What is Residential BIM

[Ed_Downunder]

I can remember quite clearly moving from paper based spreadsheet to electronic spreadsheet. Lotus 123 on an IBM clone and DOS. That was hard work and always high risk. Hours of work lost in an instant.

At that time there was a move to electronic accounting systems. We tried to implement a system called DAC Easy. That was hard. Very Hard.

The point is those are just memories. Spreadsheets, accounting packages aren't even a conversation today.

A CAD system replaced the paper based system. A cad system by definition is 2d. The new is always replacing the old being driven by efficiencies.

Enter Chief Architect: So what is so great about Chief Architect and what efficiencies does it bring to the table. Peel away the bling for the sake of this conversation. The bling is a valuable feature and is not being dismissed by relevance.

Traditional building design was largely reliant upon two-dimensional drawings (plans, elevations, sections, etc.). Building information modeling extends this beyond 3-D, augmenting the three primary spatial dimensions (width, height and depth - X, Y and Z) with time as the fourth dimension and cost as the fifth. BIM therefore covers more than just geometry. It also covers spatial relationships, light analysis, geographic information, and quantities and properties of building components (for example manufacturers' details).

In Practice this is saying when you build a slab with walls and a roof those components are aware of each other. When you get an elevation from that model the elevations accurately reflect the model. Contrast that with 2d cad where each elevation is drawn and there is no relationship between the lines. So the potential for inaccurate elevations is greater simply because each elevation is drawn in full. The inefficiencies are obvious.

Now we are using a model based architectural drawing system we can change room heights. Our elevations are automatically updated. That is an efficiency. Compare that with 2d cad where all the lines are redrawn for the whole plan to reflect the changes.That is a mind boggling quantum shift that is a game changer. We have terrain data and we have a great deal of information about the components that are used to create our models. We can do shadow studies.

So what is the purpose of this conversation. In my view it's this:

BIM is an acronym Building Management Modeling. It's a system - it's a solution - it's not just software.

3d software is BIM because the models we create are based on real word components. A house brick is described as width, height and depth - X, Y and Z and has a name. No such reference exists with 2d cad. My brick occupies a spatial place in my model and has a spatial relationship with other components it can be counted by item, area and volume. No such calculation exist in the 2d cad.

So we have and are using 3d BIM and at one level the conversation is about how the information that is inside our model reports. The model is there there information is an integral part of our models.

So BIM is relevant to all Chief Users because we use it. The question now is do we understand that we are using it.

Inside Chief some areas are more efficient than others. Look at the complexity and depth of reporting for cabinets. That is BIM working seamlessly, beautifully, gracefully, peacefully---you get the point. Compare that with foundations (sorry about that old chestnut) So inside Chief the 3d BIM there is room for improvement.

So really what is all the noise about? It's this. 3d BIM is an efficient way to draw. It is drawn once and that is key. That is the point. That is the efficiency.

Chief tries to report a materials list. That is an efficiency and fits the BIM model. Chief is already more than 3d BIM. The materials list is what takes chief past the 3d model. Unfortunately the materials list has been abandoned by many and other solutions are recommended. Planswift pops up on the radar as one solution. That is counter productive, it is an inefficiency. The information we want is coming from our model we have spent days, hours or even weeks developing our models and we hand it off to a third party software to reinterpret our model.

The inefficiency is not hard to grasp. The pencil needs to be sharpened not replace. This is not a swipe at Planswift they are who they are for very good reason but to use 2d to calculate quantity that exist in our 3d model is a retrograde step not using the information we already have is duplication. The model already has measurements, quantity, area and volume. It has more, there are components - electrical - Cabinets - sinks -toilets etc etc. It can be argued that some get very good quick accurate results from Planswift. Thats not the point. The efficiency of the system is being challenged. If you alter your model you have to recalculate the Swiftplan. Import a revised DWG etc. As you can see updating your 3d model is the same as updating quantities now converting it again to a DWG for Swiftplan is inefficient and a duplication.

Chief has no job scheduling ability at this time so no point bringing it into the conversation.

Staying with BIM there is a lot of difference BIM in a large enterprise and a small enterprise and of course it's the scale of work undertaken. The discussion about residential BIM is already there in Google land. So the question is what is required to implement BIM into small business. That will be different for different businesses. There is not a one size fits all.

So we have 3d BIM because we are using Chief Architect. The starting point for practices still using 2d cad is to get 3d BIM. So it's a question how we share that information within our own enterprise. What are our specific needs.

Like many we draw in house and we build. So to produce a materials list in chief is of great value. To export that list to excel and make it workable is inefficient. While excel is perfect for the job it requires duplication. The cycle of exporting and updating excel is obviously inefficient.

We are still using inefficient duplication practice with the associated risk of error. To change that we need other people to work on the plan simultaneously. I don't mean we have the plan open more than one instance. I mean that the girls in the office have access to the materials list. We are able to share common information from the same plan at the same time. We are all using the same data set. The concept of BIM leverages human assets, avoids duplication, improves collaboration, avoids fragmented information sets.

In theory this is what Chief is capable of right now. I don't want multiple licenses so another member can input data so this is an issue for chief to ponder. We have a viewer - perhaps an inhouse viewer is a solution.

Residential BIM is here. You are using it. So really it is a conversation about our understanding and implementing BIM.

[lbuttery]

Edward:

I agree with everything you said in your last post

I advocate Planswift (or something like it) as a current solution to CA's lack of a useful ML

If and when, CA implements a useful ML then we won't need an alternative

after 8 years of waiting - I'm not very hopeful this will happen anytime soon

Lew

[Ed_Downunder]

Hi Lew,

I took your recommendation in the way it was given.
I downloaded the program to see what it would do for me.
Because of you recomendation I was able to make my case more clearly.

Residential BIM is a new way of looking at BIM.

When we get it that we are already using BIM we can have a conversation about implementing it for ourselves.

This is probably a chance for Chief to review their perceptions of what BIM means. Doug's post indicates that he has a different understanding.

That doesn't mean it's set in concrete. Residential BIM is a new slant on BIM and what the impact on small business is.

[gteacher]

Ed:
I’m somewhat unsure of exactly what you are advocating, since the “devil is….”. As I understand it, BIM is a protocol standard that allows the free exchange of 3D data in a common format with extensions for schedule, estimate & cost. But basically a common protocol. The protocols that I’m familiar with are AIA E202 and by extension IGES (3D Data).

I know of no competitive company that uses those protocols internally, and only the highest level ones that export as such. SoftPlan and Cadsoft are listed as supporting BIM, but they also export to only proprietary formats: Javelin (Weyerheauer), Mitek, Boise, Keymark, & 20-20. Their internal Databases aren’t even close. Is residential BIM an additional Protocol and where is that standard?

I think it’s a great suggestion for Chief to export to other protocols, as both Softplan & Cadsoft do but see no value in extending to time\estimate\cost. Those external programs are very high maintenance programs and require a specific format for input. That means high maintenance also in Chief to prepare and verify the data (GIGO), plus an additional person to maintain the external program. Don’t see the value of double work. Not cost effective. I think Chief could do just as good a job and perhaps add substantial value to the program which would open new markets for us, as we could then charge for the additional info.

Not intending to be “picky” just trying to understand terms and intent?

[Ed_Downunder]

Hi Gerry,

I have just used the last hour + on a reply to your post.

For no reason it just disappeared.



question. I see a saved tag occasionally. Is it possible my reply has been autosave?

Will have to reply later.

[lbuttery]

Edward:

I have also lost long posts occassionaly ???

I now type them in Notepad and then cut/paste into Chieftalk

Lew

[gteacher]

ED:

The forum will occasionally lose posts, if it's in the middle of doing something else when you update. Autosave was to fix that, apparently not.

My real point on BIM was really GIGO. For example, its has been point out that Chief does not carry through trim profile names and even doesn't bother reporting trim sizes, using instead a generic 1 x 3. If Chief drops such vital info internally, how is it possible for any export to know that data?

In addition to a 3D protocol, BIM is a specification for what information is to be included and in what format. If Chief does not adhere to that specification than what's the point? If they do then why export, just give us the info? That's why I advocate Data tagging and complete access through Ruby or something else. An external program, and the modularizing Chief won't solve anything if Chief does not properly package the data. If it does, we don't need an external specification or any special handling.-- problem solved.

As far as I can tell neither SoftPlan or Cadsoft adhere to the BIM specification, per say, but their labeled as BIM because they do export to third party vendors (poorly). Primarily, because they don't have the capabilities that Chief does. There's just no "white knight" to rush in an save Chief or do it's job for them. I think the focal point should be on Chief getting it right.

[lbuttery]

My real point on BIM was really GIGO. For example, its has been point out that Chief does not carry through trim profile names and even doesn't bother reporting trim sizes, using instead a generic 1 x 3. If Chief drops such vital info internally, how is it possible for any export to know that data?

Gerry:

very good point



If Chief does not adhere to that specification than what's the point? If they do then why export, just give us the info?

Ummm, maybe yes, maybe no

Chief can't be everything due to resources and cost to the consumer

Chief can't do energy calcs and structural analysis and collision detection, etc etc etc.

If it did the cost would be way too high

far better to create a standard BIM export and let other software packages do their "thing"

only chiefers who need that "thing" done would have to buy that 3rd party software

CA needs to decide the core tasks that Chief needs to have in-house and let the rest be done
by others

there are 2D chiefers who have no need for raytracing and are annoyed that CA is spending resources
working on 3D enhancements and that they have to pay for those enhancements

An external program, and the modularizing Chief won't solve anything if Chief does not properly package the data. If it does, we don't need an external specification or any special handling.-- problem solved.


sorry to disagree - but problem is not solved at all

I think the focal point should be on Chief getting it right

absolutely correct, whether internal or external solutions

internal or external solutions all depend on cost and resources

if CA can't hire enough resources then we wait "forever" for fixes and enhancements

if CA does hire more resources and does "everything" internally then the cost of Chief rises dramatically

1. apply fixes to minimize GIGO
2. create modules to keep costs down
3. create BIM capable exports to keep costs down
which also creates greater enhancements by allowing 3rd party software to do their "thing"

Lew

[Ed_Downunder]

Hi Gerry
Of course you are right. BIM is unattainable as described in
National BIM Standard-United States™

A Residential Builder has no interest at all in all that BIM encompasses.

Pasted from http://www.buildingsmartalliance.org...p/nbims/about/

The principle of BIM is obtainable to a Residential Builder.

1. Improved visualization
2. Improved productivity due to easy retrieval of information
3. Increased coordination of construction documents
4. Embedding and linking of vital information such as vendors for specific materials, location of details and quantities required for estimation and tendering
5. Increased speed of delivery
6. Reduced costs

BIM is associated with Government and Large Commercial Projects for the reasons you point out. The large software companies are keen to be the leaders in this area.

A protocol is important for BIM to be implemented but BIM has to be more than a protocol. A protocol will allow collaboration and the use of a single data set. Albeit other stake holders contributing to the Model.

BIM as I understand it Building Information Modelling and while collaboration will help with the modelling it's not just the collaboration that is key it's the building model and the information in the model.

At enterprise level protocols across disciplines is essential to achieve efficiencies.

At a Residential builder level this cross platform protocol is less important but the principle of BIM remains.

Chief Architect claim to be a 3D BIM. That has to be the correct definition for how Chief Architect works.


Is BIM an acronym to replace CAD? This article is dated 2002 suggests it is.

http://www.laiserin.com/features/issue15/feature01.php

If you reread my post you will notice I said:-
“Chief has no job scheduling ability at this time so there no point bringing it into the conversation.”

My point is Chief is BIM and that may surprise many. With the materials list (even though it doesn’t work well) Chief is more than 3D BIM.

Residential BIM is emerging. Protocols----who knows
http://www.constructech.com/news/art...rticle_id=8806

QUOTE
” A Residential BIM Resource
April 04, 2011
As BIM (building information modeling) continues to take hold of the construction market, it seems commercial contractors and owners are doing most of the talking about its value and challenges. Where do residential builders weigh in on the discussion? Up until now there have been few resources for the homebuilder to talk on BIM.
Enter the RBIMA (Residential Building Information Model Alliance). Created by Jay Moore, business development manager, Ameri-CAD, an ITW Company,, Allen, Texas, RBIMA is a grassroots efforts designed to enhance the use and application of BIM technology for the residential building community. Only weeks old, the goal of RBIMA is to start the discussion on BIM for the residential market.
“(There are) tons of groups for BIM but the vast majority of them focus on commercial work and residential topics get pushed to the bottom of the pile,” says Moore. “So I felt it was a good time to get a ‘software neutral’ group for residential BIM. I (do) not want it to push any individual company or software developer’s agenda, but to be an educational site for anybody to share their BIM ups and downs, successes and failures, and anything else that will advance overall BIM use and technology for residential users.”

[lbuttery]

Edward:

yes, chief is BIM - but very limited BIM

it is uni-lingual and it needs to be bi or even multi-lingual

chief needs to be able to share with other BIM software
and at this point it can't do that

lowly Sketchup can - why can't Chief ???

check out how Sketchup can interact with Affinity bi-directionally
http://www.trelligence.com/affinity_...finitySketchUp

Lew

[Ed_Downunder]

Hi Lew

"there are 2D chiefers who have no need for raytracing and are annoyed that CA is spending resources
working on 3D enhancements and that they have to pay for those enhancements"

This why we need this conversation. Chief is 3D BIM (I hear your qualification)

Who would draw their project with the 2D tools.

Understand it or not Layout is just a 2d representation of the 3D model.

[Ed_Downunder]

"I think the focal point should be on Chief getting it right."

Hi Gerry,
I am probably a bit long winded but that is the point I am trying to make. Obviously not very well!!

[lbuttery]

Who would draw their project with the 2D tools.

Edward:

I doubt if anyone would

they want CA's resources spent on ensuring that the 2D tools work properly
and that the cross-sections and elevations etc work properly

they do create 3D models and they do renders

but they don't want resources spent on fancy raytracing and library items beyond standard construction
they don't want fancy tea cups and wine bottles etc

Lew

[Doug Park]

Interesting discussion.

CAD is decidedly not just 2D. Even back in the early days of CAD they were doing 3D models. Then companies started doing parametric modeling. It was about the time that parametric modeling came into vogue that the idea of BIM was created. But it took a few years to gain traction.

IGES was a standard exchange format that dropped almost completely out of use more than a decade ago. Some software still supports it, but the standard was too weak to deal with modern software.

A lot of people seem to want to define BIM as the same thing as Interoperability. BIM is more of an umbrella concept that seems to adapt and expand to cover just about everything imaginable. Which is why I dislike conversations about BIM because it encodes concepts into some sort of "newspeak" format that obscures understanding.

If we want to talk about interoperability then let's talk about that because it seems like that is what we are talking about here. In general interoperability is a tough nut to crack. Almost always the result of moving from one program to another is somewhat lossy. Usually the destination can handle data that the source doesn't provide or the source doesn't have data that the destination requires. It is for this reason that I doubt that you will ever see programs that achieve the level of BIM that is desired.

A simple example of this in Chief was when we were exporting to POVRAY. It turns out that the 3D transforms that POVRAY could handle couldn't properly reflect the 3D transforms we were using internally. This meant that the camera view that was ray traced in some cases did not look the same as the view in Chief. When we wrote our own ray tracer we handled the transforms correctly and no longer have that issue.

Sometimes we get loss even within a program, which in the case of our materials list, occurs more often than it should. But it is something we can correct, while we cannot correct loss going to an external format.

I would like to support the industry foundation classes (IFCs). And we probably will eventually. The last time I checked they didn't provide anywhere close to the same level of data as we hold in Chief so there would be a great deal of loss going to them. Part of the reason Chief can do what it does is that we have more data input for our parametric models than most other programs.

We are actively pursuing more external file formats. The many proprietary formats out there are difficult to justify supporting. Often they last only a few years and are gone and even open standards like IGES seem to come and go. For awhile VRML was a big standard, which we still support, but these days it is also an also ran standard that seems to have slipped into disfavor.

Ideally we would support everything, but practically that would mean sacrificing other features so we have to choose carefully or all we become is a translator from one format to another.

The promise of BIM is to do what Chief does really well today and more. The marketing of BIM in many cases appears to be a way to sell hard to use software to people who don't know any better.

Our goal isn't to support BIM. Our goal is to provide tools for you to make your jobs easier. If along the way we happen to implement BIM that is fine. But our goal is to deliver on the promise of efficient, easy to use software, to make our customers more successful at doing residential and light commercial design.

We have been delivering on that goal year after year for two decades now. What are the programs that are chasing BIM delivering?

[perryh]

Well said, Doug. I just want something that works as I rarely have the time to mess around with things. Yep, Chief has some things that need fixing but what Software doesn't.