I thought of that after i posted that last one. rest assured, we're not working together....I still think revit kind of blows (but it has potential) and I doubt RK would agree with me on that point.
I assure you we are not "working together". It is a discussion board... we are discussing. Is this world really that cynical?
I am clearly Pro-Revit and he is in the middle. It is great conversation and I learn from it. What's so wrong with throwing in some links to a blog that I spend lots of time writing and placing all my feelings about Revit into in order to prove a point I made?
@RevitKid: I took a look at your tutorial...nice, but I realized you could do this with section heads/tails. what i was refering to was revit's inability to have thos sections align...or stay in the same place from view to view (as elevation markers do). And why cant you customize the building elevation markers like you showed for sections in your tutorial? or can you?
You can customize the elvation marks the exact same way. The only peice of annotation that Revit does not allow you to fully customize is the leader arrow. I have no idea why that is... it is a system family and uneditable.
I don't understand what you mean by aligning the seciton marks. The section marks will always be in the same location in each view because of the fact that it is cutting a live section at that exact point. It is impossible to have a live section be at one point in the first floor and 5 feet to the left in the second floor plan. Please elaborate.
how? it seems building/interior elevations are either circle or square. and I dont see them in the family tree.
not the actual section cutting planes....im referring to the section markers representing, graphically the section cut. I realize the line is aligned with the section cut plane...its more the location of the head, the tail and the section line break location...they vary drawing to drawing and dont seem to align with one another. so as you're spinning through a series of plans in a pdf for example, the section head/tails/breaklines will be in inconsistent locations.
I understand what you mean now. The instance parameter that drives the head and tail to be pulled and pushed? Why use a reference plane as a guide if its that obnoxious. I have yet to have that problem in a firm or school setting.
Hello danger, I read your post and your nice info too. I read entire post and you nice explain on Boring way to work. Here you also share The sluggish work flow. I am agree with your post. Thanks for sharing nice info.
RevitKid -- Ok, whoop-a-doo, we're getting into Revit in our office.
Can you tell me the main differences between Revit 2010, and AutoCAD Architecture2010 -- right now we have both on all computers. Same parent company, of course -- they both came with our subscription.
You might already know what I'm getting at... Revit and "Architecture", to say the least, share many similarities. Superficially, they look VERY similar when you open them. More in depth, although you can use "Architecture" for the old school "lines-circles-arcs approach, it also has 3D and BIM capabilities via a very "Revit-similar" project browser. "Architecture" seems to have at least as good, if not better, rendering capabilities than Revit.
Some people are really blown away when they get into Revit after only using 2d CAD, and can suddenly set up a model that can be so easily used to create plans, section, elevations, schedules, etc...
HOWEVER -- the old Autodesk CAD software has had those capabilities for a VERY long time.
Know what I mean?
Revit seems largely like the same gig, for most intents and purposes.
@Mr. Malcontent - See "TheVillan" post right above me ^^^
Even an Autodesk representative would laugh at you for comparing CAD and Revit the way that you are. You obviously have very little Revit knowledge and experience. At that, I will not even continue to counter that argument.
Do you own the current Autodesk "Architecture 2010" software? Or, have you ever experimented with the previous versions relative to their "BIM" functions?
I get the feeling you think I'm comparing Revit to 2d CAD -- I am definitely not.
It doesn't seem like you are familiar with the Architecture 2010 product, or it's predecessors, that I'm comparing Revit with...???
I have used AutoCAD for over 6 years now... every edition.
You stated:
"You might already know what I'm getting at... Revit and "Architecture", to say the least, share many similarities. Superficially, they look VERY similar when you open them. More in depth, although you can use "Architecture" for the old school "lines-circles-arcs approach, it also has 3D and BIM capabilities via a very "Revit-similar" project browser. "Architecture" seems to have at least as good, if not better, rendering capabilities than Revit."
You are claiming that AutoCAD Architecture has 3D and BIM capabilities that are very Revit similar. To me it felt like you were claiming it didn't matter which program you used. I am saying it does.
That thread is a year old... but I understand where he is coming from.
You asked me if I could tell you the main differences between the two... To that I said you must not know them because the ENTIRE program is different. From the database, to the API, to the desktop icon.
The UI and new free form features are all very similar between the two but the parametric-ness? (haha what a word), workflow, family creation, and all the many analysis, scheduling, and cost estimating is not a feature in AutoCAD.
There are rumors about the two programs merging but I have spoken with some people high up in Autodesk who state that they are trying to make it easier for users who use AutoCAD to use Revit and vice versa. What ever that means.
"You are claiming that AutoCAD Architecture has 3D and BIM capabilities that are very Revit similar."
I am, and clearly that's true. One is CAD-based, yes, but they both create a renderable 3d model info-loaded that can be used to create plans, secitons, elevations, schedules, etc., etc. -----
So as for your using Autocad for 6 years -- was it lines circles arcs? I'm still not clear if you've used the AutoCAD Architecture, or it's formlerly-named "Desktop" predecessors....? Because contrary to what you're saying, it DOES perform many analysis and scheduling, etc., tasks, and it has for years.
You're giving the link a knock for being a year old, but it gave quite a lot of to-the-point comparative info and -- sorry about this -- but well past what you seem to actually understand.
It was AutoCAD Architecture and Architectural Desktop that I have been using. Creating "smart" walls and windows and etc... To pull that type of information out of it (schedules, etc..) is a lot easier, imo, in Revit.
Maybe I am mistaken, but I don't think you can create parametric families in AutoCAD the way you can in Revit?
I understood the comparative information but I just brought up the point that it is a year old due to the fact that there has been two new releases of each product since that post.
look... there are many softwares that will produce the same results and can be used in the BIM process. AutoCAD, Revit, ArchiCad, even microstation can be used and will have generally the same results.
All I am saying is that I believe Revit is the best equipped for BIM use and for the sake of the topic of this thread I find it to be a lot more pleasurable to work on and FUN than others.
Been a while -- if you look at AutoCAD 2010 Architecture, there are at least three ways to do the "multi-user" environment you're asking about... not exactly like REVIT, but not bad... you'll have to check it out for yourself, because you may not like any of the three environments AutoCAD Arch. offers...
New to this forum and would like to say that this thread is very interesting and well 'argued' on all sides.
So here are some thoughts: If you are tasked to solve design problems and so develop workable construction in any drawing/modeling method then the knowledge needed to do this is really the same whether working in 2D or 3D or pen & paper.
The steps to get there may be significantly different, but the knowledge needed to be the 'problem solver' or 'design creator' under the full weight of all the ingredients that must go into any design project must be under the control of the designer and not left to the tool.
Now if you are tasked at picking up red lines then that is a different sort of responsibility requiring different muscles and I think this should be noted as I think this is part of what is running through this thread. Just a thought....
One thing I’ve noticed between 2D vs. any of the BIM programs is the comparative order of complexity they bring. Many folks complain about layers, and line types and scale factors in AutoCAD or other 2D apps after they move into a BIM world, and some say they will never go back to that basic CAD ‘old world’ structure to drawing. They say this giving the impression that BIM provides an easier less cumbersome approach. I’m not sure this is quite accurate, though I understand the feelings behind it.
The level of complexity which comes from managing Visibility Graphics and file organization, sheet construction, model development, etc. is I would argue greatly increased in the BIM paradigm. Some apps do it better then others, but it is just inherent in the fundamentals of the approach of using a single source model for multiple kinds of outputs that this single source model requires tremendous complexity in order to achieve all the document requirements any project needs.
BUT, and this is a big but, more is gotten out of the BIM model due to this very complexity and so it’s a double edge sword, and the experience of the BIM complexity relative to 2D drafting control is accepted. Still, I don’t think it is accurate to say it is less cumbersome of a process.
I would also say that this BIM complexity does engage thinking in ways that dumb lines don’t demand, which might not be a good thing.
BIM usage requires more preoccupation with the process of creation and the management of the model and all its view iterations then does line drawings with all their usages; and my experience is there is a consumption of thinking time with BIM which can be a distraction from the flow and spontaneity when designing, something that the a lowest order of tool management [i.e. a pencil] doesn’t entail beyond keeping the tip sharp and the eraser handy. So on the spectrum of complexity of tools BIM is on the far right where as the pencil is on the far left and CAD 2D sits pleasantly in the middle. Perhaps not so much a problem for BIM cookie cutter work, but this can be harmful for one off custom works in regards to supporting creativity.
As for the abstraction of dumb lines, well I see this as a great virtue for 2D line work, as this creates a need to strengthen your senses and sensitivity to space and to actually construct the building line by line detail by detail….tedious, but incredibly powerful in creating true knowledge of your project. Also, looking into the negative space between the lines on the screen [or printed sheet] calls on you to project yourself into that world so as to ‘occupy’ what you are creating with your minds eye and visceral senses…to put it in your body in a very intimate way….just like old old school hand drafting. Not that BIM or other 3D modeling doesn’t require this to some degree as well, but the difference in what the eye is relating to on screen triggers different sinews in the mind and I think this is worth noting.
I was hoping for this to not turn into CAD vs. Revit and I believe you brought it back to the middle. Thanks for that!
I would have to say that I agree with most of what you say. The only opinions I express towards your "arguments" are two points: The "cumbersome" of BIM and the idea last paragraph.
In the beginning, using a program for BIM (such as Revit) may seem cumbersome and much "slower" than CAD. I remember using CAD for 5 years and using Revit for my first project after. All I thought about was how much longer it was taking me to complete what I would have completed in CAD in half the time. Now that my Revit experience has grown greatly I truly flipped that equation. I can do projects with the same quality in less time than I did in CAD thanks to the entire building being created. Using keyboard shortcuts and reference planes, and parameters as if I was cranking away on CAD. Once experienced, I do not believe BIM is much more cumbersome.
Also, the use of BIM does not eliminate the use of a pencil. I am a firm believe that, when used correctly, BIM will synthesize creativity... not constrain it. Just because a program like Revit creates the elevations for you does not mean you don't create them. Every little component, wall, window, door, floor, etc... that you move or add has a consequence and will effect your entire building. This is thought about and visually seen with BIM. In a 2D CAD drawing it exists as well but can be missed and not thought about ever.
Ultimately, the "need to strengthen your senses and sensitivity" exists in both BIM and 2D linework. With BIM, I have personally experienced a better knowledge of my buildings than with 2D drafting. All of the senses of space and thinking that you are speaking about in the last paragraph completely exists in BIM but on a different level. Almost as if you get "feedback" from these senses.
One last thought. It is a common misconception, IMO, that when using Revit or BIM software the user is restricted to "cookie cutter" components and expression is constrained. That could not be anymore false. An experienced Revit user can create ANYTHING... I used to pause before saying anything but with the new conceptual massing environment I can say ANYTHING with confidence. This ANYTHING component can be of any shape or form and even be driven by dimensional parameters.
RevitKid – No doubt you deserve great appreciation from many for your website / blog and free tutorials and much respect for your expertise with Revit. Certainly this puts you in a position to evaluate Revit at a very high level of order. I am in no way comparable to you in this regard as my Revit skills are still very much at the beginner level. But I’m not so sure that really shapes the point I was driving at.
The experience of cumbersome if measured as a byproduct of ones familiarity to using any tool has something in common with the experience of following directions a friend has given to their new home many miles away in an unfamiliar part of town. Your first trip there is always a bit of a struggle as you navigate new streets while tying to follow your poorly scribbled handwritten directions. The time that you feel it takes to actual get there seems much more then the actual time that ticked of the clock. And soon enough once you become familiar with the journey you can reflect back on how your first trip seemed to take more time and seemed to require a farther distance of travel then how you now experience it. Let’s call that the subjective point of view relative to ones learning curve.
While all that is going on there is an objective process occurring simultaneously while going to your friend’s house. The turn of the key to start the engine, the shifting gears to reverse out the driveway, the following the rules of the road, etc. These are the common actions you take for the most part every time you visit your friend, including the first time.
With this analogy in mind I would still maintain that the world of BIM is a journey which is more cumbersome then with 2D drawing – on an objective level. The immediacy of line work requires very little overhead to manage the line work which produces the drawing – a snap here or there to change layers or UCS if needed -- and so the flow of immediate design work is hardly interrupted. This is just a point of fact, in general terms.
With Revit due to the nature of its paradigm the objective actions one takes in many aspects of the design process requires many more actions to accomplish the given task – albeit with the benefit that come with all those steps in regards to model derived drawings and the goal of producing the work faster as you have experienced; which is a good thing and one the central seduction of BIM.
But there is a flow stoppage in terms of immediate drawing during many procedures in Revit. Creating in-place families in Revit actually takes you out of the place you are drawing and into several work modes in order to finish off the modeling of the elements you wish to create. This is the nature of SKETCH based modeling, which is a very different process then direct manipulation of solids or faces like in SketchUp or AutoCAD where the modeling process is more immediate. So there is a cost as well as a benefit to both paradigms.
Also, in my experience the SKETCH based approach creates moments of detachment from a larger context which very often needs to be immediately and visually in-play when making din the family editor, then returning to see the results in the model window to evaluate their quality and find yourself having to go back and forth until a satisfactory result is created. This kind of work flow occurs in many other places too.
BIM, in this way, is the notion of design as an assembly of individual parts taken too far in my mind. True it is about parts coming together in the world of construction, but in fine designs it is achieved also in a poetic way which often requires hiding or revealing the part-ness of construction in a very controlled way. And so design tools need to support a holistic process, not a fragmented one. My experience is that BIM generates many fragmented moments during the designing process. In plan this is not really an issue as you lay out walls, but as the model progresses into DD and CDs this does seem to be an issue. And certainly detailing takes on a whole other level of detachment from the larger context by narrowing the field of view into very desrete moments.
As I see it this is just a byproduct of producing elements which need to be informed with all the attributes that give them their intelligence and functionality within a fully parametric methodology which lean more heavily on the ‘assembly-of-parts’ ethos then does dumb line work where you can have it all in front of you simultaneously with xrefs or other methods.
Take for example two 1/8” strips of aluminum set in a terrazzo bathroom design used as both control joints, but also as an aesthetic pattern of lines; these ‘lines’ are proportionality spaced apart starting on the vertical wall of a skylight inside of a large shower; they drop down the face of the skylight well, wrapping onto the ceiling, then down the shower back wall, then across the floor of the shower and out beyond the shower glass line and intersect another line on the bathroom floor and there get interrupted….and across the room the lines starts again on the same axis and move up the face of a cabinet and then over the counter top and align with the mullions in a window sitting in the wall above the sink and there terminate at the backsplash. And there are other lines which are in play coving all 7 planes I’ve included running perpendicular and parallel to these first to lines.
To locate these lines requires detailing the shower skylight so the position of the lines can be placed in a beautiful way according to the precise size of the skylight opening. In-play therefore is a longitudinal section through the skylight and shower, an RCP of the shower, an elevation of the showers back wall, the floor plan of the shower and bathroom, the opposite elevation of the sink counter and wall and a plan of the sink counter with all the fixtures in place -- and there needs to be the ability to move these aluminum control joint in 1/16” increments left or right with ease in all views as it gets orchestrated within the skylight and shower ceiling together with the placement of the shower fixtures on the wall they bypasses or integrates with, the floor drain, shower door opening, the span across the room with other intersecting control joints, the sink counter elevation with door panel breaks, the sinks themselves on the counter and finally the window mullion, which of course works on the exterior as well. And these lines go through perhaps 10 iterations along with client reviews….well you get the point.
There is an increase in the analytic processes that BIM demands which is not really about the design of the project but are about the management of the element being designed. I can see how this can be stimulating and even meditative once you gain great proficiency in working with Revit, as we do with any program, and so the journey becomes sure footed, but I don’t think this is really about creativity in your designs, but rather creativity in the use of the software.
RevitKid -- sorry for all the typos in the above....oooppss. Certainly if the length of the entry didn't provide cause for a headache, trying to piece together the true meaning with so many hiccups certainly would.... ;-)
You might try using a tablet with Revit or any other cadd program as well. I started in the field doing design and drawing with pencil or pen. Moving to electronic "drawing" has been a frustration I still have some trouble getting the ideas out. That was mostly because of AutoCAD. I would end up sketching the ideas in the end ... waste of effort in AutoCAD. That medifore of using your fingers to idenify the UCS ... anyway!!
I've used several other cadd programs and graphics programs as well. Revit is the least "switch" setting intensive I have come across. Additionally, having used it for several years now, I think in terms of objects to be created and views to look at. I have not had to think about layers or lisp programs or other constraints to make the program work. I think more about the design and communication of the design. That, for me, has been the great step forward - NO LAYERS!!!
Is Revit perfect - NO. But there is not a program out there that is. They ALL are limited. Either by programming or equipment to run the program.
For the profession of design in general, students should be taught sketching skills. It will make the application to the computer that much more creative and perhaps enjoyable.
Revit as a NEW and BORING way to work?
I thought of that after i posted that last one. rest assured, we're not working together....I still think revit kind of blows (but it has potential) and I doubt RK would agree with me on that point.
I assure you we are not "working together". It is a discussion board... we are discussing. Is this world really that cynical?
I am clearly Pro-Revit and he is in the middle. It is great conversation and I learn from it. What's so wrong with throwing in some links to a blog that I spend lots of time writing and placing all my feelings about Revit into in order to prove a point I made?
blows
Totally same guy Lol
right....
Autodesk kid capri
@RevitKid: I took a look at your tutorial...nice, but I realized you could do this with section heads/tails. what i was refering to was revit's inability to have thos sections align...or stay in the same place from view to view (as elevation markers do). And why cant you customize the building elevation markers like you showed for sections in your tutorial? or can you?
You can customize the elvation marks the exact same way. The only peice of annotation that Revit does not allow you to fully customize is the leader arrow. I have no idea why that is... it is a system family and uneditable.
I don't understand what you mean by aligning the seciton marks. The section marks will always be in the same location in each view because of the fact that it is cutting a live section at that exact point. It is impossible to have a live section be at one point in the first floor and 5 feet to the left in the second floor plan. Please elaborate.
how? it seems building/interior elevations are either circle or square. and I dont see them in the family tree.
not the actual section cutting planes....im referring to the section markers representing, graphically the section cut. I realize the line is aligned with the section cut plane...its more the location of the head, the tail and the section line break location...they vary drawing to drawing and dont seem to align with one another. so as you're spinning through a series of plans in a pdf for example, the section head/tails/breaklines will be in inconsistent locations.
I understand what you mean now. The instance parameter that drives the head and tail to be pulled and pushed? Why use a reference plane as a guide if its that obnoxious. I have yet to have that problem in a firm or school setting.
Hello danger, I read your post and your nice info too. I read entire post and you nice explain on Boring way to work. Here you also share The sluggish work flow. I am agree with your post. Thanks for sharing nice info.
RevitKid -- Ok, whoop-a-doo, we're getting into Revit in our office.
Can you tell me the main differences between Revit 2010, and AutoCAD Architecture2010 -- right now we have both on all computers. Same parent company, of course -- they both came with our subscription.
You might already know what I'm getting at... Revit and "Architecture", to say the least, share many similarities. Superficially, they look VERY similar when you open them. More in depth, although you can use "Architecture" for the old school "lines-circles-arcs approach, it also has 3D and BIM capabilities via a very "Revit-similar" project browser. "Architecture" seems to have at least as good, if not better, rendering capabilities than Revit.
Some people are really blown away when they get into Revit after only using 2d CAD, and can suddenly set up a model that can be so easily used to create plans, section, elevations, schedules, etc...
HOWEVER -- the old Autodesk CAD software has had those capabilities for a VERY long time.
Know what I mean?
Revit seems largely like the same gig, for most intents and purposes.
I'd appreciate your expertise on this.
suggestion: uninstall autocad 2010 and forget it ever existed
@Mr. Malcontent - See "TheVillan" post right above me ^^^
Even an Autodesk representative would laugh at you for comparing CAD and Revit the way that you are. You obviously have very little Revit knowledge and experience. At that, I will not even continue to counter that argument.
Argument? Man, i am seriously not arguing.
Do you own the current Autodesk "Architecture 2010" software? Or, have you ever experimented with the previous versions relative to their "BIM" functions?
I get the feeling you think I'm comparing Revit to 2d CAD -- I am definitely not.
It doesn't seem like you are familiar with the Architecture 2010 product, or it's predecessors, that I'm comparing Revit with...???
Can't make much sense of your response so far...
Revitkid -- cute and paste the above link for a better understanding of what I'm talking about.
Hey, the link works... also, I meant "cut"...not "cute"!
I have used AutoCAD for over 6 years now... every edition.
You stated:
"You might already know what I'm getting at... Revit and "Architecture", to say the least, share many similarities. Superficially, they look VERY similar when you open them. More in depth, although you can use "Architecture" for the old school "lines-circles-arcs approach, it also has 3D and BIM capabilities via a very "Revit-similar" project browser. "Architecture" seems to have at least as good, if not better, rendering capabilities than Revit."
You are claiming that AutoCAD Architecture has 3D and BIM capabilities that are very Revit similar. To me it felt like you were claiming it didn't matter which program you used. I am saying it does.
That thread is a year old... but I understand where he is coming from.
You asked me if I could tell you the main differences between the two... To that I said you must not know them because the ENTIRE program is different. From the database, to the API, to the desktop icon.
The UI and new free form features are all very similar between the two but the parametric-ness? (haha what a word), workflow, family creation, and all the many analysis, scheduling, and cost estimating is not a feature in AutoCAD.
There are rumors about the two programs merging but I have spoken with some people high up in Autodesk who state that they are trying to make it easier for users who use AutoCAD to use Revit and vice versa. What ever that means.
"You are claiming that AutoCAD Architecture has 3D and BIM capabilities that are very Revit similar."
I am, and clearly that's true. One is CAD-based, yes, but they both create a renderable 3d model info-loaded that can be used to create plans, secitons, elevations, schedules, etc., etc. -----
So as for your using Autocad for 6 years -- was it lines circles arcs? I'm still not clear if you've used the AutoCAD Architecture, or it's formlerly-named "Desktop" predecessors....? Because contrary to what you're saying, it DOES perform many analysis and scheduling, etc., tasks, and it has for years.
You're giving the link a knock for being a year old, but it gave quite a lot of to-the-point comparative info and -- sorry about this -- but well past what you seem to actually understand.
Thanks, though.
It was AutoCAD Architecture and Architectural Desktop that I have been using. Creating "smart" walls and windows and etc... To pull that type of information out of it (schedules, etc..) is a lot easier, imo, in Revit.
Maybe I am mistaken, but I don't think you can create parametric families in AutoCAD the way you can in Revit?
I understood the comparative information but I just brought up the point that it is a year old due to the fact that there has been two new releases of each product since that post.
look... there are many softwares that will produce the same results and can be used in the BIM process. AutoCAD, Revit, ArchiCad, even microstation can be used and will have generally the same results.
All I am saying is that I believe Revit is the best equipped for BIM use and for the sake of the topic of this thread I find it to be a lot more pleasurable to work on and FUN than others.
here's the question i have about ACAD Architecture; can you have multiple users working on the same file, at the same time?
yep.
when did that change?
Been a while -- if you look at AutoCAD 2010 Architecture, there are at least three ways to do the "multi-user" environment you're asking about... not exactly like REVIT, but not bad... you'll have to check it out for yourself, because you may not like any of the three environments AutoCAD Arch. offers...
New to this forum and would like to say that this thread is very interesting and well 'argued' on all sides.
So here are some thoughts: If you are tasked to solve design problems and so develop workable construction in any drawing/modeling method then the knowledge needed to do this is really the same whether working in 2D or 3D or pen & paper.
The steps to get there may be significantly different, but the knowledge needed to be the 'problem solver' or 'design creator' under the full weight of all the ingredients that must go into any design project must be under the control of the designer and not left to the tool.
Now if you are tasked at picking up red lines then that is a different sort of responsibility requiring different muscles and I think this should be noted as I think this is part of what is running through this thread. Just a thought....
One thing I’ve noticed between 2D vs. any of the BIM programs is the comparative order of complexity they bring. Many folks complain about layers, and line types and scale factors in AutoCAD or other 2D apps after they move into a BIM world, and some say they will never go back to that basic CAD ‘old world’ structure to drawing. They say this giving the impression that BIM provides an easier less cumbersome approach. I’m not sure this is quite accurate, though I understand the feelings behind it.
The level of complexity which comes from managing Visibility Graphics and file organization, sheet construction, model development, etc. is I would argue greatly increased in the BIM paradigm. Some apps do it better then others, but it is just inherent in the fundamentals of the approach of using a single source model for multiple kinds of outputs that this single source model requires tremendous complexity in order to achieve all the document requirements any project needs.
BUT, and this is a big but, more is gotten out of the BIM model due to this very complexity and so it’s a double edge sword, and the experience of the BIM complexity relative to 2D drafting control is accepted. Still, I don’t think it is accurate to say it is less cumbersome of a process.
I would also say that this BIM complexity does engage thinking in ways that dumb lines don’t demand, which might not be a good thing.
BIM usage requires more preoccupation with the process of creation and the management of the model and all its view iterations then does line drawings with all their usages; and my experience is there is a consumption of thinking time with BIM which can be a distraction from the flow and spontaneity when designing, something that the a lowest order of tool management [i.e. a pencil] doesn’t entail beyond keeping the tip sharp and the eraser handy. So on the spectrum of complexity of tools BIM is on the far right where as the pencil is on the far left and CAD 2D sits pleasantly in the middle. Perhaps not so much a problem for BIM cookie cutter work, but this can be harmful for one off custom works in regards to supporting creativity.
As for the abstraction of dumb lines, well I see this as a great virtue for 2D line work, as this creates a need to strengthen your senses and sensitivity to space and to actually construct the building line by line detail by detail….tedious, but incredibly powerful in creating true knowledge of your project. Also, looking into the negative space between the lines on the screen [or printed sheet] calls on you to project yourself into that world so as to ‘occupy’ what you are creating with your minds eye and visceral senses…to put it in your body in a very intimate way….just like old old school hand drafting. Not that BIM or other 3D modeling doesn’t require this to some degree as well, but the difference in what the eye is relating to on screen triggers different sinews in the mind and I think this is worth noting.
d.
Very well put Dfinla.
I was hoping for this to not turn into CAD vs. Revit and I believe you brought it back to the middle. Thanks for that!
I would have to say that I agree with most of what you say. The only opinions I express towards your "arguments" are two points: The "cumbersome" of BIM and the idea last paragraph.
In the beginning, using a program for BIM (such as Revit) may seem cumbersome and much "slower" than CAD. I remember using CAD for 5 years and using Revit for my first project after. All I thought about was how much longer it was taking me to complete what I would have completed in CAD in half the time. Now that my Revit experience has grown greatly I truly flipped that equation. I can do projects with the same quality in less time than I did in CAD thanks to the entire building being created. Using keyboard shortcuts and reference planes, and parameters as if I was cranking away on CAD. Once experienced, I do not believe BIM is much more cumbersome.
Also, the use of BIM does not eliminate the use of a pencil. I am a firm believe that, when used correctly, BIM will synthesize creativity... not constrain it. Just because a program like Revit creates the elevations for you does not mean you don't create them. Every little component, wall, window, door, floor, etc... that you move or add has a consequence and will effect your entire building. This is thought about and visually seen with BIM. In a 2D CAD drawing it exists as well but can be missed and not thought about ever.
Ultimately, the "need to strengthen your senses and sensitivity" exists in both BIM and 2D linework. With BIM, I have personally experienced a better knowledge of my buildings than with 2D drafting. All of the senses of space and thinking that you are speaking about in the last paragraph completely exists in BIM but on a different level. Almost as if you get "feedback" from these senses.
One last thought. It is a common misconception, IMO, that when using Revit or BIM software the user is restricted to "cookie cutter" components and expression is constrained. That could not be anymore false. An experienced Revit user can create ANYTHING... I used to pause before saying anything but with the new conceptual massing environment I can say ANYTHING with confidence. This ANYTHING component can be of any shape or form and even be driven by dimensional parameters.
Great discussion and much fun for me!
RevitKid – No doubt you deserve great appreciation from many for your website / blog and free tutorials and much respect for your expertise with Revit. Certainly this puts you in a position to evaluate Revit at a very high level of order. I am in no way comparable to you in this regard as my Revit skills are still very much at the beginner level. But I’m not so sure that really shapes the point I was driving at.
The experience of cumbersome if measured as a byproduct of ones familiarity to using any tool has something in common with the experience of following directions a friend has given to their new home many miles away in an unfamiliar part of town. Your first trip there is always a bit of a struggle as you navigate new streets while tying to follow your poorly scribbled handwritten directions. The time that you feel it takes to actual get there seems much more then the actual time that ticked of the clock. And soon enough once you become familiar with the journey you can reflect back on how your first trip seemed to take more time and seemed to require a farther distance of travel then how you now experience it. Let’s call that the subjective point of view relative to ones learning curve.
While all that is going on there is an objective process occurring simultaneously while going to your friend’s house. The turn of the key to start the engine, the shifting gears to reverse out the driveway, the following the rules of the road, etc. These are the common actions you take for the most part every time you visit your friend, including the first time.
With this analogy in mind I would still maintain that the world of BIM is a journey which is more cumbersome then with 2D drawing – on an objective level. The immediacy of line work requires very little overhead to manage the line work which produces the drawing – a snap here or there to change layers or UCS if needed -- and so the flow of immediate design work is hardly interrupted. This is just a point of fact, in general terms.
With Revit due to the nature of its paradigm the objective actions one takes in many aspects of the design process requires many more actions to accomplish the given task – albeit with the benefit that come with all those steps in regards to model derived drawings and the goal of producing the work faster as you have experienced; which is a good thing and one the central seduction of BIM.
But there is a flow stoppage in terms of immediate drawing during many procedures in Revit. Creating in-place families in Revit actually takes you out of the place you are drawing and into several work modes in order to finish off the modeling of the elements you wish to create. This is the nature of SKETCH based modeling, which is a very different process then direct manipulation of solids or faces like in SketchUp or AutoCAD where the modeling process is more immediate. So there is a cost as well as a benefit to both paradigms.
Also, in my experience the SKETCH based approach creates moments of detachment from a larger context which very often needs to be immediately and visually in-play when making din the family editor, then returning to see the results in the model window to evaluate their quality and find yourself having to go back and forth until a satisfactory result is created. This kind of work flow occurs in many other places too.
BIM, in this way, is the notion of design as an assembly of individual parts taken too far in my mind. True it is about parts coming together in the world of construction, but in fine designs it is achieved also in a poetic way which often requires hiding or revealing the part-ness of construction in a very controlled way. And so design tools need to support a holistic process, not a fragmented one. My experience is that BIM generates many fragmented moments during the designing process. In plan this is not really an issue as you lay out walls, but as the model progresses into DD and CDs this does seem to be an issue. And certainly detailing takes on a whole other level of detachment from the larger context by narrowing the field of view into very desrete moments.
As I see it this is just a byproduct of producing elements which need to be informed with all the attributes that give them their intelligence and functionality within a fully parametric methodology which lean more heavily on the ‘assembly-of-parts’ ethos then does dumb line work where you can have it all in front of you simultaneously with xrefs or other methods.
Take for example two 1/8” strips of aluminum set in a terrazzo bathroom design used as both control joints, but also as an aesthetic pattern of lines; these ‘lines’ are proportionality spaced apart starting on the vertical wall of a skylight inside of a large shower; they drop down the face of the skylight well, wrapping onto the ceiling, then down the shower back wall, then across the floor of the shower and out beyond the shower glass line and intersect another line on the bathroom floor and there get interrupted….and across the room the lines starts again on the same axis and move up the face of a cabinet and then over the counter top and align with the mullions in a window sitting in the wall above the sink and there terminate at the backsplash. And there are other lines which are in play coving all 7 planes I’ve included running perpendicular and parallel to these first to lines.
To locate these lines requires detailing the shower skylight so the position of the lines can be placed in a beautiful way according to the precise size of the skylight opening. In-play therefore is a longitudinal section through the skylight and shower, an RCP of the shower, an elevation of the showers back wall, the floor plan of the shower and bathroom, the opposite elevation of the sink counter and wall and a plan of the sink counter with all the fixtures in place -- and there needs to be the ability to move these aluminum control joint in 1/16” increments left or right with ease in all views as it gets orchestrated within the skylight and shower ceiling together with the placement of the shower fixtures on the wall they bypasses or integrates with, the floor drain, shower door opening, the span across the room with other intersecting control joints, the sink counter elevation with door panel breaks, the sinks themselves on the counter and finally the window mullion, which of course works on the exterior as well. And these lines go through perhaps 10 iterations along with client reviews….well you get the point.
There is an increase in the analytic processes that BIM demands which is not really about the design of the project but are about the management of the element being designed. I can see how this can be stimulating and even meditative once you gain great proficiency in working with Revit, as we do with any program, and so the journey becomes sure footed, but I don’t think this is really about creativity in your designs, but rather creativity in the use of the software.
d.
RevitKid -- sorry for all the typos in the above....oooppss. Certainly if the length of the entry didn't provide cause for a headache, trying to piece together the true meaning with so many hiccups certainly would.... ;-)
or the software's stifling of the designers capabilities
TheRevitKid,
Can I put in a request for a video on how to add a parameter to a door to allow different swing angles in plan.
you most certainly can... keep an eye out for it
You might try using a tablet with Revit or any other cadd program as well. I started in the field doing design and drawing with pencil or pen. Moving to electronic "drawing" has been a frustration I still have some trouble getting the ideas out. That was mostly because of AutoCAD. I would end up sketching the ideas in the end ... waste of effort in AutoCAD. That medifore of using your fingers to idenify the UCS ... anyway!!
I've used several other cadd programs and graphics programs as well. Revit is the least "switch" setting intensive I have come across. Additionally, having used it for several years now, I think in terms of objects to be created and views to look at. I have not had to think about layers or lisp programs or other constraints to make the program work. I think more about the design and communication of the design. That, for me, has been the great step forward - NO LAYERS!!!
Is Revit perfect - NO. But there is not a program out there that is. They ALL are limited. Either by programming or equipment to run the program.
For the profession of design in general, students should be taught sketching skills. It will make the application to the computer that much more creative and perhaps enjoyable.
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.