Interesting agenda listing the top ten reasons using Aecosim, for a webinar next week. Always good to know what Bentley think it does well or best.
Also insightful are some of the project-based 'show and tells' that organisations like CITA do. Noticed this fairly recent on on the Trinity Business School in Dublin, Ireland. Presentations were given by the architect, engineers and the contractor's BIM managers.
I particularly like the one given the contractor's BIM manager. Particularly upfront about the problems.
Architects (STW)
1. Point cloud in parallel to CAD geometry. Need to be able to look at two different info sources to verify or interprete the situation, which seems to be a reoccurring theme. Aecosim should be able to shine here with its reality mesh, point cloud, STM referencing tools.
2. BIM effiiciencies: Simple automation of printing drawings. Aecosim should brush up on its Sheet Index, Print Organiser tools. Dynamo probably still has the upper hand here as it beats GC when it comes to accessing DGS and other ABD data structures.
3. Clash detection: limited benefits during design phase due to speed of changes. Aecosim should still have an advantage due to its ability to reference for more formats that Revit without having to 'clean' them up. Actually, referencing is still much easier in Aecosim compared to Revit's model linking.
4. Modelers needs to have construction knowledge.
5. Purpose of the model: minimum info efficient. 2d drawn information is assumed to be less costly. Easier to have one drawing for a skirting (presumably with some wording in a spec or finishes schedule) than to model everywhere. This is where Aecosim's Hypermodeling should be able to shine. The problem is most jobs are still using DEM.
6. Costing from the model: naming of elements to allow quantification. The downloaded object may not be what is specified or costed. Rolls Royce doors in model may in fact be Fiat Puntos. Revit's is known for being very database-like which would be good for costing. Its QTO tool is also pretty good. A lot of 3rd party tools. You could argue that Aecosim's DGS is a bit more flexible compared to Revit's Shared parameters. The new Edit-in-Excel mode is also a big equaliser.
7. Contractor is building from drawings... contradicts Contractor's wish for 'for construction' models. See below. Again, this is where Aecosim's Hypermodeling and interop muscle should come in handy. The point is that the 3d model still needs to be read in conjunction with 2d info. It would be good to be able to convert Revits Sheet Views and insert them Hypermodeling-style in the i.model that the Revit plugin exports.
8. BIM not in contract! MEP contract out of synch with main contract, and design programme. LOI, LOMD, LOD still ambigous... not surprising. Old fashioned project management mistakes will still trip up BIM.
9. Phased model release... difficulty differentiating 'for reals' info from preliminary info. Info is always in flux. Yeah, Aecosim could benefit from iModel 2.0 tech. Always had Design History, ISM etc.
10. Subcontractor submission: easier to check steel subbie's 3d model.. for clashes... for an architects nonexpert eye, of course. Again, ad hoc access to DWG, IFC is much easier in Aecosim. No need for intermediate apps / worflows using Navis.
11. Checking 3d mode against drawings... still important. Ditto on Hypermodeling.
Engineers (Arup)
a. Working in an existing building fabric, means working with point clouds and documentation of what needs to be demolished. Upfont cost and programme. Again, Aecosim/Mstn much better with reality meshes, PC etc. Surveyors predominantly use DWG-based apps.
b. This includes below ground civils, means using dwg-based Civils3D. No mention of the lack of interoperaility between Revit and anything DWG based. Again, Aecosim/Mstn is much better with civils info where R'vit is not widespread. Georeferencing built in. Lots of municipalities use Bentley apps for road/drainage/utilities etc design.
c. Structural engineers needed to provide quite detailed structural information on the existing structural members. Again, legacy info will be more likely to be in DWG or scan formats. It would be great if Bentley could add vector pdf to the list of formats it can reference. Descartes companion provides inclusion of photos as camera objects in 3d model.
d. Below ground utilities, is a huge problem that requires real time survey(DWG again) information - need to switch to Navis to coordinate. More likely to have common modeling environment in Aecosim. No need for repeated conversions.
e. 'key to a tool like Revit is understanding the LOD to be included' - sounds like Revit scalability problems. Still reliant on the 2d drawing information for conveying detailed information. Aecosim should be much better at handling large models. Hypermodeling.
f. Visualisation: soft factor that helps with things like temporary works stability problem visualisation. Also helps the contractor to hit the ground quicker. Revit has Enscape as addon. LumenRT might not be as slick, but it is part of the package.
g.Typical/standard details: detail provided for a typical detail for things that will repeat. Again Revit scalability limitations?. Again, Aecosim should be much better at handling large models. Hypermodeling.
h. Some trades / packages still do not benefit from a BIM model (piling). Yup. USACE BIM deliverables does not require 3d for everything, which recognises this fact. Topcon etc.
i. Proliferation of formats that need to be provided: more information- dwg, pdf, ifc, nwc,nwd, dwxf. Aecosim/Mstn should handle this much better. PW automation services ?
j. Substitution of products will create coordination problems. This is something that has been long anticipated by AIA E202 MPS and other protocols. It looks like contractors will need to build up their BIM 'drawing offices' to manage the post tender updating of the BIM model post tender.
k. Need for parametric tools increased due to need to react to changes during the design process. This is a wake-up call for those Aecosim users who has been traditionally averse to 'fly-by-wire'. Revit/Dynamo still ahead here but Aecosim/GC is catching up. Aecosim due to its CAD origins has always been better at modeling/ snapping in 3d.
l. Model as single source of truth will also need to host things like RFI's, progress reporting, health and safety. Maybe Navigator and Structural Synchronizer could be enhanced to provide PW lite sevices to medium sized projects.
Contractor (JJ Rhatigan)
a. Coordination still a big thing for contractors. Read CDE and clash detection. See above.
b. MEP schematic model separated into Mech and Electrical models. I suspect that this common due to lack of big 'tier 1' MEP contractors for the size of job. ABD/AES as a combo should have some advantages here. Hevacomp? Out would be good to get the installer to install the autocad MEP etc object enablers when ABD / AES are installed.
c. Number of 'ad hoc' or contractor specific models for 3d room tags, crane / temporary works, syphonic drainage that would be done by the contractor's 'drawing office'. Lot's of apps that serve these kind of design are based on DWG.
d. Soft factor: 3d model helps clarify and explaining the design. Free LumenRT
e. Consistency of drawings derived from the 3d model. Contradicts the amount of 'embellishment' that Aecosim jobs typically have. Uh oh...
f. Elements like fire barriers that are in the 2d drawings and not in the 3d model. This is typical for all BIM apps including R'vt, which will contain a lot of detail in 2d views. See also the engineer's comment on not over doing LOD. Aecosim whould have the scalability advantage here. Hypermodeling.
g. Contractor's Information Requirements: this will be contentious and I suppose should be implemented via an industry-wide body like buildingSmart using MVD's. iModel 2.0 could help here?
h. Models still only for information. Schematic models like MEP are accepted as something that will need to be developed further. It seems that the arch and structural models are still subject to changes post tender.. typical RFI stuff that leads to 'missing' information of corrections that will need to be incorporated into the model. But, post tender the contractor 'owns' the model and has probably modified and added to it. How would the changes be incorporated. Doesn't sound like Glue etc supported the kind of multi-party 'federated-worksharing'. iModel 2.0 could help here?
i. 'for information' models are technically not supposed to be used on site. This creates a info gap in the process... and illustrates why 2d info tends to be relied on for 'for construction' info. Human interpretation is still required to 'fill in the blanks'. There is a keen desire to be able to 'trust' the 3d model. I think that this overemphasis on the 3d model is to be expected. But, it also highlights the contradiction. The BIM model provides more comprehensive info compared to 2d or textual info, but for the the infomation to be 'trust'-worthy it has to be checked and the assuarance process is still very much a 2d, manual and human affair :-). You can pretty much be sure the design has not be 'checked' if there were no 2d drawings produced. 2d info is also still needed to fill in as it is not possible to stuff the 3d model with everything. Hypermodeling, PW Component Indexing?