitri Harvalias]

I think the model server as the central location for the composite project file , in principle, will work well. The only limitation will be the connection speed for project sharing, upload/download and saving to 'central'.

Users on this forum have been trying to get some form of WAN or VPN setup to work and, based on the discussions here, have not had a great deal of success to this point so it may be a while before this type of approach can be practical.

[Steve_Stafford]

Users on this forum have been trying to get some form of WAN or VPN setup to work and, based on the discussions here, have not had a great deal of success to this point so it may be a while before this type of approach can be practical.The only method I've tried that wasn't too painful was a VPN and Remote Desktop.

I used the VPN to copy my local from the office and borrow a license. Then I disconnect from the VPN, work and then upload the local file back to the office. Last, I'd use Remote Desktop to access my office PC and STC.

But this was done as a solo effort, no team trying to do this together. I could check out everything at risk freely. That's as sophiscated an attempt as I've been free to make.

[PeterJ]

I have printed remotely using remote desktop to work on an office based machine. It was entirely succesful but relied on the printer being primed with paper.

Elrond and I, with Rhys, have all worked on the same model located in Rhys' office with reasonable success, but that success has worked with relatively low levels of interaction: almost one of us working on the model at a time. We checked out entire worksets because element borrowing is too slow over VPN, especially if you acn't see that the other user has gone to a meeting becasue you aren't just across the room....

I outlined a method a page or two back with the model having a super central model adn then people in the different discipline/office teams having local central files, but that would work best with very distint discipline controls so that structural was only responsible for structural, MEP only responsible for their bits and so on. The idea of a model server, unless we are all on T1 lines and can find a means of working on discrete chunks of the model so we only ever pull across quite small bits of data seems a little distant to me. I suppose a useful simile for the way a model server might work is jpg compression whereby parts of the image with little variation are highly compressed and parts with significant variation are less compressed, so, if you elected to work on the shell of the model you would only pull up the data pertaining to that - the remainder would ship to your location as a lightweight VRML model or similar. It would be slightly limiting but it would enable one to work remotely and its a tool which could carry across any 3D modeller, not just Revit.

[khomburg]

I think a model server would work very well if it could be combined with a technology to limit the amount of data that needs to be transferred similar to the network appliance products that Tacit Networks and Riverbed Technologies use.

[khomburg]

So...you are aware that Revit electrical families are room aware now? yes? I'd be interested to hear what your experiences are, trying to use Revit for electrical design assuming that you are doing so now?

okay...you ask isn't this getting off topic? Not really since the subject is about interoperability. How does khomburg get to use a Revit Bldg model from an architect and use that project's rooms to define his components location? Right now the only way to do it to duplicate the rooms over the top of ours I believe?

I am using Building Systems to do my electrical design now. It has a "wire tool" that makes it very easy to assign devices to circuits and total the loads. Hopefully when Revit Systems arrives it will have a similar tool that can also be used with the room aware features of the devices.

[Dimitri Harvalias]

and some future stuff I can't talk about 'till Friday :D
I didn't want to make a big deal of it but I can't believe that this one slipped through with nobody making a comment. Would that be this Friday? Something we should know Jeffrey?

[Tom Weir]

Hi all,
It seems as if we have discussed several main areas of conern for interoperability, (and I mean for doing it today not in the future):

1. Hardware and software:
Data Transfer bottlenecks seem to be holding us back on the hardware side. Though several promising approaches are out there it still seems a bit into the future for most of us. Software management features like Buzzsaw sites are needed, working off Model servers to help to maintain the centralized "Master model" and to manage the worksets distributed to the consultants.

2. Issues pertaining to the modeled objects:
Who "owns" what objects? Most objects are fairly easily identified as belonging to one discipline or another. But then there are big issues in coordination and duplication of objects for those objects of conern to multiple disciplines.
As a start I think the industry needs to develop an outline of standard modeled objects and the discipline with which they are most commonly associated, as a guide for us.

[Wes Macaulay]

I didn't want to make a big deal of it but I can't believe that this one slipped through with nobody making a comment. Would that be this Friday? Something we should know Jeffrey?I think the Revit 8 NDA is off today, and the CDs are supposed to ship. But the real deal is when the web download of R8 comes online...

[jeddafish]

BK,
One of the things we are striving for with BIM is to be able to hand over a complete building model so that the faciliites engineers and the client will have that as an ongoing resource. Some people even speculate that the Revit model is the final deliverable I believe.
And yes they would need Revit.



We currently have a client that requires a 3D model of the project at close-out. Extra fees are involved, but it is definately happening.
--jeff

[hand471037]

I didn't want to make a big deal of it but I can't believe that this one slipped through with nobody making a comment. Would that be this Friday? Something we should know Jeffrey?

Just referencing the NDA about Revit 8 and the new API, which I guess we can talk about now. The new API is going to allow us to make tools that can run within Revit, and interact with Projects without someone having to be around to manually 'drive' it. That's all I was getting at.

[Dimitri Harvalias]

Not implying a conspiracy theory Jeffrey. I just thought you might have the inside scoop on a general release date. Now we just have to wait with the rest for the download/CD shipping announcement. Thanks