We are a small landscape architecture practice looking to transition from AutoCAD to a BIM software platform.
Our projects range from small residential gardens, spec and custom homes, public parks to urban design, subdivision and land use planning, commercial site design, streets/streetscape, signage, etc.--A pretty broad range.
We are looking for software that will facilitate our role in the collaborative design process with architects (using revit and archicad) as well as civils (using civil3D) and other consultants using mostly AutoCAD.
We are particularly interested in Vectorworks Landmark for its terrain and topography modeling. We would like be able to develop grading designs and analysis before handing off to the civil for engineering and architect for coordination.
We already work in 3d quite a bit and render in other programs.
Have you worked with landscape architects using VW? Any problems with file exchange?
Does your firm work in VW? What are the advantages/disadvantages over Revit or Archicad?
Used vectorworks awhile back and I thought it was shitty. Not sure how it plugs back into a Revit model...probably not well, assuming the best you can do is a CAD export from vectorworks and import that into Revit loosing all the BIM functionality and parametric properties of your model to interface with the rest of the team. All of this is assuming that the architect, structural engineer, MEP are all on Revit, from what I can tell, this is where it is all heading.
That being said, Revit sucks at topo modification, there are many gripes about this and Autodesk sells some plugins to make the process more streamlined, they are also trying to sell their civil software, which I think is just a way to make more money, by not including those tools in the standard revit architecture package. But you can get it done...its just not great.
Personal opinion, if you are doing sculptural landscape work, lots of grade changes, retaining walls, and built features, it would be great to interface in a BIM environment, however if all you are doing is a planting and irrigation plan on a flat site, not so much. I guess it all just depends on how much you are "building".
I think the biggest question would be for you in-house....Can making the transition streamline your work, make revisions easier, cutting back on time needed on each project or not, if so, go for it. Either way, the future of the practice will all be going 3d, so you can do it now, or be forced to do it later.
I don't know if what we do is 'sculptural' per se, but it is landscape architecture--meaning, we typically grade the site, layout hardscape and paving including retaining walls, driveways, parking areas, sreets, and sidewalks. We also do a fair amount of streetscape and road design, lotting plans, building siting, and planting layout. There is certainly a z-factor involved in most all of the work we do.
As far as I can tell, VW 2014/2015 uses IFC files for sharing models (the BIM standard), so why would VW be different than any other BIM platform in terms of file sharing?
Is it possible/relatively intuitive to set up an origin (ensuring your VW model aligns with a consultants Revit model)? Or am I missing something?
The reason we are attracted to VW is their focus on Landscape with Landmark--The interface seems to support an extensive library of plants and trees, as well as terrain modeling and analysis features, etc.
dunno...I can't really comment with any real authority because I haven't done that specific file transfer (VW to revit), but I know that all these BIM programs want to be proprietary, thus, making file transfers between different softwares clunky, presumably on purpose. All I can say is that industry standard is going to revit despite what any others would say. Even if you go with VW, it is probably not a bad idea to get a seat of revit to test some of the transfer issue out with before you feed your files back to the project team. I know that the same transfer from 2d VW to 2d CAD was sucky, if that is any indicator.
As much as I want to move us into BIM, it seems like both Revit, VW, and Civil 3D have major pitfalls for LA's. We really need a combination of all three, but each has way more computing power than we need. I need terrain modeling, Site Information Modeling, Planting Library, and vertical construction modeling.
For the time being we may stick with Acad and sketchup, and rely on some of the added sketchup BIM interoperability features in the latest release. Hopefully a developer reads some of these posts...theres a growing demand for site BIM (SIM) not being met..
And here I am drawing everything parametrically using multiple software and getting paid like an intern if only architects knew what is coming boy its going to be a disaster.
sorry, don't want to derail... personally, I don't see an issue with an LA being in the same BIM program we use (Revit).
I really just need a good looking background file in plan and an accurate mesh for any of your grading elements.
That being said, it sounds like your jumping through hoops to integrate with someone elses model in some sort of live magical parametric environment. It's not that necessary from my perspective. The architect doesn't really care about how many rhododendrons or how much top soil you have. (Maybe somebody wants to do takeoffs, but I'm more than likely going to ask you to give me the info.) Bottom line is, a majority of that information is for you and your use and to help you design. So, if it benefits you to use VW over Civil3D or Revit, than do it.
With IFC and other exports, you will be able to get to something you can coordinate with. It will take some trial and error, but where there's a will there's a way. That being said, maybe people have played with the IFC exports from VW and will advise to stay away. But someone (contractor, architect, owner), should be able to get at the information provided you model it with those people and objects in mind.
Also, I would love it if Revit / Civil3d had a baby and created a tool for LA's, or at least site of easy to use site design tools that architects can use too. The current set of tools are pretty brutal. Just some magical Drape/Hardscape/Site Drainage magic button would be great. Thanks.
I'm not trying to appease the architect--I view it as a design tool and streamlining workflow + being part of the IDP process which most of the architects around here neglect anyway..You may not care about however many rhododendrons I propose until we discover their height blocks a critical facade element, creates shading on a walkway that could lead to icing, conflicts with a storm pipe, etc, etc. Granted, most of these things can be worked out in plan, with good design analysis, but I think the idea of BIM is to move toward a more collaborative, quantifiable design process.
As it is, architects I work with tend to have a tendency to dismiss the value of good site and landscape design. I hate to advocate for an entire profession as mileage will surely vary from consultant to consultant, but LA's, in general, stand at a critical juncture between site/context and the built environment. It could be argued that LA's are the most 'generalist' of any of the consultants on a given project--current areas of practice incorporate larger scale planning concerns, ecology, site engineering, and an increasing interest in materials and vertical constructions. That isn't to say a well trained and experienced LA is fit to design a building--though a good LA can and should be involved wwith initial space planning, particularly as it concerns the site. After all, land and natural resources are becoming more scarce. Some LA's say they typically have two clients--the land and the owner/developer.
Unfortunately, the LA profession has a few things holding it back--
1. Historically, the LA profession has lagged 5-10 years behind Architecture in terms of technology and practice.
2. We are a much smaller market than Architects or Civils.
3. We are trending toward becoming generalists.
These three things I would suspect keep software developers from investing time and money in developing resources specifcially for Landscape Architects--like I said we could certainly utilize parts of Revit and some parts of Civil 3D, even some parts of straight CAD.
Believing that all LA's do is shrub up the building is an old way of thinking--granted there are still plenty of us out there willing to do that, but the profession is evolving rapidly. I wish the software would catch up--so far, it seems VW Landmark is the only purpose built software to date, but it's so completely different than cad and questionable in terms of how it will fit in with industry standards over the long run that the investment may not be worthwhile.
I have no idea what 'legopiece' is referring to above.
Landscape is more interesting and in many ways more challenging than architecture, but as a profession...man talk about BS protectionism. landscape designers have managed fine without the need for all the dumb title/practice protections. complete and utter joke. LA shot itself in the foot by following the retarded path that architects set. And funniest part about it is that the "Father of LA (olmstead) was a Landscape designer...
I'd say that topic deserves a whole new thread at some point--would love to discuss. I tend to agree with your point about protectionism. Personally, I try to avoid advocating for the entire profession as each and every LA you encounter may well have a very different set of strengths and skills. I don't know if LA is any more or less interesting or challenging than Architecture--my only point was that landscape encompasses much more than planting design and in fact can be quite complex, perhaps rivaling the complexity of a building.
I must be in an area filled with half-wits because I find myself constantly defending our profession. Ironically, we are in a particular area of the world where the larger landscape may well be the number one reason the place is so enticing.
As far as Olmsted, he wasn't a 'Landscape Architect' because there really was no such thing at the time. Its a very young profession compared to Architecture, yet at the same time you could easily make the argument that some form of landscape architecture has been around since the dawn of man.
In terms of licensing and 'BS protectionism'--I'd like to think that the most capable designer would get the work, regardless of credentials, but the fact of the matter is we need some protection and what we have now may still not be enough as the civils in particular have been trying to relegate LA's to botany for decades. In fact, if you look at some of Olmsted's early titleblocks you'll see that they actually referred to themselves as 'Landscape Engineers' early on--Many of the modern day urban planning programs stemmed from what could arguably be construed as the realm of landscape architecture--check out some of Olmsted's early community plans such as Riverside in Chicago.
oh, sorry, i think i was a little misread. I didn't mean to say that you can't or you shouldn't collaborate with us in the same way a mechanical engineer (as an example) does. I guess I'm more on the side that what we do with a mechanical engineer in Revit isn't all that special in some ways or more involved than what I stated above. Sure there's energy analysis or takeoffs where we are relying on the data in someone elses model, but someone still has to model it, model it accurately, and model it with the intent of what will be extracted from it. The choice of software is kind of secondary.
So, my idea of saying, I don't need to know your quantities, is more in line with I don't need to know the CFM's of the mechanical equipment.
And, I certainly don't mean to discount the value of LA's! I wholeheartedly agree with your entire second paragraph and am totally on board with the idea that LA's are underserved by the software community.
And my idea of a magic button is so that I can get something, anything, into my models at the early conceptual stages of projects where we might not have an LA on board.
So, the idea of a BIM like program for landscape is good but I have always found it very difficult-impossible to create good computer landscape renders...Just seems like a mixed media of modeling, photoshop and hand drawing are the best way to render landscapes...And to keep plans CAD. Plants have complex geometries and the number of plants needed in a typical LA plan (besides all the hardscape, fountains, walls, grading, etc...) would likely lead to really really large and slow files when viewing in 3-D. Its probably a matter of computing limits.... for now anyway.
If you haven't already seen my blog, landarchBIM.com, I would recommend checking it out.
To address your original question, I have not heard great things about VW, particularly in regards to collaborating across platforms, though I do not have much experience with VW personally.
Obviously my blog has a bit of a Revit slant, but I try to be pretty open-minded about all of the BIM options out there. From what I have seen, the firms that are serious about using BIM in the landscape (and those that work on larger projects) are using Revit. There are a couple reasons, the first being that so many other disciplines are using it, which makes collaboration a lot easier. But another big reason is that it seems to handle data and information well. Modeling can obviously be more of a challenge, but there is no perfect software out there yet.
I have also looked into ArchiCAD briefly and they are also severely underdeveloped in the landscape tools- perhaps even more so than Revit.
There are also people out there who would recommend C3D with various landscape plug-ins. But again, the data and information is much more limited in AutoCAD.
I'd be happy to discuss further over email, if you wanted. Cheers!
You might want to consider test riding both Revit and Civil 3d on a single experiment. Both have their problems with respect to landscape architecture, but that way you'll get a sense of the autodesk option.
Also keep in mind that those applications are structured around lisences and not seats. Depending on the office income you may want to consider an alternative like rhino with rhinobim. It's not the ideal solution, but a software maintenance/update budget sound better than inserting software into your operational expenses.
Look back in history more. AJ Downing wrote one of the earliest treatises calling for landscape design as a specialty. Olmsted couldn't be a landscape architect because he had not created the title yet,
Also look at the definitions of engenders, architects and landscape architects on your states Board of Professions site. Look at the language and note the exclusions and how the responsibilities are described. There are good examples of protectionism.
Hey! I was starting to think I was the only landscape architect here.
As for an update on our la bim experiment, we have essentially abandoned vectorworks as a viable option. As suspected, the interface and work flow are just too foreign for our acad minds. I ALS felt the functionality of the tools and sheet setup is a bit clunky. Then, there is the whole question of interoperability.
On the other hand, we have absolutely fallen in love with rhino and in just a couple weeks of tinkering have essentially replaced our sketchup workflow with rhino and vray. I was already quite familiar with vray for sketchup, so it was nice to see that the interface is essentially identical in rhino. I've had to get used to uvw mapping, setting sun, etc but I'm really digging it. I especially love rhinos ability to model essentially anything. In particular, the t splines plugin looks very interesting. We have been starting to amass a library of xfrog trees and plants as well and using vray proxies, though we have yet to see how these elements affect interoperability with bim platforms. In fact we have yet to encounter a need to share our 3d site/ planting work as most of our projects lately have been very small scale. However, I look forward to utilizing rhino as a bim tool.
from reading archinect and other resources, it seems many archs prefer modeling in rhino and documenting in revit or another program. I could see this as a possibility in our future, granted our small office keeps getting better, more complex projects. I understand there are some plugins to make rhino itself a documentation tool...this is very interesting to us as rhino seems like a perfect blend of sketchup, cad, and an urbs modeler like max.
Interesting times nonetheless. Perhaps we should get a group going or correspondence chain via email?
I love this thread. I work in landscape as well - this is a question that gets asked around the office every now and then. There's never any really good answer so far.
We do a lot of site installations and have been using grasshopper+rhino to model landforms and installations so far. It's fine, just a bit clunky to use for people who aren't familiar. I'd love to see a good landscape modelling / grading / build-up software that's easy to adopt. To generate accurate sections & details in a complex landscape? Super handy. It would also be easier for new people to jump into and get their heads around if the project could be modelled all in one space rather than having to go through every plan (layout, grading, planting, earthworks, stormwater, blah blah blah) to make sense of things.
It would also make my life coordinating with civil so much easier if we could generate all the grading constraints and show in 3D instead of cutting sections everywhere and moving slope arrows around on a plan.
Given the potential complexities of site conditions, you can't set elevations in a manner similar to architecture (and we won't speak of micro climate versus climate control), so revit can be a bear. But there is a lack of "design" as landscape architects understand it embedded in how Civil 3d works.
I know that Mithun uses Revit exclusively for their landscape architecture work, so its totally possible to BIM up the landscape architecture process.
But a desire to not do things "the old school way" is insufficient to make the switch. What, exactly, will a BIM program do for you as a practice? Revit is not flexible. It has one way to do things. Do you want your process to become the Revit process? Are you doing complex projects with where you have to coordinate with civil, geotech, wetland consultants, as well as with the architect? Are these people also using BIM? Which piece of software, specifically, are they using?
In our office we use Autocad with a large dynamic block library, Rhino+Grashopper for 3D work, and RhinoTerrain. Rhino doesn't have "BIMieness" but its an order of magnitude better than any BIM software for modeling. The developer, McNeel, has great support and actually gives a shit about their clients/introduces meaningful changes in each version, which is more than I can say about Autodesk. Grasshopper also lets you pull GIS and LIDAR data, which is awesome.
'not doing things the old school way' means saving a shit ton of time and mental energy not modeling in tandem to drafting/documenting--exploring design options in 3D while working toward a construction set.
Some of our consultants use BIM some do not. The consultants we work with most have been using archicad. We give them cad, and a sketchup model--they remodel our site and grading into archicad. When changes are made we have to fuss with archicad floor plans and civil 3d topo in cad and start the process all over again, huge waste of time.
We have rhino--used it for a while, but couldnt justify it over the simplicity of sketchup and vray. Maybe Im just used to that workflow.
As I see it spot elevations are not contours and contours are not profiles but they all are used to drive surface making. None of these behave like floor levels, given that you are constantly playing with slopes. Not to mention volume calculations matter with respect to soil cut/fill and run off calculations. And yes- plant silhouettes and isovist analysis.
I've been fighting with Grasshopper for several months now, trying to get a sense of the issues. The are a number of people out there poking around looking at this very issue and posting on the grasshopper community page for landscape. My desire is to get back into autodesk products and dynamo in the nearish future (read: 5 years given my schedule) to compare the two.
Landscape architect here wondering if there are any updates to this thread from the LAs posting? Did any of you end up transitioning to Revit, or Vectorworks for that matter?
cool thread... I'm an architect not a LA, but have worked closely with some very good LA firms who are also on the front foot with technology.
I can't think of any that use Revit. Most common combination I've seen is Vectorworks (2d only), then workflow is vectorworks export .dwg to rhino, model up in rhino at correct levels etc. Then rendering in rhino if you really need to, or better 3ds max, or cinema 4d with vray. Lot's of LA's using forrest pack and railclone in 3ds max.
Even from the architecture front- I don't know any firms that seriously use revit at the design stage (well, not any good ones...) so something of a fib that you can use the one bit of software to do everything... Rhino and revit are a popular combo in my neck of the woods, with 3ds max king for rendering.
As far as I can recall, I've only used landscape models as backgrounds in either revit or rhino etc for a bit of a clash/fill in the blanks type thing. There are some good workflows to get rhino geometry into revit cleanly, and has been used for co-ordination. In my last office, we imported rhino models in to revit regularly at the start of a project, then slowly replace with revit geometry.
There is a good way to get revit models cleanly into rhino also, not as a native revit file but an export (iges from memory with a few options gives you editable rhino nurbs geom). Handy for setting levels etc.
I have not had the time I would have hoped to work on this directly, but I have been interested in rhino/grasshopper workflows. I'm particularly interested in the flexibility of nurb surfaces to reflect the need for a flexible approach to topography. You can also prepare BIM model outputs (as mentioned), but I have not explored that at all.
It's also part of a speculation about small office workflows. One piece of software that is not perfect, but is an open platform when compared to civil 3-D and can applied across a range of outputs - some of which have already been mentioned.
When you say NURBS for topo modelling, I would say it is less accurate compared to mesh. NURBS has it's own mind, as compared to curve profile modelling then mesh generation with grasshopper. Mesh has more accuracy and more sculpted look. Visit this website for GH script.
We ended up purchasing a vector orbs landmark license and using it on three or four projects, mainly residential and commercial invoice with Architects using archicad and civils using civil 3d.
Vw is getting close, but the interface and way the tools functioned or didn't function and the consistency was driving me crazy so we ditched and went back to more of a traditional cad, SketchUp workflow last spring.
It is still bewildering to me that Autodesk doesn't have some sort of la-oriented platform or even set of useful plugins
AutoDesk abandoned the earlier landscape related software - my guess is ROI was too low. Looking at their main markets, LAs aren't even close in volume and financial backing.
I get it completely. However, someone should recognize that all LA's really need is a solid, reliable and accurate grading/contouring tool, plant and tree library. If there were a plugin with those components that could be bundled in with a light civil 3d or revit lt platform that might be a good place to start. Doesnt seem like it would be a big investment on their end, more that they probably dont understand (like the rest of the world) what modern LA's do.
There is a great deal of customisation that can be done with AutoCAD Civil 3D and its API document available from Autodesk for customisation. I would imagine with the right investment of time and expertise a Landscape catalogue of components could be developed as parametric/civil objects at an appropriate LOD.
We often see Revit models incorporating detailed site designs linked in from Civil 3D models for Civil engineers. Landscape Architects can make use of the same processes for site design, grading and quantities. In Civil 3D, relational databases can be linked to the survey module where 2D Planting library components can be added with metadata.
The strong link with AutoCAD as a base creates a good starting block for Landscape Architects to leverage both Civil 3D and Revit with the appropriate custom templates, workflows and processes.
When we consider CDE's like Bentley ProjectWise, or even cloud based CDE's like Autodesk BIM 360 Design or Document Management for team collaboration, these 3D BIM platforms are already a gamechanger. Upskilling in custom specific training for Landscape Architects are much needed first.
Nov 2, 20 10:38 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
BIM for Landscape
We are a small landscape architecture practice looking to transition from AutoCAD to a BIM software platform.
Our projects range from small residential gardens, spec and custom homes, public parks to urban design, subdivision and land use planning, commercial site design, streets/streetscape, signage, etc.--A pretty broad range.
We are looking for software that will facilitate our role in the collaborative design process with architects (using revit and archicad) as well as civils (using civil3D) and other consultants using mostly AutoCAD.
We are particularly interested in Vectorworks Landmark for its terrain and topography modeling. We would like be able to develop grading designs and analysis before handing off to the civil for engineering and architect for coordination.
We already work in 3d quite a bit and render in other programs.
Have you worked with landscape architects using VW? Any problems with file exchange?
Does your firm work in VW? What are the advantages/disadvantages over Revit or Archicad?
Do you see value in your LA consultant using BIM?
Thanks!
Used vectorworks awhile back and I thought it was shitty. Not sure how it plugs back into a Revit model...probably not well, assuming the best you can do is a CAD export from vectorworks and import that into Revit loosing all the BIM functionality and parametric properties of your model to interface with the rest of the team. All of this is assuming that the architect, structural engineer, MEP are all on Revit, from what I can tell, this is where it is all heading.
That being said, Revit sucks at topo modification, there are many gripes about this and Autodesk sells some plugins to make the process more streamlined, they are also trying to sell their civil software, which I think is just a way to make more money, by not including those tools in the standard revit architecture package. But you can get it done...its just not great.
Personal opinion, if you are doing sculptural landscape work, lots of grade changes, retaining walls, and built features, it would be great to interface in a BIM environment, however if all you are doing is a planting and irrigation plan on a flat site, not so much. I guess it all just depends on how much you are "building".
I think the biggest question would be for you in-house....Can making the transition streamline your work, make revisions easier, cutting back on time needed on each project or not, if so, go for it. Either way, the future of the practice will all be going 3d, so you can do it now, or be forced to do it later.
I don't know if what we do is 'sculptural' per se, but it is landscape architecture--meaning, we typically grade the site, layout hardscape and paving including retaining walls, driveways, parking areas, sreets, and sidewalks. We also do a fair amount of streetscape and road design, lotting plans, building siting, and planting layout. There is certainly a z-factor involved in most all of the work we do.
As far as I can tell, VW 2014/2015 uses IFC files for sharing models (the BIM standard), so why would VW be different than any other BIM platform in terms of file sharing?
Is it possible/relatively intuitive to set up an origin (ensuring your VW model aligns with a consultants Revit model)? Or am I missing something?
The reason we are attracted to VW is their focus on Landscape with Landmark--The interface seems to support an extensive library of plants and trees, as well as terrain modeling and analysis features, etc.
dunno...I can't really comment with any real authority because I haven't done that specific file transfer (VW to revit), but I know that all these BIM programs want to be proprietary, thus, making file transfers between different softwares clunky, presumably on purpose. All I can say is that industry standard is going to revit despite what any others would say. Even if you go with VW, it is probably not a bad idea to get a seat of revit to test some of the transfer issue out with before you feed your files back to the project team. I know that the same transfer from 2d VW to 2d CAD was sucky, if that is any indicator.
I'm waffling.
As much as I want to move us into BIM, it seems like both Revit, VW, and Civil 3D have major pitfalls for LA's. We really need a combination of all three, but each has way more computing power than we need. I need terrain modeling, Site Information Modeling, Planting Library, and vertical construction modeling.
For the time being we may stick with Acad and sketchup, and rely on some of the added sketchup BIM interoperability features in the latest release. Hopefully a developer reads some of these posts...theres a growing demand for site BIM (SIM) not being met..
And here I am drawing everything parametrically using multiple software and getting paid like an intern if only architects knew what is coming boy its going to be a disaster.
what's coming lego? will architects no longer be the ones designing buildings?
president business!?
sorry, don't want to derail... personally, I don't see an issue with an LA being in the same BIM program we use (Revit).
I really just need a good looking background file in plan and an accurate mesh for any of your grading elements.
That being said, it sounds like your jumping through hoops to integrate with someone elses model in some sort of live magical parametric environment. It's not that necessary from my perspective. The architect doesn't really care about how many rhododendrons or how much top soil you have. (Maybe somebody wants to do takeoffs, but I'm more than likely going to ask you to give me the info.) Bottom line is, a majority of that information is for you and your use and to help you design. So, if it benefits you to use VW over Civil3D or Revit, than do it.
With IFC and other exports, you will be able to get to something you can coordinate with. It will take some trial and error, but where there's a will there's a way. That being said, maybe people have played with the IFC exports from VW and will advise to stay away. But someone (contractor, architect, owner), should be able to get at the information provided you model it with those people and objects in mind.
Also, I would love it if Revit / Civil3d had a baby and created a tool for LA's, or at least site of easy to use site design tools that architects can use too. The current set of tools are pretty brutal. Just some magical Drape/Hardscape/Site Drainage magic button would be great. Thanks.
Postal--
I'm not trying to appease the architect--I view it as a design tool and streamlining workflow + being part of the IDP process which most of the architects around here neglect anyway..You may not care about however many rhododendrons I propose until we discover their height blocks a critical facade element, creates shading on a walkway that could lead to icing, conflicts with a storm pipe, etc, etc. Granted, most of these things can be worked out in plan, with good design analysis, but I think the idea of BIM is to move toward a more collaborative, quantifiable design process.
As it is, architects I work with tend to have a tendency to dismiss the value of good site and landscape design. I hate to advocate for an entire profession as mileage will surely vary from consultant to consultant, but LA's, in general, stand at a critical juncture between site/context and the built environment. It could be argued that LA's are the most 'generalist' of any of the consultants on a given project--current areas of practice incorporate larger scale planning concerns, ecology, site engineering, and an increasing interest in materials and vertical constructions. That isn't to say a well trained and experienced LA is fit to design a building--though a good LA can and should be involved wwith initial space planning, particularly as it concerns the site. After all, land and natural resources are becoming more scarce. Some LA's say they typically have two clients--the land and the owner/developer.
Unfortunately, the LA profession has a few things holding it back--
1. Historically, the LA profession has lagged 5-10 years behind Architecture in terms of technology and practice.
2. We are a much smaller market than Architects or Civils.
3. We are trending toward becoming generalists.
These three things I would suspect keep software developers from investing time and money in developing resources specifcially for Landscape Architects--like I said we could certainly utilize parts of Revit and some parts of Civil 3D, even some parts of straight CAD.
Believing that all LA's do is shrub up the building is an old way of thinking--granted there are still plenty of us out there willing to do that, but the profession is evolving rapidly. I wish the software would catch up--so far, it seems VW Landmark is the only purpose built software to date, but it's so completely different than cad and questionable in terms of how it will fit in with industry standards over the long run that the investment may not be worthwhile.
I have no idea what 'legopiece' is referring to above.
Landscape is more interesting and in many ways more challenging than architecture, but as a profession...man talk about BS protectionism. landscape designers have managed fine without the need for all the dumb title/practice protections. complete and utter joke. LA shot itself in the foot by following the retarded path that architects set. And funniest part about it is that the "Father of LA (olmstead) was a Landscape designer...
Jlax--
I'd say that topic deserves a whole new thread at some point--would love to discuss. I tend to agree with your point about protectionism. Personally, I try to avoid advocating for the entire profession as each and every LA you encounter may well have a very different set of strengths and skills. I don't know if LA is any more or less interesting or challenging than Architecture--my only point was that landscape encompasses much more than planting design and in fact can be quite complex, perhaps rivaling the complexity of a building.
I must be in an area filled with half-wits because I find myself constantly defending our profession. Ironically, we are in a particular area of the world where the larger landscape may well be the number one reason the place is so enticing.
As far as Olmsted, he wasn't a 'Landscape Architect' because there really was no such thing at the time. Its a very young profession compared to Architecture, yet at the same time you could easily make the argument that some form of landscape architecture has been around since the dawn of man.
In terms of licensing and 'BS protectionism'--I'd like to think that the most capable designer would get the work, regardless of credentials, but the fact of the matter is we need some protection and what we have now may still not be enough as the civils in particular have been trying to relegate LA's to botany for decades. In fact, if you look at some of Olmsted's early titleblocks you'll see that they actually referred to themselves as 'Landscape Engineers' early on--Many of the modern day urban planning programs stemmed from what could arguably be construed as the realm of landscape architecture--check out some of Olmsted's early community plans such as Riverside in Chicago.
oh, sorry, i think i was a little misread. I didn't mean to say that you can't or you shouldn't collaborate with us in the same way a mechanical engineer (as an example) does. I guess I'm more on the side that what we do with a mechanical engineer in Revit isn't all that special in some ways or more involved than what I stated above. Sure there's energy analysis or takeoffs where we are relying on the data in someone elses model, but someone still has to model it, model it accurately, and model it with the intent of what will be extracted from it. The choice of software is kind of secondary.
So, my idea of saying, I don't need to know your quantities, is more in line with I don't need to know the CFM's of the mechanical equipment.
And, I certainly don't mean to discount the value of LA's! I wholeheartedly agree with your entire second paragraph and am totally on board with the idea that LA's are underserved by the software community.
And my idea of a magic button is so that I can get something, anything, into my models at the early conceptual stages of projects where we might not have an LA on board.
So, the idea of a BIM like program for landscape is good but I have always found it very difficult-impossible to create good computer landscape renders...Just seems like a mixed media of modeling, photoshop and hand drawing are the best way to render landscapes...And to keep plans CAD. Plants have complex geometries and the number of plants needed in a typical LA plan (besides all the hardscape, fountains, walls, grading, etc...) would likely lead to really really large and slow files when viewing in 3-D. Its probably a matter of computing limits.... for now anyway.
postal--
no problem, I think we're on the same page.
jlax--
This is true, plant geometry is a huge hindrance to good landscape modeling/rendering, but it's getting better along with computing power.
I have no problem rendering landscape in photoshop or another software. My primary goal is enhanced collaboration and design/documentation.
Hi Larchinect,
If you haven't already seen my blog, landarchBIM.com, I would recommend checking it out.
To address your original question, I have not heard great things about VW, particularly in regards to collaborating across platforms, though I do not have much experience with VW personally.
Obviously my blog has a bit of a Revit slant, but I try to be pretty open-minded about all of the BIM options out there. From what I have seen, the firms that are serious about using BIM in the landscape (and those that work on larger projects) are using Revit. There are a couple reasons, the first being that so many other disciplines are using it, which makes collaboration a lot easier. But another big reason is that it seems to handle data and information well. Modeling can obviously be more of a challenge, but there is no perfect software out there yet.
I have also looked into ArchiCAD briefly and they are also severely underdeveloped in the landscape tools- perhaps even more so than Revit.
There are also people out there who would recommend C3D with various landscape plug-ins. But again, the data and information is much more limited in AutoCAD.
I'd be happy to discuss further over email, if you wanted. Cheers!
@landarchBIM
Your blog is cool.
Nice trees.
I wish Revit had the same abilities and option fro landscaping as Vecorworks does,
Larchinect,
You might want to consider test riding both Revit and Civil 3d on a single experiment. Both have their problems with respect to landscape architecture, but that way you'll get a sense of the autodesk option.
Also keep in mind that those applications are structured around lisences and not seats. Depending on the office income you may want to consider an alternative like rhino with rhinobim. It's not the ideal solution, but a software maintenance/update budget sound better than inserting software into your operational expenses.
@jla-x,
Look back in history more. AJ Downing wrote one of the earliest treatises calling for landscape design as a specialty. Olmsted couldn't be a landscape architect because he had not created the title yet,
Also look at the definitions of engenders, architects and landscape architects on your states Board of Professions site. Look at the language and note the exclusions and how the responsibilities are described. There are good examples of protectionism.
Hey! I was starting to think I was the only landscape architect here.
As for an update on our la bim experiment, we have essentially abandoned vectorworks as a viable option. As suspected, the interface and work flow are just too foreign for our acad minds. I ALS felt the functionality of the tools and sheet setup is a bit clunky. Then, there is the whole question of interoperability.
On the other hand, we have absolutely fallen in love with rhino and in just a couple weeks of tinkering have essentially replaced our sketchup workflow with rhino and vray. I was already quite familiar with vray for sketchup, so it was nice to see that the interface is essentially identical in rhino. I've had to get used to uvw mapping, setting sun, etc but I'm really digging it. I especially love rhinos ability to model essentially anything. In particular, the t splines plugin looks very interesting. We have been starting to amass a library of xfrog trees and plants as well and using vray proxies, though we have yet to see how these elements affect interoperability with bim platforms. In fact we have yet to encounter a need to share our 3d site/ planting work as most of our projects lately have been very small scale. However, I look forward to utilizing rhino as a bim tool.
from reading archinect and other resources, it seems many archs prefer modeling in rhino and documenting in revit or another program. I could see this as a possibility in our future, granted our small office keeps getting better, more complex projects. I understand there are some plugins to make rhino itself a documentation tool...this is very interesting to us as rhino seems like a perfect blend of sketchup, cad, and an urbs modeler like max.
Interesting times nonetheless. Perhaps we should get a group going or correspondence chain via email?
Surely, there must be more "out there," but let's chat.
+++++
I love this thread. I work in landscape as well - this is a question that gets asked around the office every now and then. There's never any really good answer so far.
We do a lot of site installations and have been using grasshopper+rhino to model landforms and installations so far. It's fine, just a bit clunky to use for people who aren't familiar. I'd love to see a good landscape modelling / grading / build-up software that's easy to adopt. To generate accurate sections & details in a complex landscape? Super handy. It would also be easier for new people to jump into and get their heads around if the project could be modelled all in one space rather than having to go through every plan (layout, grading, planting, earthworks, stormwater, blah blah blah) to make sense of things.
It would also make my life coordinating with civil so much easier if we could generate all the grading constraints and show in 3D instead of cutting sections everywhere and moving slope arrows around on a plan.
It's a problem of the discipline.
Given the potential complexities of site conditions, you can't set elevations in a manner similar to architecture (and we won't speak of micro climate versus climate control), so revit can be a bear. But there is a lack of "design" as landscape architects understand it embedded in how Civil 3d works.
Any further investigation on this? Our small practice is getting busier and busier and tired of working the old school way.
Thinking about Archicad..thoughts??
I know that Mithun uses Revit exclusively for their landscape architecture work, so its totally possible to BIM up the landscape architecture process.
But a desire to not do things "the old school way" is insufficient to make the switch. What, exactly, will a BIM program do for you as a practice? Revit is not flexible. It has one way to do things. Do you want your process to become the Revit process? Are you doing complex projects with where you have to coordinate with civil, geotech, wetland consultants, as well as with the architect? Are these people also using BIM? Which piece of software, specifically, are they using?
In our office we use Autocad with a large dynamic block library, Rhino+Grashopper for 3D work, and RhinoTerrain. Rhino doesn't have "BIMieness" but its an order of magnitude better than any BIM software for modeling. The developer, McNeel, has great support and actually gives a shit about their clients/introduces meaningful changes in each version, which is more than I can say about Autodesk. Grasshopper also lets you pull GIS and LIDAR data, which is awesome.
-my 2c
'not doing things the old school way' means saving a shit ton of time and mental energy not modeling in tandem to drafting/documenting--exploring design options in 3D while working toward a construction set.
Some of our consultants use BIM some do not. The consultants we work with most have been using archicad. We give them cad, and a sketchup model--they remodel our site and grading into archicad. When changes are made we have to fuss with archicad floor plans and civil 3d topo in cad and start the process all over again, huge waste of time.
We have rhino--used it for a while, but couldnt justify it over the simplicity of sketchup and vray. Maybe Im just used to that workflow.
As I see it spot elevations are not contours and contours are not profiles but they all are used to drive surface making. None of these behave like floor levels, given that you are constantly playing with slopes. Not to mention volume calculations matter with respect to soil cut/fill and run off calculations. And yes- plant silhouettes and isovist analysis.
I've been fighting with Grasshopper for several months now, trying to get a sense of the issues. The are a number of people out there poking around looking at this very issue and posting on the grasshopper community page for landscape. My desire is to get back into autodesk products and dynamo in the nearish future (read: 5 years given my schedule) to compare the two.
Landscape architect here wondering if there are any updates to this thread from the LAs posting? Did any of you end up transitioning to Revit, or Vectorworks for that matter?
cool thread... I'm an architect not a LA, but have worked closely with some very good LA firms who are also on the front foot with technology.
I can't think of any that use Revit. Most common combination I've seen is Vectorworks (2d only), then workflow is vectorworks export .dwg to rhino, model up in rhino at correct levels etc. Then rendering in rhino if you really need to, or better 3ds max, or cinema 4d with vray. Lot's of LA's using forrest pack and railclone in 3ds max.
Even from the architecture front- I don't know any firms that seriously use revit at the design stage (well, not any good ones...) so something of a fib that you can use the one bit of software to do everything... Rhino and revit are a popular combo in my neck of the woods, with 3ds max king for rendering.
As far as I can recall, I've only used landscape models as backgrounds in either revit or rhino etc for a bit of a clash/fill in the blanks type thing. There are some good workflows to get rhino geometry into revit cleanly, and has been used for co-ordination. In my last office, we imported rhino models in to revit regularly at the start of a project, then slowly replace with revit geometry.
There is a good way to get revit models cleanly into rhino also, not as a native revit file but an export (iges from memory with a few options gives you editable rhino nurbs geom). Handy for setting levels etc.
I have not had the time I would have hoped to work on this directly, but I have been interested in rhino/grasshopper workflows. I'm particularly interested in the flexibility of nurb surfaces to reflect the need for a flexible approach to topography. You can also prepare BIM model outputs (as mentioned), but I have not explored that at all.
It's also part of a speculation about small office workflows. One piece of software that is not perfect, but is an open platform when compared to civil 3-D and can applied across a range of outputs - some of which have already been mentioned.
Not to mention-price…
When you say NURBS for topo modelling, I would say it is less accurate compared to mesh. NURBS has it's own mind, as compared to curve profile modelling then mesh generation with grasshopper. Mesh has more accuracy and more sculpted look. Visit this website for GH script.
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/g...
We ended up purchasing a vector orbs landmark license and using it on three or four projects, mainly residential and commercial invoice with Architects using archicad and civils using civil 3d.
Vw is getting close, but the interface and way the tools functioned or didn't function and the consistency was driving me crazy so we ditched and went back to more of a traditional cad, SketchUp workflow last spring.
It is still bewildering to me that Autodesk doesn't have some sort of la-oriented platform or even set of useful plugins
AutoDesk abandoned the earlier landscape related software - my guess is ROI was too low. Looking at their main markets, LAs aren't even close in volume and financial backing.
Hoping to do some stuff with grasshopper and plugins in the fall. If I get time this summer to properly prep. But it's likely to be a one off.
I get it completely. However, someone should recognize that all LA's really need is a solid, reliable and accurate grading/contouring tool, plant and tree library. If there were a plugin with those components that could be bundled in with a light civil 3d or revit lt platform that might be a good place to start. Doesnt seem like it would be a big investment on their end, more that they probably dont understand (like the rest of the world) what modern LA's do.
There is a great deal of customisation that can be done with AutoCAD Civil 3D and its API document available from Autodesk for customisation. I would imagine with the right investment of time and expertise a Landscape catalogue of components could be developed as parametric/civil objects at an appropriate LOD.
We often see Revit models incorporating detailed site designs linked in from Civil 3D models for Civil engineers. Landscape Architects can make use of the same processes for site design, grading and quantities. In Civil 3D, relational databases can be linked to the survey module where 2D Planting library components can be added with metadata.
The strong link with AutoCAD as a base creates a good starting block for Landscape Architects to leverage both Civil 3D and Revit with the appropriate custom templates, workflows and processes.
When we consider CDE's like Bentley ProjectWise, or even cloud based CDE's like Autodesk BIM 360 Design or Document Management for team collaboration, these 3D BIM platforms are already a gamechanger. Upskilling in custom specific training for Landscape Architects are much needed first.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.