Robot Millennium

[A3D]

1. Anyone using Robot Millennium? The demo looks very promising
2. Any chance to export a Revit model to Robot? (skipping Revit Structures?)

At the moment I can't really see so much of a need for RS.
If you use a structural program that is able to output structural plans, than RS is nothing more than an expensive translator.

I have a lot of doubts and I don't know anyone using RS. Is RS so much different from Revit?

I appreciate any clarification. Sorry if the thread is off topic.

[Paul Andersen]

Robot is not a link that we are currently testing at our firm but I agree that at first glance it looks pretty good.

The primary difference between RB and RS is that RS builds an analytical model while you are creating the graphical model. The analytical model can then be passed to an analysis package such as Robot which will size the members and update the RS model.

The real benefit of RS and its links to analysis packages is that it eliminates the need to develop redundant models. Create the RS model and you have a seamless link between your analysis package and your construction documents. While several analytical packages can produce plans, elevations, and even some detailing I personally have not seen one capable of producing construction documents at the level of quality and coordination that RS can.

The next step would be for RS to start linking to fabricators software either directly or through common file formats. RS could then be leveraged to produce the fabricator's shop drawings.

If part of your question is will RB talk to Robot or any of the other analytical packages out there the simple answer is no. RB does not build or store information pertaining to an analytical model.

[A3D]

If part of your question is will RB talk to Robot or any of the other analytical packages out there the simple answer is no. RB does not build or store information pertaining to an analytical model.

Thanks Paul, that's exactly I needed to know.
I was puzzled by the fact that in RB some structural elements do have some analytical properties (top/bottom release, analytical projection planes, etc.)

[david_peterson]

The real benefit of RS and its links to analysis packages is that it eliminates the need to develop redundant models. Create the RS model and you have a seamless link between your analysis package and your construction documents.

Paul, What do you mean by seamless? I still haven't seen much of a benefit yet because you have to do all of you modeling in RS. Here's the question, I'll ask it again. Can you modify the analytical model in E-tabs and have the changes be reflected in RS when you re-import. I still haven't seen anything other than beam sizes be able to be changed.
If you start a model in RS, you have to set the beam spacing. How do yo know what the beam spacing will be in a bay before you analyze it? This seems like reverse engineering. I think it would be a lot better if you can create a "Bay" of beams, not set the spacing or the size so you when send it to be analyzed, you can optimize spacing and beam size, and deflection requirements. When we do lab buildings they have very specific requirements for deflection and vibration. You can't just guess what the spacing will be. So when you do send it to E-tabs, or Risa, you should be able to re space beams and have it sent back to RS. What I'm still unsure of is where the problem lies. Can RS not take the info that Risa is sending it? I Know that an analytical model is really nothing more that a super glorified spreadsheet of 3d points and formulas.
Until these programs can have info sent both ways, you're going to have to draw your model twice anyway. Once to send the info to be Analyzed, and once after you find out that your beam spacing changed. Don't get me wrong, I love the Idea. But I'm still waiting for it to be real. I feel like I've been sold a Porch and given a Geo. (No offense to Geo)

[Paul Andersen]

David,

I believe that some of the catch phrases or terminology being thrown around these days are ambiguous at best and down right misleading at their worst. My use of seamless, without further elaboration, is a prime example of this and I thank you for calling me on it. I meant seamless with respect to what RS's current capabilities are: Build a graphical / analytical model in RS, pass the model with or without loads to an analysis package which sizes the members appropriately and updates the RS model and thus the construction documents. That being said I don't believe that most people are intentionally using any of these terms to oversell RS's current capabilities or intentionally mislead anyone.

I'm a firm believer that there is always room for improvement and the links between RS and other software packages are no exception. You've highlighted one such area of improvement. That being said I believe a lot can currently be accomplished with subtle changes in workflow. I realize that subtle is a subjective term and may be a major change to others. For example: I would argue that with little direction an RS user could develop a building model that can be leveraged for construction documents and analysis in less time, and with greater accuracy and the ability to show and share information in more ways than can currently be achieved in any alternative. That time and ability combined with the time saved in not having to develop and maintain separate analytical and graphical models could then be partially used to direct the RS user to re space the bays and then reexport the model for another round of analysis. Even several iterations of this should not equal the time already saved overall and your construction documents are that much further along earlier in the game. I'm not challenging the validity of the features you request but rather offering another way to look at it until those features are incorporated.

In short I'm all for more functionality and eagerly look forward to the new features in the next release. I also believe that it's up to the end users to let the developer's of RS and the software that it links to know what is important to us so it can be made a priority and incorporated. I suppose that the fact that the model should start in RS can be viewed as a downfall. I would rather look at it as a necessary workflow shift to take full advantage of the best current technology has to offer.

[Scott D Davis]

Here's the question, I'll ask it again. Can you modify the analytical model in E-tabs and have the changes be reflected in RS when you re-import.

No. E-TABS is for analysis only. E-tabs itself will change the model in analysis, which will update the Revit model. (not sure about beam spacing, but as you said, beam sizes will update) But you cannot work in E-tabs and have that reflected in the model.