NCS and BIM

[Valkin]

For the last 2 years I've either presented or helped with a class at AU called Revittizing the NCS. This last year I was the Chair of the NCS UDS Task Team, and gained a lot more insight to the NCS. I would like to ask all that are willing to give their opinion on how they feel NCS fits into the emerging BIM world.
I was recently at a presentation where the speaker implied that the NCS is the method by which a BIM is documented in 2D. Do you agree with this statement?

[jsnyder.68308]

For the last 2 years I've either presented or helped with a class at AU called Revittizing the NCS. This last year I was the Chair of the NCS UDS Task Team, and gained a lot more insight to the NCS. I would like to ask all that are willing to give their opinion on how they feel NCS fits into the emerging BIM world.
I was recently at a presentation where the speaker implied that the NCS is the method by which a BIM is documented in 2D. Do you agree with this statement?

I do not agree with the exact wording of that statement, but the spirit is there. A more accurate one might be, "the NCS SHOULD be the standard that is applied to construction documents produced from a BIM."

My understanding is that the NBIM standard incorporates (or will incorporate) the NCS as a defacto pre-requisite for compliance. There is a lot more to the NBIM than just CD's though.

As a side rant, I find the work it takes to make Revit NCS compliant maddening. If Autodesk had to pick a "standard" to use for their symbology and documentation processes in the application, why not use the NCS? I suppose if they did that, a bunch of other people would be frustrated instead of me - and MAM would not have a course to teach at AU. But then again, that is the beauty of standards - there are so many to choose from.

[troberts]

There there is a lot that I do like about NCS there is much I do not like. I am willing to go along with it because a standard is needed and it is the best one out there. If Autodesk would make Revit NCS compliant it would save a lot of companies a lot of time and frustration - and it would help others make the jump to NCS. In the end though, for now, paper drawings are our product. That is what we deliver. They should be good looking and easy to read.

[twiceroadsfool]

There are really very few times Revit *cant* be NCS compliant, though there are some. But being NCS Compliant and being good looking, easy reading drawings are mutually exclusive.

As for the NBIMS and BIM and NCS... The biggest hurdle with the NBIMS so far is that (while it was necessary) theyve focused on the interoperable file formats, and what data and detail *should* be in the *neutral format* model. Thats a far cry from what the NCS stood to do, which was actually standardize what was in the deliverable, and how it was represented. Could that ever be done for BIM? Sure.

Doors are a perfect example. Im sure no two offices using revit have doors configured the same way. nested Panels, Nested frames, No nests at all, shared parameters, etc. The same approach of the NCS, driven to BIM and revit, would be for THEM to standardize application specific things like parameters, family file structures, etc.

I dont see it as a good thing OR a bad thing, its just a thing. NCS didnt always have the BEST solution, they just had A solution, and many people followed it. it would be the same thing.

[jcoe]

We have based our standards here on the NCS, at least as far as Revit will allow. Inevitably, you will have to make some concessions. This is no different than any other design software I've used.

I think Aaron has touched on an important point with his door illustration though. I think standards need and should be confined to the end product. Each office has and will develop a method to model content that best suits their practice. Trying to standardize on the process, file naming, file locations....is like telling someone they have to like the same foods as you.

As Revit infiltrates the design profession more, I think more light will be shed on the subject - especially as the user base/ experience expands. And like any standard, each office will try to make it their own, because one size does not fit all.

[twiceroadsfool]

I think Aaron has touched on an important point with his door illustration though. I think standards need and should be confined to the end product. Each office has and will develop a method to model content that best suits their practice. Trying to standardize on the process, file naming, file locations....is like telling someone they have to like the same foods as you.

You have to see the flip side to that argument, though. I think the NBIMS heading in that direction would be a GREAT thing for Revit users everywhere. Lack of FINITE standardization is the reason there are no GOOD content sites out there. Good luck purchasing or downloading a door family and then getting it to work in YOUR office CUSTOM door schedule. Not without a headache. Imagine if they WERE telling us what Shared Parameters to use, what file structure for door families, what methods, etc.

Suddenly Seek, and Revit City, and content sharing could have some viability. Instead of going to Seek and finding content that is "high quality" (meaning they filled in the URL for the sales company :rollseyes you could go to seek and search for "NBIMS certified" and KNOW that door works exactly with your schedule.

Its one of the reasons im all for content sharing. The more of us that start to do things exactly the same way, the easier it is to find content.

[jsnyder.68308]

You have to see the flip side to that argument, though. I think the NBIMS heading in that direction would be a GREAT thing for Revit users everywhere. Lack of FINITE standardization is the reason there are no GOOD content sites out there. Good luck purchasing or downloading a door family and then getting it to work in YOUR office CUSTOM door schedule. Not without a headache. Imagine if they WERE telling us what Shared Parameters to use, what file structure for door families, what methods, etc.

Suddenly Seek, and Revit City, and content sharing could have some viability. Instead of going to Seek and finding content that is "high quality" (meaning they filled in the URL for the sales company :rollseyes you could go to seek and search for "NBIMS certified" and KNOW that door works exactly with your schedule.

Its one of the reasons im all for content sharing. The more of us that start to do things exactly the same way, the easier it is to find content.

I completely agree with this. In the context of the OP's original question (sorry for getting this off-track MAM), I am all for adoptiing a standard so everyone can quit debating the merits of a particular size or shape of interior elevation bug and worry more about the things we actually get paid for worrying about. This is why I am a huge supporter of the NCS - not because I "like" how our documents look when our people choose to follow them.

BIM standards are at least an order of magnitude more complex than CAD standards, and at least an order of magnitude more time consuming to deal with. If we can all agree to use the same symbology, organization and format of our documents, imagine how much time and effort we could all save if a door or an air handler in Revit had a standard set of functions and parameters for everyone to use.

[Valkin]

I want to thank everyone who has posted so far. The National CAD Standard right now does a good job of defining what the paper drawing should look like. The NCS begins to touch on items that I would call CAD standards, things that happen behind the paper.
The National BIM Standard is getting ready to start the process for creating the 2nd version of the NBIMS, and I think version does a good job at defining the interoperability goals of BIM. There are a couple of things I think the NCS or NBIMS should address, that would help organize the information, that think some of you have touched on.

1 being object naming conventions, and another being, file naming conventions. I'm kind of at a loss though if the NCS should handel this or it should be the NBIMS.

[mwaychoff.244065]

Over the years I have learned that:
The most effective CAD Standards were always those that were built as a reflection of a solid Graphics Standards.
Whether I was working for a Harvard GSD professor in Boston or a national McMansion home builder I always started with what was intended on the printed page first then built up what ever content and programming was necessary to achieve this in the most efficient way possible.

There are two take aways from this:
1/ this is precisely what is missing in the NCS (although I hear a rumor that v5 may finally contain a blocks library for the first time) and
2/ perhaps this approach can inform us as to how to proceed with developing NBIMS

Taking the statement from above and modifying it a bit and forecasting out a few years we might just find ourselves saying something like:
The most effective BIM Standards were always those that were built as a reflection of a solid Objects Standards.

There are two take aways from this:
1/ this is precisely what is missing in the NBIMS (although I hear a rumor that v2 may finally contain a LOD requirement for the first time) and
2/ perhaps this approach can inform us as to how to proceed with developing [insert next discipline/dimension/lifecycle stage/etc... here]

Whether we are working on a simple tenant fit-out or a new federal courthouse building we should always start with what was intended in our data sharing workflow first then build up what ever content and programming is necessary to achieve this in the most efficient way possible.

re: a buildingSMART IDM for Revit Family development:
I personally like what "Rick Jannott" <rick@arcat.com> is doing embracing OmniClass and generating consistent GUIDs for object components.

re: any given buildingSMART MVD:
i also am a staunch advocate of XML based solutions rather than true IFC. combining agcXML, COBIE, IFCxml, and the like gets me excited about the possibilities. but i am uncertain how technical NBIMS should get and how many reference doc.s it should...well...reference.

[twiceroadsfool]

Over the years I have learned that:
The most effective CAD Standards were always those that were built as a reflection of a solid Graphics Standards.
Whether I was working for a Harvard GSD professor in Boston or a national McMansion home builder I always started with what was intended on the printed page first then built up what ever content and programming was necessary to achieve this in the most efficient way possible.

Thats also becuase over the years, we were all DRAWING. Its still important whats on the printed paper, but if the GOAL is eventually to turn over an Information Model, the system cant be driven by whats on a sheet of paper.

There are two take aways from this:
1/ this is precisely what is missing in the NCS (although I hear a rumor that v5 may finally contain a blocks library for the first time) and
2/ perhaps this approach can inform us as to how to proceed with developing NBIMS

Huh? 3.1 and 4.0 both came with entire Block Libraries. But they only covered SOME of the symbology, and even then they didnt address a lot of ambiguous references.

Taking the statement from above and modifying it a bit and forecasting out a few years we might just find ourselves saying something like:
The most effective BIM Standards were always those that were built as a reflection of a solid Objects Standards.

There are two take aways from this:
1/ this is precisely what is missing in the NBIMS (although I hear a rumor that v2 may finally contain a LOD requirement for the first time) and
2/ perhaps this approach can inform us as to how to proceed with developing [insert next discipline/dimension/lifecycle stage/etc... here]

I understand that this is the "direction" that v1 of the NBIMS went. Its all about the interoperability, which is "fantastic," except its the cart before the horse.

Whether we are working on a simple tenant fit-out or a new federal courthouse building we should always start with what was intended in our data sharing workflow first then build up what ever content and programming is necessary to achieve this in the most efficient way possible.

re: a buildingSMART IDM for Revit Family development:
I personally like what "Rick Jannott" <rick@arcat.com> is doing embracing OmniClass and generating consistent GUIDs for object components.

re: any given buildingSMART MVD:
i also am a staunch advocate of XML based solutions rather than true IFC. combining agcXML, COBIE, IFCxml, and the like gets me excited about the possibilities. but i am uncertain how technical NBIMS should get and how many reference doc.s it should...well...reference.

The trouble with all of this, is it only references what happens AFTER the model is built. If the entire premise of BIM is a smarter, better, less releared, less reworked, more up front process, we need to be sharing on the FRONT end. And until someone comes out and says "Here is the standard for .rfa, the standard for .prt, the standard for ...." then were talking about theory and hypothetical *it would be nice if's...*