The Problem
The last place I worked at was at one time a thriving produce / build firm. On a few occasions the brain trust from the Architecture department and the building department would procure their donuts and coffee and meet in the consulation room to discuss the quality of our building drawings and how to heighten them.
Geometry Proofs Help
Our drawings had the normal problems due to the usual pressures of a busy architectural work environment; missing information, conflicts, coordination issues, Cad anomalies, etc.
Remember the days when firms had drawing checkers? It seems that nobody checks drawings anymore; there is just no time in the program or budget. Now we call that process bidding. It sure makes the building guys angry. We get sensitive about our produce work, but they get sensitive when money is involved. Some citizen are just so materialistic.
As the Cad manager, I would sit and take notes in these meetings, while trying to equilibrium a coffee, diet coke and two donuts in my lap. After about an hour and a half, everybody had their say. Although I had a ton of notes, they were just details pointing to the issue. The qoute was surprisingly simple, the drawings were not coordinated.
Architectural Desktop
As the Cad manager, I was greatly grieved by this. We were using Architectural Desktop for all of our work. We were using it as a Bim tool, building a 3D model and extracting all the 2D drawings. Very cool but it was hard to do, required years of training on my part, years of setup and the breaking in and training of new people. Some of the new citizen were very unyielding to working in 3D and with tools they were not well-known with. Some were undoubtedly subversive. I called these citizen flat-landers because they wanted to perceive architecture in 2D. I suppose it was good than calling them what I undoubtedly wanted to.
As difficult as it was, we were getting good results. We could generate live renderings on the fly, we knew what the building was undoubtedly going to look like and we knew where the produce problems were developing. We even made money on our architectural fees occasionally. So how did this qoute occur?
As the task got closer to finishing and the resolution of the detail became finer, Architectural Desktop became more difficult and finicky. When crunch time came, the subversive flat-landers would explode the project. Once exploded into lines, the less experienced would deconstruct the coordination in an exertion to generate the illusion that the task was undoubtedly finished. When the distinct changes came along, the task Cad data degenerated even further.
Revit Architecture
Then along came Revit. This program fulfilled the promise of what Architectural Desktop was supposed to be. Don't get me wrong, it was a big pain to implement but I knew that if I could make Architectural Desktop work for us, then I could implement Revit. administration was undoubtedly not all the time supportive, providing no training and no setup time to make it work, but they did supply doubt and criticism. At least they paid for the required hardware and software.
In Architectural Desktop you had to produce involved systems to manage a project. In Revit this was already taken care of. In Architectural Desktop you had to produce involved Cad standards and program them in to your system, and then train users and levy the standards. With Revit, the standards out of the box worked for us. This was undoubtedly amazing. I can walk into any office with Revit on a computer and just start working. imagine that? I can't even begin to tell you how much Cad customization I have done in the last 20 years. I don't do anyone to Revit except to generate families, (their term for parametric block styles) shared parameters and task templates.
Architectural desktop is rough, Revit is smooth. Architectural Desktop is fragile and breaks, Revit is strong and solid. Upgrading Architectural Desktop is a multi-week process enchanting breaking all the tons of current customization and rebuilding it after you purchase a few books, email some gurus, and find the private cache of private inside facts on what is undoubtedly going on inside the unintelligent program. It takes not one but at least three programming languages to make this thing work right. Then of course you have to retrain the users.
Upgrading Revit can be done over lunch, with no training. I don't even look at the readme file.
Building facts Modeling (Bim)
Bim? I undoubtedly didn't like that acronym. I liked Sbm (Single building Model). It didn't seem to suit Autodesk's marketing plan though. Nobody asked me anyway. undoubtedly I believe that the mounds of facts in every magazine today and on every web site about Bim are mostly crap. All these experts who don't use Revit are saying you can do this, that and the other thing. I don't do any of those. I'm not even sure what they are. possibly we'll see sometime in the future.
But here is where Bim and Revit Architecture rocks. You cannot explode the Revit model. This means that the geometry will all the time be coordinated. The reference tags and sheet numbers cannot be edited independently of the model. These tags are not fragile; they are rock solid, linked to the model and the schedules. I'm not sure that you can put a Revit task out of coordination even with great effort. So just like that, the majority of our drawing problems are gone. This is also proof of how enchanting software can make you a good architect. Yes I said it; Revit will make you a good architect.
At our firm, Revit ceased to be the office joke as our efficiency improved. When we had to hire someone for our architecture department, Revit perceive was our top priority. It was beginning to come to be a focus of our marketing at the time I left. The first thing that won people's hearts about our Revit results was that we were solving produce problems that we may not have seen in the past. Our solutions were valid right from the beginning. In a produce / build office where building guys are seeing over your shoulder, this is critical.
Rendering
Throughout the produce process, you can place a camera and snap an approximately perfect rendering. The rendering capabilities are remarkable and also material and link compatible with 3Ds Max if you pick to use it. The very simple mental Ray rendering dialog box created remarkable results fast with miniature effort. Any Revit user can now make perfect renderings with a few minutes of training. Not only could you have high quality renderings fast, but now you could also have lots of rendered images in a task to clearly mouth your produce to your client. Revit will make you a good architect.
When I printed out the help principles for Viz Render, the rendering tool in Architectural Desktop, it filled two volumes and was over a thousand pages, as well as taking a great number of time to master.
Design Paradigm Shift
Between working in a flat 3D interface and rendering stacks of views, architects now have a new first. They have the quality to undoubtedly see every exposed face in a building produce - walls, floors, ceilings and roofs - Inside and out. For the first time we can see all things before it's built. Wow, can you see the implications?
There is now no excuse for bad produce or produce mistakes. Most citizen don't know this but the majority of architects and designers undoubtedly don't know exactly what the built produce will look like. Sure they have an idea and some are way good than others, but this is a basal qoute especially where the produce fees are low and all things is in black and white and 2D. Once while designing some ductwork, I created an Mc Escher like sculpture. My boss was amused because he caught it, but that could have been a big problem.
Revit will make you a good architect naturally because you are getting immediate feedback on your design. If you see the object as it will be, then you will spoton and optimize it. It would be absurd not to. You won't be able to sleep knowing that flaw is in your design. I think what flat-landers like is they can look at their 2D black and white drawing and can think perfect and well done because it matches their imagination. 3D and color is naturally just too much facts for them.
Architectural drawing without 3D is like typing a letter on a computer without a monitor. You probably got most of it right. You are probably not going to be able turn it. You may redo it a few times. Wouldn't the feedback from a monitor be good?
I find it enchanting how large contractors are among those foremost the move to Bim because of collision detection tools and the money they save in preventing building errors and identifying produce errors. Some contractors are having their in-house Revit guys model the 2D building documents the architects issue to catch their produce errors. ensue the money.
Shouldn't the architects be foremost this? I want to believe that the architects not using Revit just don't know better. They don't know about its coordination features, rendering capabilities, and its detailing tools. They don't know it can completely replace AutoCad. They may think that drawing in 3D wastes time, rather than saves time. I didn't know all this when I started with Revit and I had to outline it out on my own.
Architects keep hearing about how Bim is going to advantage everybody except them. They might not know it will advantage them also, and consider it a burden.
Unfortunately we all know architects that use AutoCad 14 and will say "if it was good adequate for Frank Lloyd Wright to use when he designed the pyramids, then it's good adequate for me. " These guys are commonly undoubtedly fast and do a very definite type of work. They are also very gradually losing shop share, developing carpal tunnel syndrome and one day they will find society no longer has a need for their services. Seen any good ink on vellum hand drafting lately? How about press-on letters, pin registration mylar, leroy lettering sets, or ruling pens?
Cad undoubtedly took off when Bob Villa showed an architect using a principles on "This Old House". The hardware was a Silicon Graphics workstation costing nearly , 000 and was not a realistic selection at the time, but it created a perception that resonated with the public. Not embracing Cad was the end of a lot of produce firms.
Frank Lloyd Wright worked in 3D and in color.
Sketchup
Sketchup has come to be quite beloved recently among architects. These architects are smart adequate to know the value of color and 3D. It is their work flow that I don't like. Most firms using Sketchup are also using AutoCad. So essentially one group works on the produce with Sketchup, other group works on the building documents with AutoCad. (More on AutoCad later. ) Very miniature or no data reuse between the two groups. It also seems like it would be very difficult to model the interior and face of a building in Sketchup. To get photo-realistic renderings in Sketchup, you need an add-on renderer. Still with Sketchup you are giving your clients drawings they can recap to, and that is an perfect step in the right direction. Can Sketchup do floor plans now?
Revit Workflow
In Revit you can start modeling with walls, doors and windows or you can use their awesome mass modeling tools, excerpt volume and area data, and then parametrically attach the walls, floors, roofs, etc. all things Sketchup can do, Revit can do better.
In Revit, you have one database and all drawings and schedules come out of it. You do not have to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say that is a produce drawing and that is building document. They both are one, progressing along together in perfect Zen. In reality, doesn't the architect keep designing straight through the building document phase? Most keep doing it into the building phase. Revit makes it easy to do that. This is a huge opening for profit based on the efficiency of the Revit workflow vs the Sketchup / AutoCad workflow.
Flexibility
One of the best features of Revit is not facilely apparent. It is data flexibility. For example In AutoCad someone will generate a door schedule. Assuming he has an office standard, and some door knowledge, he blasts this out, done! That program has no relationship to the project. Later if you erase a door from the plan, it is still in the schedule. It is also still on the wall elevation. With adequate edits over time, the entire door program will have to be rechecked for coordination issues.
In Revit, the door object contains its data. If you erase a door, it comes off the program and the elevations, the sections, linked details, linked specifications, etc. All the data can be live. A turn occurring in one place on the model is propagated automatically through-out the set of drawings. Not only do the drawings stay coordinated but this is a level of flexibility we have not had before.
Flexibility makes multiple changes not only possible, but easy and fast without breaking the model. Now when your client needs to reduce the allocation significantly after the building documents go out for bid, (common in Church work) you can adapt them without throwing the task away and beginning over. The drawings stay coordinated.
Theological Implications
In the typical contemporary Sunday school classroom, the expression Wwjd (what would Jesus do?) is tossed colse to so that our kids have an perfect acceptable to base their actions on. (One of the consequences of this is that they have a acceptable to judge their parents behavior. )
So what would Jesus do? I don't have a clue really, but as the originator of reality I believe that the God of the universe did not use 2D and black and white. I could hypothesize endlessly and generate some bizarre heresy, but this much I do know. At the very least, reality has at least 3 bodily dimensions, reality has movement (over time), reality has colors, and it has sound (perhaps even 5. 1 Dolby surround sound?). The more accurately you recount the produce to your client and yourself, the more careful you are, and truth is a great acceptable to seek. I'm pretty sure that Jesus would also tell a compelling and profound story about the building or its users.
To recount architecture most accurately to your clients at this time in history would be to use a Revit model based 3Ds Max animation with the V-Ray 2. 0 plug-in for a photo-realistic high-definition Blu-Ray video with surround sound on a 55" Samsung Led Tv with James Earl Jones narrating the story as written by Tom Clancy. A 12" 350 watt Klipsch powered subwoofer would also be useful.
Construction Documents
The produce of Churches moves quite slowly. It's the fundraising between preliminary produce and building documents that can take years. Two and a half years after implementing Revit, we had our first set of building documents completed.
I didn't think that these drawings were all that special. We had a lot of non-Revit problems. There was some re-working and value engineering and the building was too complicated. But in the end, the drawings were professional and adequate.
A few weeks went by and the Director of building told us that this was the best set of drawings he has worked from. I was quite surprised. The guys doing the Revit work were our best guys, but what I believe pleased the director about these drawings was they were perfectly coordinated. This is the offering that Revit made to the project.
As the task went into construction, it all went very smoothly. The foundations were very involved so we added an isometric to the drawing set with elevation tags and dimensions that took its data directly from the model. Only took a few hours. The concrete guy was blown away. The only problems on this task came from a join of subcontractors development errors unrelated to the drawings.
Architectural Apathy
I just don't understand why the whole world isn't in eager hope of the next issue of Revit and the schools aren't jam packed with citizen trying to learn it. Revit books should be best sellers. This should be discussed on Cnbc and even the nightly news. This is the most enchanting thing to ever happen to the professional convention of architecture. And it's undoubtedly just the beginning of the Bim revolution.
According to an narrative in professional Builder, Warren Buffet has invested heavily in Bim because he thinks there is inefficiency and waste in the American home building industry and there is money to be made using Bim to make it efficient.
Outsourcing
I undoubtedly don't understand the resistance on the part of American architects not to jump at the opening to excel at, scholar and lead in this new technology. The rest of the world is adopting Revit and they are using the current version. Maybe we think they use Dos on a 80386 Cpu with 5 year old software?
Do some Google searches and you will see some anticipated work being done in South America, China and India. Since Revit makes you a good architect, it won't be long before America is outsourcing its architecture to foreign countries where not only do they do it significantly cheaper, but they also do it better.
Like it or not, outsourcing is here. How are American Architects going to respond?
Investment
It takes ten years to come to be a real architect. To be able to produce and then recap a building in detail drawings that are buildable using common building that meets building codes and zoning ordinances and to do it efficiently adequate to earn a living. This is quite an investment.
So clarify to me why you don't want to take a four day class to get going and a three day industrialized class to begin to scholar a tool that will turn your life, safe your vocation and make you a good architect, and bring you joy? Why can't you lose some preliminary productivity as you transition to Revit when the productivity gains you will make will by the end of the first year, more than make up for all your hardware, software and training venture and give you a 25% productivity gain?
The citizen who are resisting Bim today and clinging to Cad are the exact same citizen who resisted Cad and clung to the pencil. When Cad took hold, it radically changed the architectural enterprise world. Many of the old firms went out of enterprise and new ones popped up to take advantage of the opportunity. Do you see the opportunity?
Did you know they teach Revit in most High Schools?
Excuses
I imagine there are two undoubtedly great excuses for the resistance. The first one is "The economy is busted. I can't afford to invest in anything. I don't know if it will ever come back. Every building that society needs has been built. I will wait until the economy gets better. " The second excuse will be "I have too much work I must get done. I don't have time to learn this now. Maybe when I'm not so busy?" Both of these excuses work together perfectly so it will never happen. consider the down time you have because of the economy to be a gift so you can train for the day when you will be busy.
In the meantime, the architects with a sense of vision and perspective realize that when the economy picks up, it will be too late. The clients are going to question Bim / Revit and if you can't supply it, you won't get the job. Currently approximately all government projects require Bim. The biggest architectural firms such as Hok and Som are leaders in Revit. The building world is demanding it because of the building cost savings (often greater than the architect's fee) and if the architects won't implement it, they will.
Autocad
I think I could write a book on why AutoCad is just awful for architecture. But I'm trying to keep this distinct and helpful.
So today I'm seeing for work and I'm reading the few ads out there for architectural work and I see over and over "must know AutoCad". Why? Is any person out there undoubtedly drawing floor plans using lines to recount a wall?Blocks for doors? Really? I'm sorry but that is just ludicrous. I could never work there because I would not be able to stop calling citizen stupid. I would probably not get past the first phone interview. I'd question to know why. A chisel and a stone tablet are approximately as efficient.
I left AutoCad in 2001 after using AutoCad 14 to do a Bim project. It took a while. I kept repeating the line from the movie The Money Pit, "two more weeks" and 16 weeks later I had a nice 3D Bim task in AutoCad 14. My boss was not amused.
In 2001 Architectural Desktop won my heart and not for a second did I regret leaving AutoCad. Drawing structure with lines is just stupid. I'm sorry but it is, and if you are doing it, somebody needed to tell you.
I have not manually drawn an elevation in over 10 years. I'm not sure I would even know how. Why would you want to do that? Let the computer do it for you. It's like using a spreadsheet for accounting but doing the calculations on a calculator and entering the data into the cells. Yes, it's that stupid. Stop it!
Sketchup only serves to enable architectural AutoCad users.
Autocad Culture
So AutoCad comes out of the box with 500 or so variables set to the worst possible choices. (Or at least it did, I haven't seen it in 10 years). Setting those variables is a month's worth of work. In AutoCad there are 15 dissimilar ways to do something. With great effort, you can find the best way and it will only be mediocre. Then you learn 3 programming languages (or more) and you can customize it to do that one thing well. If you are a geek, you can come to be a guru. Then you don't have to draw anymore, you just run colse to pulling other citizen out of the mire.
I think I have 50 AutoCad Books. They were undoubtedly expensive. I learned AutoLisp. I have 4 books on it. I saw Lynn Allen give her sublime AutoLisp in 45 minutes speech live. As a geek, I found it strangely erotic. I trained citizen in AutoCad while working for an Autodesk reseller. I like it good than plastic lead on mylar with an electric eraser. But come on, it's the new millennium, snap out of it.
In the AutoCad world, gurus make good money, have operate and job security, write books and don't share their knowledge so quickly. My beloved is the undocumented commands, real geek stuff.
AutoCad is undoubtedly a misnomer as there is nothing self-operating about AutoCad. All this just to draw lines? I don't think so.
Autodesk
Autodesk gets part of the blame for this because they are contentious against themselves with at least four dissimilar products for architecture; AutoCad, AutoCad Lt, Architectural Desktop (Now called AutoCad for Architecture, and Revit. That's confusing. In the past, they have sent a lot of mixed messages. Which one is best for what I do? Which one is cheapest? Which one will help me meet women and drive a new sports car? And I didn't even mention consulting engineers and the contentious products they use.
One thing Autodesk has done right is to try to ever so subtly steer architects to Revit (like herding cats). At first this angered me as I was dedicated to Architectural Desktop. There are few things in life as frustrating as changing Cad systems. When Frank Heitzman established a Bim program at Triton College and Paul Aubin wrote a book on Revit, it was time for me to have a good look. At the first class Frank said Revit was a video game for architects. At the end of my first class I had drawn a sheet with plans, elevations, sections and a rendering of a small house. I was sold.
Autodesk has said that their time to come is with Revit. Every year they come out with a new version. It all the time has some awesome new features. It is the most enchanting day of the year for me. The occasion I can get my hands on it, I upgrade. I also like the subscription system, it works well for Revit. There is no hypothesize not to stay on it and ride the sweet wave of new technology.
Revit Culture
Oh my, what a world of difference. It is ready to use right out of the box. Autodesk has created many tutorials and white papers. The internet is full of blogs and web sites to share families and knowledge. The subscription site lets you see many of the past classes at Autodesk University. YouTube has hundreds of video tutorials. The whole world is posting their work and it's magnificent.
In Revit, if it takes you more than 15 minutes to do a task the first time, you are using the wrong approach. outline out the spoton vocabulary word and Google it. The clarification will be there.
In Revit you don't model every single nut and bolt, there is a equilibrium to the 3D/2D that you will learn as you see what others are doing.
My response to those who have told me "3D was a waste of time" and my other beloved "They will work it out in the field" I say this "If it is too hard to model in 3D in Revit, then it is too hard to build. Your fake 2D drawing is a lie and a disservice to your client. "
In my 21 years of drawing on the computer, I have struggled to come up with the spoton coming to creating architecture digitally. I think Revit is it. It is also just the beginning of a rapid turn to having the computer do more of the work. Vertical applications just make sense.
Simulation
Although photo-realistic rendering is awesome, the next level is simulation. If your interior rendering looks bad, you can adjust the rendering lighting in an artistic way to make it beautiful. If you are using Revit's photometric lights and you rendering looks bad, don't fix the rendering, fix the lighting produce and be glad you caught it before they built it.
On one of our projects the interior designer gave me her material and color pallet. I went to the material suppliers web site and download the exact color samples and materials and re-rendered the interior rooms. The client and the interior designer saw the rooms exactly like they were going to be.
On other project, I used the scenery drawing as a background to put 3D plants in the model for the rendering. Instead of tossing random plants in a rendering in an artistic way, it was a simulation. If the produce doesn't look good, the clarification is to fix the produce not the artistic depiction.
The number of things that can be simulated is huge. Sun and shadow studies, lighting, power usage, collision detection, optimum building rotation, all sorts of Leed stuff, building logistics and staging. Use your imagination.
Conclusion
There is a lot of facts on the benefits of Bim for the rest of the Aec industry, I am just addressing architects that are development produce and building drawings. Non-architects think that we have been using software like this all along. They have no idea that we fill out door schedules by hand and use lines for walls. You became an architect to produce structure and solve problems, not be a typist or laboriously sling lines as fast as you can in pointless repetition.
My beloved part of being an architectural designer is seeing my designs get built. This undoubtedly happens so rarely and can take years. Working in Revit, I get that satisfaction on a daily basis. imagine the joy that would bring to your life. (If I can only find some work)
If you are an architect and you need to produce structure and make architectural drawings, you need to know that with proper training and experience, Revit is the best way to perform this. The drawing quality is superior, the renderings are amazing, the coordination is rock solid, it is so efficient, that in one year you will be 25% faster and have paid for the learning curve, the software and the hardware. You will have better, faster and economy and you will be a good architect.
Revit is a unblemished system. It is the only tool you need to generate renderings, produce drawings and building documents. There are a few other Bim tools that are similar to Revit and are quite good, but from what I have seen Revit is superior, has a bigger shop share, is the most compatible and has the greatest number of partners.
Architects, this is our occasion in history, Let us seize it.
Revit Will Make You a good Architect
No comments:
Post a Comment