Intentions

[morganp]

Is the ultimate purpose of 'Revit' to produce perfect models; or perfect drawings?

[kpaxton]

Perfectly coordinated and scheduleable data-rich drawing models....

:beer:

[dgreen.49364]

Perfect models? Not possible.

Perfect drawings? Not possible.

Increase in production with a decrease in errors? Yep.

[morganp]

What happens to a coordinated 'Revit' file when the significance of the two-dimensional information contained within outweighs the significance of the three-dimensional information?

[twiceroadsfool]

Hi morgan-

I would venture to say the question is not "What is the intention of Revit," so much as "what is the intention of the user using Revit?"

Right now i use Revit to make getting my 2D documents out easier, more coordinated, and more efficient. Its great for that.

Down the road, i can see BIM further changing the industry, and completely reinventing the deliverables so that no one wants to see fragmented loosely held together (physically and coordination wise) paper documents anymore.

What happens to a file when the 2D information is more important than the 3D information? Well, if the two datasets of information are drastically different, id venture to say something wasnt done correctly.

Otherwise, its just the age old BIM/3D modeling question of "What do i need to model to achieve my goal, and to what level of detail?" If im not responsible for clearancing the light fixtures on the wall, a simple square and "see electrical" will do.

So its more a question of "What do you want to do with it, and what do you need to do to get there?"

:)

[Mike Sealander]

This is too rich to pass up...
The realpolitik answer is Revit makes money for Autodesk.
My own intention is to make money with Revit.
At some point in my life (it was about a year and a half ago) I decided money was secondary to professional satisfaction and the pursuit of good, technically rigorous buildings. I gave up AutoCAD to try to bring some satisfaction in my own drafting chores (Revit wins here), to be more profitable with my practice (Revit wins here as well, as long as the project is more than a bathroom renovation), and to pursue my own cyberspace dream of BIM (again, a win.)
I'm really frustrated with a lot of Revit, but in answer to the first question about output, I have struggled with the perfect BIM/ perfect drawings dichotomy and fall down on the side of perfect drawings.
This was a good question, and an important one, that I think all Revit users must address at some level.

[morganp]

Considering that true BIM requires a busload of up-front coordination: how should we treat designers who resist true methods and take the "low road" within 'Revit' ?

Should we flog them; as the Romans once flogged their engineers?

[dgreen.49364]

The answer to that question is to take away the designers computer and hand them a pencil and paper.

[morganp]

Following that; would you agree with my friend H.R. who said: the problem with 'Revit' is that you have to have the building designed before you can start modeling it?

[dgreen.49364]

Not necessarily. Obviously, the more information you have, i.e. design, the better, when you start to model in Revit. We have done it both ways, one is to design with Sketchup, then to begin modeling in Revit once a basic design is coming along. The other is to design in Revit, using massing and generic walls until we get to a point that we can begin serious Revit modeling. When we've done it this way we usually start with a clean Revit model and leave the "designer" model intact.

I believe the key is flexibility and strengths. We have one guy who is real strong in Sketchup, he designs in sketchup. We have another guy who is very artistic but barely knows how to turn on a computer. He draws and colors by hand. We have different people with different strengths and use combinations of them all until we move into the modeling/construction doc stage.

[morganp]

Do you believe, then, that 'Revit' is capable of satisfying the needs of both the additive optimist and the subtractive pessimist?

Or, does 'Revit' encourage one attitude more than the other?

[jeff.95551]

I don't know that Revit really addresses that question. I think that, taking a long view, BIM is one of the first baby steps toward a building design and fabrication process that is much closer to how a car is made than it is to construction. I've got friends in the Industrial Design community who look at architecture and construction in general as a backwards, stone-aged process that is inefficient, produces low-quality, low-tolerance and inconsistent products. I'm sorry to say that I have to agree, for the most part, evn though I like what I do. The I-Pod on my desk right now is more sophistocated, and more rigorously designed and built than any building in Phoenix or any other city (by orders of magnitude). More people die in car accidents in a day than in building-safety related accidents all year (by far), but automobile manufacturers don't have to jump through anywhere near the hoops and hurdles and reviews and inspections that constructors and designers do. The business community looks at building production as 'retarded' (that's a direct quote from a fortune 500 president). 'Which mechanical system should we use?' I don't know, probably this one. 'How much money will it save?' I don't know. 'How could we find out?' Well, we can stop the design process for a month, do a cost review and model the building, all at additional services, of course... 'And will the built structure perform the way our models say?' Gosh, I don't know. I've never gone back and looked at one after it's done - I just move on the the next one...

So, Long Story Short, Revit, Archicad, and others like it open up the possibility that we can build better, more useful and consistent buildings. For now, I can brag with confidence that in the drawings that I produce, every callout reference is correct, and that plans, sections, and elevations are all basically coordinated. For the first time. It's a start.

[DaveP]

The problem with comparing Manufacturing to Architecture is that they design it once and build a million of them.

We design it a million times and build one.

[ron.sanpedro]

Following that; would you agree with my friend H.R. who said: the problem with 'Revit' is that you have to have the building designed before you can start modeling it?

Not at all! I can "design" a building by modeling very schematic walls and doors and windows, then make them more detailed as decisions dictate. I don't need to know anything more than wall as an idea to start with. And then later maybe interior wall and exterior wall are the ideas. And later still thick exterior wall, and thin exterior wall, and interior wall. They don't become actual defined construction until I want them to.
Now what I can't do is "design" a plan and conveniently ignore the fact that I can't roof it, but I don't believe in designing plans, I believe in designing buildings ;)

Gordon

[sbrown]

We design it a million times and build one.[/QUOTE]


What a great Quote!!!!!

[jeff.95551]

The problem with comparing Manufacturing to Architecture is that they design it once and build a million of them.

Dave - when was the last time you drove through a KB Homes or Pulte subdivision? Those buildings are 'product' just like the Bud Light can that gets tossed after it's emptied (except the beer can company spent about 200 times the money to design it). The problem is that people (Americans, at least) are getting used to having high-quality products all around them at reasonable prices. But construction (and therefore architecture) is still operating pretty much like it did 60 years ago, except with a lot more paperwork.

[twiceroadsfool]

Following that; would you agree with my friend H.R. who said: the problem with 'Revit' is that you have to have the building designed before you can start modeling it?

Not at all. Ill reiterate my previous point: Revit is a tool. The capabilities with it (or lack thereof) rest with the limitations of ambition and talent of the connection between Keyboard and chair.

Were doing CD's for a project being rushed that doesnt have a design, its getting designed as we go.

We have another project that is a lot of mathematically and parametrically evolving shapes, where the shape is dictated based on math, and the severity of the alterations is dictated by the designer.

We have projects that are being designed by designers who love to draw by hand, and even working with them, Revit has made everyones jobs ten times faster. When the designer sketches a perspective (as is his inclination), he will sometimes rush and get things out of scale, so they dont make sense. So i can take it as far as possible, and give him back his perspective, from our model. Then he can create another iteration.

For initial design and DD, ive seen Revit do worlds: Massing, scheduling, form modeling.

Again, what is it youre interested in doing with the program? The limitation with it is the user, ive found.

On a side note, im reading what may be misconstrued through the internet as a slight antagonistic twang in the questions and the way they are worded, and im wondering what your intent is with the particular line of questioning?

[kpaxton]

Considering that true BIM requires a busload of up-front coordination: how should we treat designers who resist true methods and take the "low road" within 'Revit' ? Should we flog them; as the Romans once flogged their engineers?How should we then treat those who continue to provide insightful, yet cryptic one or two sentence questions?? ;)

As a Designer who uses Revit... I almost take offense at the above statement <wink> but I could turn around and say approximately the same thing about those in a 'production' capacity. From experience, I can say that there is upfront coordination that needs to occur - as it should in ANY project. A "bus-load"? Hardly. Is more helpful? Sure! The ability to change the 'definition' of anything in the model -on the fly- from one similar type to another (think 8" generic wall swapped out with a Multi-category Stacked wall later in the projects life) is a very powerful feature.

Are there 'rules' that one should play by when designing in Revit?... sure there are. The users should all play nice in the sandbox with oneanother. If they see this as 'getting in their way', then perhaps they fully don't understand what repercussions their actions may have. Can their 'errors' be fixed later? Probably - but it will take someone time (=money) later on. If they are brought to understand that doing it correctly the first time actually sames time (=money), then perhaps they can buy into why things need to be done in a certain way to begin with.....

Revit is a tool to be used.. just as the hammer is used in the field. But does one blame the hammer when the thumbnail gets hit?


would you agree with my friend H.R. who said: the problem with 'Revit' is that you have to have the building designed before you can start modeling it

You mean 'Puffinstuff"? :lol: 'problem with Revit'.... Hmm, where have I heard that before? The short answer to your question is no. The long answer is... doesn't designing anything require you to start somewhere? I don't know about you, but when I design, there is usually a blank piece of paper staring right back at me. My brain is awash with ideas and programmatic issues give by the client, sure; but now I have to get these out onto the paper! After I have a quick sketch or two, I've got a some good parameters that I can now take into the program and start making "something" more tangible.


satisfy...both the additive optimist and the subtractive pessimist... does 'Revit' encourage one attitude more than the other?Remember - Revit is a bunch of code. The person who is sitting at the station is going to reflect how they feel, depending on their own comfort level. Doesn't matter if it's Revit, Microstation, Gehery's BD, Sketchup or... Archicad. You can however, through training and proper implimentation of any software, ease this uneasiness. True Comfort only comes with time. Just ask my ex-wife. ;)

My two cents,
Kyle

[morganp]

You might be between the ages of thirty and fifty . . .

Imagine that you were not raised as a technocrat; and that you arrived at the profession of architecture from a fine arts background. Also suppose that you attended an architecture school that emphasized architectural whimsy over building science. FInally, throw in five-plus years of drafting with an electronic pencil that forced you to take paths of least resistance in order to produce clear drawings.

What I am getting at is this: some of my peers are hardwired against BIM software. They are against BIM software because they have been visualizing things in two dimensions since the day they were born. Essentially, they are 2D people who might have been illustrators or graphic artists had they not attended an architecture school.

If you were such a person who happened to fall into the profession; how would your brain approach and tackle the mechanics of BIM?

[twiceroadsfool]

If i were such a person, i wouldnt be trying to place blame on a software package, to mask the fact that i dont have an actual background in the industry im currently employed in. Then, after my reality check, id be excited that there was a tool that could potentially make my job easier, and id spent my nights and weekends learning it. :)

[morganp]

Are "nights and weekends" enough to transform an aging piano tuner into a virtuoso?

Additionally: if the steam engine was invented by an ancient Greek, why did it not affect society until 1800?

[jeff.95551]

The limitations in the software are a result of making it useful to the vast majority of users who do real buildings. The ability to bring sketchup models into Revit makes it pretty darn useful even for wacky and unconventional stuff. I know people who are anti-Revit, mostly because it takes the 'art' out of the process, whatever that means. They also spend hours and hours talking about the lineweights on their CD's and designing the set from an aesthetic viewpoint. I was skeptical about the reason for this until I realized that most of their work doesn't get built, because it's too weird/expensive/slow/not-what-the-client-asked-for anyway, so the CD's are the product. Like everybody before me has said, it's just a tool. Use it well, produce good-quality document, spend more time thinking about design, or don't - and complain about how the industry is going to hell and nobody cares about quality anymore. I always say - you can be on the bus or under it - your choice.

[twiceroadsfool]

Maybe not. :shrug: But at the risk of sounding heartless, no one said life is fair either. The record industries complain that they cant sell CD's at 20 bucks a pop still, because of the break out of internet file transfer. People in Auto Assembly Unions are mad that they cant still get 30 an hour to nail together cavaliers, because the companies are getting outsold by Japan.

The only thing constant is change. Our industry is changing. It means great things for some, it means bad things for others.

I dont think Revit is any more complicated than AutoCAD. I think its very much the other way. AutoCAD had a katrillion toolbars to keep track of. I think having to model, Revit demands that you know more about the work in front of you than the data entry style markups of "put a CAD line where someone drew it." Yes, thats a problem for a lot of people.

But again, its irrelevant to the software. So what exactly is the point you are getting at?

[morganp]

I know people who are anti-Revit, mostly because it takes the 'art' out of the process, whatever that means. They also spend hours and hours talking about the lineweights on their CD's and designing the set from an aesthetic viewpoint. I was skeptical about the reason for this until I realized that most of their work doesn't get built, because it's too weird/expensive/slow/not-what-the-client-asked-for anyway, so the CD's are the product.

Thank you for that!

That kind of fetishism is exactly what I have been up against in this profession; ever since I graduated.

[morganp]

But again, its irrelevant to the software. So what exactly is the point you are getting at?

Education is the lever that shifts paradigms.


There are essentially four types of designers [four types of people, really]: Stoics, Epicureans, Cynics, and Skeptics. Each philosophical type must wholeheartedly embrace and personalize the new paradigm before that new paradigm becomes the standard. A certain type of personality may not be designing a building directly. But the work that ANYONE does in relationship to a project contains the potential to affect that project's outcome.


. . . an MEP contractor, for example, who cannot justify modeling their systems, will make BIM coordination difficult.

. . . an architect who possesses a HUGE AutoCAD library (another example) simply refuses to redraw his or her details.

. . . a would-be graphic artist, working as a draftsman, is OBSESSED with lineweights.

. . . a print shop is unable to accept and print 'Revit' files, so they request PDF's in lieu.


BIM software is the true new paradigm, and therefore, the new standard. In order for a BIM based building project to function and succeed, however, all branches of the industry MUST wholeheartedly accept the "medium" as well as the "message."

When I say "branches" I include anyone who lays a fingerprint on a project. That includes: contractors, printers, developers, MEP consultants, janitors, government plans reviewers . . . and so on. They must all understand the implications of the new medium. And they must all re-tailor their attitudes toward the computerized reality of making buildings.

As BIM afficianados, we must have MERCY on those who support us in our design efforts. We must understand that the role of some professionals is to support other professionals. At this point in the process, I am beginning to take interest in the weak links in the BIM chain. I want to be able to weld those weak links back into sturdy rings.

It is essential that we all share means and methods. If we know where we stand, then now is the time to teach. If we are blind and grasping . . . then now is the time to learn.

[kpaxton]

Are "nights and weekends" enough to transform an aging piano tuner into a virtuoso?OK. To be blunt. If I needed a virtuoso.... I certainly would NOT be expecting the guy tuning my piano to be such... I'd get a [explitive deleted] Virtuoso.

However... that is not to say that the Tuner is any less valuable. I would certainly not expect the Virtuoso to sit and tune the piano also. What would happen if a wire snapped and cut his playing hand?

This boils down to a more valid question of personnel management. If a person has certain skills... find the niche or tasks where they excel at doing what they're good at (but not so much that they get pigeon-holed)- don't burden them with tasks that someone else could get done in half the time. In an office this is sometimes difficult to do, because we are sooooo bothered about not hurting someones "feelings", we're willing to limp along and waste our time and money.

If someone has a desire to learn, or if you really need them on the team, then entice them to learn.. don't threaten or beat them with a stick.

I too have had the (dis) pleasure of working for those that want the drawings to be a 'work of art' unto themselves. Besides the fact that they're out of business now, the end result is that some guy out in the field is going to be reading these documents to build something. As long as it contains the proper information, is shown correctly, and is readable - He could give a rat's behind about how 'pretty' it is. Please don't misinterpret me - I do think the drawings ought to look nice and have a certain amount of 'depth'... but that doesn't need to get in the way of making a profit and staying in business.

[jeff.95551]

Must be Friday afternoon. This is a conversation better had with a beer at the pub. I feel your pain with the Luddites. Good Luck

[Brian Myers]

In order for a BIM based building project to function and succeed, however, all branches of the industry MUST wholeheartedly accept the "medium" as well as the "message."

Lets take a step back for a moment. I don't believe you are actually talking about BIM.

Its been called many things, but it seems you are talking about Project Lifecycle Management more than BIM. First its important we define BIM as not Building Information Modeling, but as Building Information Management because we are no where close to containing all the information in just the Model (such as no longer needing dimensions or call outs for materials, etc... true read from the model instead of the plans) and we still might not be 10 or 15 years from now. We'll be MUCH closer, perhaps there on some projects, but likely not full BIM (Modeling) due to construction issues, making proper use of the data, etc. in the vast majority of our work. As a result of this, talk of the generic term "BIM" is about as far off as Revit of today is from AutoCAD r. 12 of 15 years ago.

That being said, I agree with what you are saying, but we really need to concentrate on the benefits BIM (Management) programs of today can provide you and how it will improve your deliverables; how they can reduce your professional liability; how these programs will make a difference in your bottom line. Talk of "You can't design in Revit" isn't valid. You can design in Revit 20x better than you can design in AutoCAD, a program that's likely been used in the office for the past 10+ years. The changes are much faster too. I just designed a basic 1,400 sf home, did quick elevations, had building sections drawn, and schedules made of for it in 2 hours at my work. Granted it wasn't fully detailed or dimensioned, but could I have done it with a bit more time? Sure. And I had enough information to fill (setup) 5 sheets of plans and a generic model I could have shown a client... not possible in AutoCAD, ever. Also changes/revisions could have been made real fast, much faster than using any generic CAD program.

Point being, Revit is GOOD for this kind of thing. Even if they are not ready to model with it, well, they don't have to. They never did it in AutoCAD either I would bet. Ultimately its about an improved final deliverable today... in the future it will be more about the downstream information you are suggesting. Sell them on the benefits of today and then the benefits of the future will just be a major bonus.

[twiceroadsfool]

Education is the lever that shifts paradigms.

. . . an MEP contractor, for example, who cannot justify modeling their systems, will make BIM coordination difficult.

Someone who cant join the team can find the door. There are plenty of consultants who are willing.


. . . an architect who possesses a HUGE AutoCAD library (another example) simply refuses to redraw his or her details.

Theres the door. Stubborn people who refuse to change will (sadly) get left on the roadside.


. . . a would-be graphic artist, working as a draftsman, is OBSESSED with lineweights.


Sorry, i have no tolerance for this. Lineweights matter only enough to make the drawings readible, and so they can acurately and clearly convey the intent in good fashion. Beyond that, pretty lineweights measurable only in CAD are not value adding. Find the door.



. . . a print shop is unable to accept and print 'Revit' files, so they request PDF's in lieu.
Replaced.


BIM software is the true new paradigm, and therefore, the new standard. In order for a BIM based building project to function and succeed, however, all branches of the industry MUST wholeheartedly accept the "medium" as well as the "message."

When I say "branches" I include anyone who lays a fingerprint on a project. That includes: contractors, printers, developers, MEP consultants, janitors, government plans reviewers . . . and so on. They must all understand the implications of the new medium. And they must all re-tailor their attitudes toward the computerized reality of making buildings.

As BIM afficianados, we must have MERCY on those who support us in our design efforts. We must understand that the role of some professionals is to support other professionals. At this point in the process, I am beginning to take interest in the weak links in the BIM chain. I want to be able to weld those weak links back into sturdy rings.

It is essential that we all share means and methods. If we know where we stand, then now is the time to teach. If we are blind and grasping . . . then now is the time to learn.[/QUOTE]

Im really not trying to come off as a mean or intolerant person... But for some reason or another, there are also a certain kind of people that just refuse change, no matter how logical, rational, and clearly better that change may be. Every office will run in to that.

The sad thing is, it doesnt always have a happy ending. To some extent you make concessions... if we really have to send PDF's to the printer, no big deal. We plot to PDF once a week, and out they go. But if a consultant tells us theyre refusing to use a new tool that can make everyones life and workflow better and cheaper, than they better be the ones in the drivers seat, and the ones that brought the client to the table. Otherwise, im sure there is someone out there will to be cooperative whos interested in the job.

JUST my two cents. :)

[chodosh]

Regarding the purpose of Revit, and BIM in general, here is a link to a survey that is researching how we AEC professionals interpret the way using BIM affects construction cost.

http://www.zoomerang.com/recipient/survey-intro.zgi?p=WEB226DY9574LN

This is a survey by the M.E. Rinker School of Construction at the University of Florida presented in conjunction with the Facility Information Council (FIC) of the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS).

It is not just about Revit, but focuses on the perceptions of Building Information Modeling.

Note, it requires some basic knowledge of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) .

For more information, check this link: http://www.csemag.com/article/CA6438533.html

-LC