Mysterious dots

[reviot]

Sometimes for fun in my office.. I open up our 2-d details.. and I insert little dots .

It drives people bananas.

and makes for some interesting conversation.

Adding the dots makes Revit more like AutoCAD....

Its especially fun to put a dot 100' away from the reast of the family...

Be more BIM like. Use a 1/8" cube. Why draw all the 2D geometry.

So glad I read this far - just about wet myself laughing after 4 pages of seriousness. Thanks for injecting a much needed humour break into the thread.

[tory.puglisi]

This thread reads like the plot of an Adam Sandler movie.

[cliff collins]

O'Doyle Rules............

[dzatto]

O'Doyle Rules............

Happy Chubaka!

[mr6jam]

I am a little afraid to post this reply because I don't want to stirr up anything, but I think I owe you guys a reply.

One of the main reasons we decided to go with 2-D rather than 3-D is that is it quite timeconsuming to develop 3-D standards/ model things for us. We are treading on unfamiliar territory, and this would be time that should be charged to Revit Development/ overhead. We don't want to charge the client for this. We played around with 3-D ing stuff, we considered doing it, but it just did not make sense because of the amount of TIME it consumed. We are a relatively small interiors firm, 25 people, with only 6 Architects, so it can easily raise eyebrows when you spend considerable time on overhead stuff.

[cliff collins]

I'll try to respond quickly and respectfully:

1. The "impression" is that modeling in 3D always "takes longer"
This is just plain false. The benefit of a 3D model far outweighs the "quick get it out the door" mentality of reverting back to 2D drafting mentality.

2. The more you fall back to 2D "band-aid solutions" because of the false impression
in #1 above, the less progress you will make in getting FASTER and more productive by modeling in 3D.

FWIW, we could model a simple workstation ( or other similar object) in 3D in less than 15 minutes--and have all 2D and 3D views available, schedules, materials, renderings, etc.--i.e. true BIM. Using visibility parameters in the family, we can even have BOTH a 2D and 3D representation as required for variuos views/purposes.

Try drawing a plan, all four elevations, etc. to represent that same object in 15 minutes.
How would you describe the materials? Schedules? Renderings? etc. with a "dumb 2D object" ?

This has been my point all along--the difference between BIM and 2D drafting. Just my 2c worth. My opinion is based on 20 years plus in the business, and I've seen all techniques along the way. The 3D modeling philosophy will make you profitable. enough said.

cheers

[stuntmonkee]

I agree with what Cliff is saying for the most part. I'll disagree on the 15min family generation, and I'll disagree even more when it comes to a new firm trying to get a hold of the concept and understanding how to get the most impact out of a family.

It can be a tough commitment to make when you consider going all 3D. One of my goals is always consistency. I want my users to know that all the families work relatively the same. I don't want them having to figure out why we have a fancy chair in 3d, but the table is all 2d. It just makes things messy.

Doing it the old school ways is much like wanting to keep riding your old BMX. It's reliable, there's only one gear, and you know exactly how fast or slow that gear will move when you start pedaling.

Going for 3D is more like that 20 speed mountain bike. You're further from the ground, far more maintenance, you have to learn all the gears and hope that you don't get confused between the brake and this new lever called the clutch. Heck!, for that matter, you are probably used to the braking by pedaling backwards. . .now you've have 2 levers and a knob with a bunch of numbers! And just when you are feeling pretty good because of how fast you can go, you realize that if you crash at this speed, it's really going to hurt!

The point being, that there is really only one way to learn. And if you want to have the ability to hit some of those cool dirt trails, you are going to have to ditch the BMX and learn how to use Revit.

Find your own balance with the program, but realize that there are far more uses than where you are at right now.

[twiceroadsfool]

Model whats value adding. If its not....

[ron.sanpedro]

I just heard a story from an Architect in my office that is pertinent to this thread I think. She had been talking to a cabinet maker back and forth for a bit trying to communicate how some casework was going to work on an angled wall in a tight remodel situation. She finally gave up, threw a camera in (in her words, "It took 20 seconds!") printed and noted in pen, then faxed it off because the cabinet maker actually doesn't have email (but is an excellent cabinet maker). Five minutes later she had a call from him saying "Ah, I get it now."
Going into the project she had no idea this would be a problem area, but she modeled everything at an appropriate level, and when she needed it, she had the 3D view that saved the day. And I am pretty sure not having casework delivered that didn't fit was well worth the extra effort to "model everything."

With regards to the original poster, I would say this. Yes, sometimes you punt to a 2D workflow early on, as you are learning to use Revit effectively. But one key thing a BIM Manager needs to do is make sure everyone; users, management, etc, understands that doing so is only right "right now." The goal is to get to modeling everything appropriately and for a year or two every single project is going to push something different a little farther. Some people get frustrated with having to throw out what they just learned, but not doing so means you end up never accessing the real power of the tool, and that should be considered unacceptable.

Gordon

[twiceroadsfool]

Of course in that example it makes sense. Casework is in her scope of work. Hence, value adding.