Autodesk FMDesktop
erm... 
no comment.
--
Melanie Perry
"clintonG" wrote in message
news:5273638@discussion.autodesk.com...
The part about them not being very bright you mean? ;-)
<%= Clinton
"melanie stone" wrote in message
news:5273518@discussion.autodesk.com...
holy cow. that sounds just like my job now (except the WO system is fully
functional and invaluable they've found since implementing it about 10 years
ago).
and I do agree with you that the concept of BIM is about integrating *data*
into a model.
--
Melanie Perry
***not all who wander are lost***
http://mistressofthedorkness.blogspot.com/
"clintonG" wrote in message
news:5273480@discussion.autodesk.com...
Everything was then dumped into AutoCAD and I tried my best to make sense of
the mess. I also inherited a so-called plan room which was an area in a
machine and equipment room where dozens of drawing sets comprised of
thousands of drawing sheets were tossed without any means of coordination. I
cleaned that all up and tried my
best to integrate with CAD and other means to manage these assets
Regardless, I learned a lot on that job about the way hospitals were
designed and constructed. Actually I learned in these contemporary times the
business of healthcare causes a hospital to be "under construction" at all
times. The mess was so bad it got to the point that I set up a meeting to
discuss a proposal I had.
To make a long story short I proposed we use the CAD drawings as base-plans
from which security and work flow management systems could be developed and
managed. I suggested the base-plans could for example assist security to do
their job. Security should have an interactive set of drawings in their
offices. A rapid reference and response system is what I proposed.
I also pointed out that laborers from different contracting firms were
wandering all over the place so I proposed creating a work order check
in/check out system for contractors. Drawings from the work order system
would also provide contactors with facility information regarding locations
of medical gas, water supply lines, and so on.
Less than an hour after everybody politely thanked me for a great idea that
"they" in all their wisdom agreed was "not feasible" the alarms sounded --
ONK ONK ONK ONK ONK ONK ONK -- everybody scrambled in fear. It was LOUD and
scary. It was also poetic justice. A contractor had entered the wrong area
of a room and cut through a water supply line flooding the entire neonatal
intensive care unit which had to be evacuated of cribs and equipment. BTW,
my as-builts did show the supply line. The contractor was never given
documentation because as they used to say it was "all in the CAD."
The 3D model is not simply based on a value proposition relevant to visual
information. Even though visual information will be found useful (perhaps
marginally so in certain applications) the era of BIM is here and the data
that is possible to build into a 3D model is going to prove itself
invaluable over time as more insight into its use is understood.
At this point in time however those of us that understand these principles
are trying to work with our peers and colleagues to help them with the
"vision thing."
no comment.--
Melanie Perry
"clintonG"
news:5273638@discussion.autodesk.com...
The part about them not being very bright you mean? ;-)
<%= Clinton
"melanie stone"
news:5273518@discussion.autodesk.com...
holy cow. that sounds just like my job now (except the WO system is fully
functional and invaluable they've found since implementing it about 10 years
ago).
and I do agree with you that the concept of BIM is about integrating *data*
into a model.
--
Melanie Perry
***not all who wander are lost***
http://mistressofthedorkness.blogspot.com/
"clintonG"
news:5273480@discussion.autodesk.com...
Everything was then dumped into AutoCAD and I tried my best to make sense of
the mess. I also inherited a so-called plan room which was an area in a
machine and equipment room where dozens of drawing sets comprised of
thousands of drawing sheets were tossed without any means of coordination. I
cleaned that all up and tried my
best to integrate with CAD and other means to manage these assets
Regardless, I learned a lot on that job about the way hospitals were
designed and constructed. Actually I learned in these contemporary times the
business of healthcare causes a hospital to be "under construction" at all
times. The mess was so bad it got to the point that I set up a meeting to
discuss a proposal I had.
To make a long story short I proposed we use the CAD drawings as base-plans
from which security and work flow management systems could be developed and
managed. I suggested the base-plans could for example assist security to do
their job. Security should have an interactive set of drawings in their
offices. A rapid reference and response system is what I proposed.
I also pointed out that laborers from different contracting firms were
wandering all over the place so I proposed creating a work order check
in/check out system for contractors. Drawings from the work order system
would also provide contactors with facility information regarding locations
of medical gas, water supply lines, and so on.
Less than an hour after everybody politely thanked me for a great idea that
"they" in all their wisdom agreed was "not feasible" the alarms sounded --
ONK ONK ONK ONK ONK ONK ONK -- everybody scrambled in fear. It was LOUD and
scary. It was also poetic justice. A contractor had entered the wrong area
of a room and cut through a water supply line flooding the entire neonatal
intensive care unit which had to be evacuated of cribs and equipment. BTW,
my as-builts did show the supply line. The contractor was never given
documentation because as they used to say it was "all in the CAD."
The 3D model is not simply based on a value proposition relevant to visual
information. Even though visual information will be found useful (perhaps
marginally so in certain applications) the era of BIM is here and the data
that is possible to build into a 3D model is going to prove itself
invaluable over time as more insight into its use is understood.
At this point in time however those of us that understand these principles
are trying to work with our peers and colleagues to help them with the
"vision thing."
"the concept of BIM is about integrating *data* into a model" -- well said from both of you. It's the rich data about all of the equipment/assets/spaces that I want to move into FM.
I think of it this way... The real value of BIM is the accurate data and the analysis enabled by the model (clash detection, energy analysis, HVAC design, etc). Building an accurate model for those analyses is best done with 3D tools. So 3D is a means, not the end. The same is true of passing it to FM.
Mark Evans
Autodesk
Mark Evans
Senior Product Manager
AEC Division, Simulation Product Line
Autodesk, Inc.
I think of it this way... The real value of BIM is the accurate data and the analysis enabled by the model (clash detection, energy analysis, HVAC design, etc). Building an accurate model for those analyses is best done with 3D tools. So 3D is a means, not the end. The same is true of passing it to FM.
Mark Evans
Autodesk
Mark Evans
Senior Product Manager
AEC Division, Simulation Product Line
Autodesk, Inc.
Alright, that gives me a much better idea of where you're coming from and
how you got there. Thank you!
First, your wife... lovely! I don't know all that many people that share my
name. Too cool.
Right... I agree with you that people that haven't worked out in the field
are viewing things entirely different than those who are doing the building.
I love the idea that the orginal plans *are* the as-builts.
I give props to you for holding everyone accountable. I definitely see that
as the biggest problem I face in new construction / renovations at my
facility. I suppose that goes back to the thing of having someone doing the
checking who knows and understands what's being done.
lol... don't fear being too 'windy', the background really helped me
understand a lot, and I thank you for taking the time out to answer my
questions. It's much appreciated.
Revit? Make that three programs, yeah? I'll be getting Building Systems to
learn soon (comes in a package with ABS at this point)...
This ties into discussions over in the Revit Building and Revit Systems
forums about just having a single package, or having a base package with
modules for Structure and Systems as an option.
I can't speak with much authority on the benefits of ADT vs Revit, as I've
not used either one of them in-depth nor in a production environment.
They're still both way above my head...
I'll admit to being bitter about ADT as many of my contractors *halfway* use
it, but, many of them don't, and we don't use it inhouse. They just can't
understand why I want/need the aecobjects removed/flattened, etc. no matter
how many times I tell them.
The big problem then is that, we're not all on the same program, so there
are things that each of us can and can't do. So... I'd like to have a model
of my buildings, but, if we're only 10% there, we'll not do it at all.
Am I wrong in my all or none mentality? ~shrug~ Doesn't matter, because we
can't afford to buy everyone seats of autocad so they can get the object
enablers, etc. rambling... sorry.
--
Melanie Perry
***not all who wander are lost***
http://mistressofthedorkness.blogspot.com/
"Mikey52" wrote in message
news:5307209@discussion.autodesk.com...
Melanie,
which by the way is a beautiful name, and my wife of 34 years, name also. I
now know of two couples that fit the bill of "Mike and Melanie"
I will begin with a little info about me, my background and my workflow, and
then try to address your questions.
I started my own construction business when I was 22, with a high school
education, a few hours of college credits nd five years of driving nails. I
had several years experience with pencil and paper, going all the way back
to high school, before deciding to jump into the digital world of Cad, ADT
and ABS. Mostly I worked out details of jobs, or parts of jobs, at night to
make the work easier for my crew or subs to understand what the final
product was to be. Some plan shops put out a lousy set of CD's for
residential construction, and a lot if not most decisions had to be made in
the field. Many times we would get 2d drawings that were impossible to build
in the 3d world. I have carried more than one set of plans into the
architects office and showed them why a particular design could not be
built, and end up showing them what had to change in order to get close to
their intended design. I finally decided I had had enough of designers and
architects that had no clue about real world construction means and methods.
I know it's not a requirement for registered achitects, but I think they
should all have to actually _ork in the field with hammer and nails before
they ever draw or design anything, but that is just another one of my rants.
The same could be said for software designers of the tools (Cad) that are
being used to produce the drawings. How can you draw or design something
without first hand knowledge of real world lumber, bricks and mortar
processes?
The above issues are what led to my decision to begin drawing my own plans.
In the residential field, an AIA stamp is not required for permitting. I
still enjoy doing my own CD's for my residential clients, almost as much as
looking at the final product and saying "This is a good job, and we should
all be proud to have contributed to it's completion."
I work a little different than most, since I am also the building
contractor. By the time my plans are ready for permitting, I have already
built the structure, at least in my head and in ADT. I am a hands on type of
builder. Carry my laptop and a small printer with me to the job site. If
there are any questions, some subcontractor needs a little more info, I can
bring up my drawing, zoom in to the area and show them right there the 3d
view that deals with the particular issue. I can even print the area in
question right on the spot, which further clarifies most issues. I have used
some of the same subs for many years. I know their capabilities and they
know what I require from them. Loyalty, which works both ways, goes a long
way in getting a job completed in a reasonable time and without having to do
anything twice. I am a firm beliver in the old addage "If you don't have
time to do a job right, when will you have time to do it over?"
There are really only four considerations in making most business decisions:
Price(speaks for itself), Service(good communications, availability, and
response time), Quality( do it right the first time), and Speed (getting the
work done by a stated deadline, too often without regard to quality and
detail). You can pick any three of these things and still do a good job,
depending on the situation, but you can never have all four at the same
time. My choice has always been Service and Quality fist, with the toughest
decision deciding on one of the other two. I try to avoid the jobs where
timing is the only consideration, because you are then forced into using a
more costly solution.
Now to the present day and your questions.
I have been working with a particular architect for several projects now. I
built a couple of jobs that he had drawn and saw the extra effort he put
forth on his plans. Went to his office and found he was using ADT and ABS to
do his drawings. The detail is as good as any I have ever seen. When I
decided to be an owner and not just a contractor, I went back to this
architect. Part of the contract was for turning over a copy of the digital
files when the design was complete and I wanted as much as possible in 3d.
Since we had developed a working relationship, he reluctantly agreed. With
a good superintendant and a lot of my time on the job, it turned out to be
as smooth of a job as I had ever done. I held each sub to very tight
standards and never let them shortcut or deviate from the well thought out
plans. I had all of the subs quote the job as they normally would. Of course
they added a little too much fudge factor to the price, in my opinion, so I
sat down with the major ones and proposed a workable cost plus arrangement.
I promised all of them a 10% profit as long as they would do a fair
accounting of their time and materials. I outlined an order for the work to
be completed in, based on past buiding history. Underground utilities and
site work first, followed by concrete and structural, plumbing and piping,
HVAC, fire control systems, electrical. interior partitions and drywall,
cabinets and casework and finally the painting contractor. There would be no
deviation from this workflow. No sub was allowed to begin work until the sub
before him felt he was far enough along for the next sub to begin his work.
I was always available with laptop and drawing files to work out details
that were not perfectly clear on the 2d set of plans. Everything went like
clockwork. No subcontractors fighting for workspace. Subs finishing their
part of the job before the next sub began. Everyone was held to using only
the space and routing laid out in the 3d drawing. We found on occasion that
a look at the 3d pictures, the drawing files, answered any questions that
arose in a much easier to comprehend manner than the 2d set could convey. It
worked out great! Overall the costs were nearly 20% lower than the original
bids, they were happy with not having to worry about losing money, and I was
happy that the job was finished in a more than satisfactory timeframe. I
turned around and gave them all a 10% bonus, which made them even more
happy. The architect was impressed with the way his files were used to
complete the job. No need for "as built sets of drawings" because it was
built just like the drawings. I have been doing it this way ever since and
the results have always been very similar. I would not go back to 2d hard
copy only plans to do a project. It has worked well now for 3 years. I will
always require the digital files when it is my money being paid to the
architect.
As for checking quality, it is like any other building set. I work almost
like a consultant alongside and conjunction with my archie. I am just
another plan checker, but I am able to look at the digital files at the same
time and know what I am looking at and for. He knows I am very capable of
using the software almost as well as he.
I also believe as the software improves, this method of construction will
only get better. Having the digital files will make any renovations over the
years much easier to design and impliment, which is at least part of what I
would call FM. I would always keep the original plans as a failsafe and use
a copy to show any renovations.
The biggest fear in all of this would be a major change in file formats
without backward compatibility. It might be prudent to create an updated
archive with each major release, always keeping the previous versions safely
stored. Digital storage space is cheap and getting cheaper all the time. 2d
sets could be reprinted, or pdf's created for easy viewing, at any time down
the road as the need arises.
I could go on about this much longer but I fear I have already been a little
windy. I think though, that getting old allows this?
Finally, concerning Revit. It may be the tool of the future, but it ain't
there yet. Why did they split revit into two incompatible programs for
building and structure? From the files I have been able to peruse, I have
not seen the level of 3d detail that ABS/ADT is capable of producing. I do
not need pretty visualizations to build a buiding, I need accurate details
in a drawing file.
--
Mikey52
ADT 2007
VisionRez
Dell M90
Intel T2600
Nvidia Quadro 2500m
2 Gig Ram
"melanie stone" wrote in message
news:5305785@discussion.autodesk.com...
Didn't sound like a rant to me at all and you certainly don't have to stop!
Are you currently requiring 3d documents or is that something being
implemented? If you it is in place, how long have you been doing it? How
easy/hard was it to find companies who were using those programs? Are the
drawing files of decent quality? How do you check the quality?
Really, I'd be interested in hearing any other
thoughts/procedures/roadblacks/needs for improvement, etc that you care to
share...
Thanks for sharing.
--
Melanie Perry
***not all who wander are lost***
http://mistressofthedorkness.blogspot.com/
"Mikey52" wrote in message
news:5305509@discussion.autodesk.com...
As the owner and paying client, I will accept no less than a full and
complete set of the 3d digital files from the Architect, to be used for
future renovations, repairs or whatever needs to be done. All MEP and
structurals also to be included in 3d format (ABS). Too much customization
is required in Revit to do anything. And now you have to have 2 versions
just to get it done, but that is a different rant for another venue.
As far as architects claims to intellectual property, hogwash. I am paying
for their time, their design and all files created using MY money. If they
don't see it that way, then I will spend MY money with a different firm.
They have made their profits, now I get to make a return off my investment.
AIA only requires the architect to maintain his original files for 10 years.
This new building will be around after he/she and I are dust in the ground,
and a properly maintained digital set of files is or will be invaluable to
future owners and managers of the structure.
I personally have spent sevaral years of freetime learning ADT and ABS to be
able to utilize these files in construction and management of buildings.I
could expand on this much further, but, I think I have ranted enough for
now.
--
Mikey52
ABS/ADT 2007
VisionRez
Dell M90
Intel T2600
Nvidia Quadro 2500m
4 Gig Ram
how you got there. Thank you!
First, your wife... lovely! I don't know all that many people that share my
name. Too cool.
Right... I agree with you that people that haven't worked out in the field
are viewing things entirely different than those who are doing the building.
I love the idea that the orginal plans *are* the as-builts.
I give props to you for holding everyone accountable. I definitely see that
as the biggest problem I face in new construction / renovations at my
facility. I suppose that goes back to the thing of having someone doing the
checking who knows and understands what's being done.
lol... don't fear being too 'windy', the background really helped me
understand a lot, and I thank you for taking the time out to answer my
questions. It's much appreciated.
Revit? Make that three programs, yeah? I'll be getting Building Systems to
learn soon (comes in a package with ABS at this point)...
This ties into discussions over in the Revit Building and Revit Systems
forums about just having a single package, or having a base package with
modules for Structure and Systems as an option.
I can't speak with much authority on the benefits of ADT vs Revit, as I've
not used either one of them in-depth nor in a production environment.
They're still both way above my head...
I'll admit to being bitter about ADT as many of my contractors *halfway* use
it, but, many of them don't, and we don't use it inhouse. They just can't
understand why I want/need the aecobjects removed/flattened, etc. no matter
how many times I tell them.
The big problem then is that, we're not all on the same program, so there
are things that each of us can and can't do. So... I'd like to have a model
of my buildings, but, if we're only 10% there, we'll not do it at all.
Am I wrong in my all or none mentality? ~shrug~ Doesn't matter, because we
can't afford to buy everyone seats of autocad so they can get the object
enablers, etc. rambling... sorry.
--
Melanie Perry
***not all who wander are lost***
http://mistressofthedorkness.blogspot.com/
"Mikey52"
news:5307209@discussion.autodesk.com...
Melanie,
which by the way is a beautiful name, and my wife of 34 years, name also. I
now know of two couples that fit the bill of "Mike and Melanie"
I will begin with a little info about me, my background and my workflow, and
then try to address your questions.
I started my own construction business when I was 22, with a high school
education, a few hours of college credits nd five years of driving nails. I
had several years experience with pencil and paper, going all the way back
to high school, before deciding to jump into the digital world of Cad, ADT
and ABS. Mostly I worked out details of jobs, or parts of jobs, at night to
make the work easier for my crew or subs to understand what the final
product was to be. Some plan shops put out a lousy set of CD's for
residential construction, and a lot if not most decisions had to be made in
the field. Many times we would get 2d drawings that were impossible to build
in the 3d world. I have carried more than one set of plans into the
architects office and showed them why a particular design could not be
built, and end up showing them what had to change in order to get close to
their intended design. I finally decided I had had enough of designers and
architects that had no clue about real world construction means and methods.
I know it's not a requirement for registered achitects, but I think they
should all have to actually _ork in the field with hammer and nails before
they ever draw or design anything, but that is just another one of my rants.
The same could be said for software designers of the tools (Cad) that are
being used to produce the drawings. How can you draw or design something
without first hand knowledge of real world lumber, bricks and mortar
processes?
The above issues are what led to my decision to begin drawing my own plans.
In the residential field, an AIA stamp is not required for permitting. I
still enjoy doing my own CD's for my residential clients, almost as much as
looking at the final product and saying "This is a good job, and we should
all be proud to have contributed to it's completion."
I work a little different than most, since I am also the building
contractor. By the time my plans are ready for permitting, I have already
built the structure, at least in my head and in ADT. I am a hands on type of
builder. Carry my laptop and a small printer with me to the job site. If
there are any questions, some subcontractor needs a little more info, I can
bring up my drawing, zoom in to the area and show them right there the 3d
view that deals with the particular issue. I can even print the area in
question right on the spot, which further clarifies most issues. I have used
some of the same subs for many years. I know their capabilities and they
know what I require from them. Loyalty, which works both ways, goes a long
way in getting a job completed in a reasonable time and without having to do
anything twice. I am a firm beliver in the old addage "If you don't have
time to do a job right, when will you have time to do it over?"
There are really only four considerations in making most business decisions:
Price(speaks for itself), Service(good communications, availability, and
response time), Quality( do it right the first time), and Speed (getting the
work done by a stated deadline, too often without regard to quality and
detail). You can pick any three of these things and still do a good job,
depending on the situation, but you can never have all four at the same
time. My choice has always been Service and Quality fist, with the toughest
decision deciding on one of the other two. I try to avoid the jobs where
timing is the only consideration, because you are then forced into using a
more costly solution.
Now to the present day and your questions.
I have been working with a particular architect for several projects now. I
built a couple of jobs that he had drawn and saw the extra effort he put
forth on his plans. Went to his office and found he was using ADT and ABS to
do his drawings. The detail is as good as any I have ever seen. When I
decided to be an owner and not just a contractor, I went back to this
architect. Part of the contract was for turning over a copy of the digital
files when the design was complete and I wanted as much as possible in 3d.
Since we had developed a working relationship, he reluctantly agreed. With
a good superintendant and a lot of my time on the job, it turned out to be
as smooth of a job as I had ever done. I held each sub to very tight
standards and never let them shortcut or deviate from the well thought out
plans. I had all of the subs quote the job as they normally would. Of course
they added a little too much fudge factor to the price, in my opinion, so I
sat down with the major ones and proposed a workable cost plus arrangement.
I promised all of them a 10% profit as long as they would do a fair
accounting of their time and materials. I outlined an order for the work to
be completed in, based on past buiding history. Underground utilities and
site work first, followed by concrete and structural, plumbing and piping,
HVAC, fire control systems, electrical. interior partitions and drywall,
cabinets and casework and finally the painting contractor. There would be no
deviation from this workflow. No sub was allowed to begin work until the sub
before him felt he was far enough along for the next sub to begin his work.
I was always available with laptop and drawing files to work out details
that were not perfectly clear on the 2d set of plans. Everything went like
clockwork. No subcontractors fighting for workspace. Subs finishing their
part of the job before the next sub began. Everyone was held to using only
the space and routing laid out in the 3d drawing. We found on occasion that
a look at the 3d pictures, the drawing files, answered any questions that
arose in a much easier to comprehend manner than the 2d set could convey. It
worked out great! Overall the costs were nearly 20% lower than the original
bids, they were happy with not having to worry about losing money, and I was
happy that the job was finished in a more than satisfactory timeframe. I
turned around and gave them all a 10% bonus, which made them even more
happy. The architect was impressed with the way his files were used to
complete the job. No need for "as built sets of drawings" because it was
built just like the drawings. I have been doing it this way ever since and
the results have always been very similar. I would not go back to 2d hard
copy only plans to do a project. It has worked well now for 3 years. I will
always require the digital files when it is my money being paid to the
architect.
As for checking quality, it is like any other building set. I work almost
like a consultant alongside and conjunction with my archie. I am just
another plan checker, but I am able to look at the digital files at the same
time and know what I am looking at and for. He knows I am very capable of
using the software almost as well as he.
I also believe as the software improves, this method of construction will
only get better. Having the digital files will make any renovations over the
years much easier to design and impliment, which is at least part of what I
would call FM. I would always keep the original plans as a failsafe and use
a copy to show any renovations.
The biggest fear in all of this would be a major change in file formats
without backward compatibility. It might be prudent to create an updated
archive with each major release, always keeping the previous versions safely
stored. Digital storage space is cheap and getting cheaper all the time. 2d
sets could be reprinted, or pdf's created for easy viewing, at any time down
the road as the need arises.
I could go on about this much longer but I fear I have already been a little
windy. I think though, that getting old allows this?
Finally, concerning Revit. It may be the tool of the future, but it ain't
there yet. Why did they split revit into two incompatible programs for
building and structure? From the files I have been able to peruse, I have
not seen the level of 3d detail that ABS/ADT is capable of producing. I do
not need pretty visualizations to build a buiding, I need accurate details
in a drawing file.
--
Mikey52
ADT 2007
VisionRez
Dell M90
Intel T2600
Nvidia Quadro 2500m
2 Gig Ram
"melanie stone"
news:5305785@discussion.autodesk.com...
Didn't sound like a rant to me at all and you certainly don't have to stop!
Are you currently requiring 3d documents or is that something being
implemented? If you it is in place, how long have you been doing it? How
easy/hard was it to find companies who were using those programs? Are the
drawing files of decent quality? How do you check the quality?
Really, I'd be interested in hearing any other
thoughts/procedures/roadblacks/needs for improvement, etc that you care to
share...
Thanks for sharing.
--
Melanie Perry
***not all who wander are lost***
http://mistressofthedorkness.blogspot.com/
"Mikey52"
news:5305509@discussion.autodesk.com...
As the owner and paying client, I will accept no less than a full and
complete set of the 3d digital files from the Architect, to be used for
future renovations, repairs or whatever needs to be done. All MEP and
structurals also to be included in 3d format (ABS). Too much customization
is required in Revit to do anything. And now you have to have 2 versions
just to get it done, but that is a different rant for another venue.
As far as architects claims to intellectual property, hogwash. I am paying
for their time, their design and all files created using MY money. If they
don't see it that way, then I will spend MY money with a different firm.
They have made their profits, now I get to make a return off my investment.
AIA only requires the architect to maintain his original files for 10 years.
This new building will be around after he/she and I are dust in the ground,
and a properly maintained digital set of files is or will be invaluable to
future owners and managers of the structure.
I personally have spent sevaral years of freetime learning ADT and ABS to be
able to utilize these files in construction and management of buildings.I
could expand on this much further, but, I think I have ranted enough for
now.
--
Mikey52
ABS/ADT 2007
VisionRez
Dell M90
Intel T2600
Nvidia Quadro 2500m
4 Gig Ram
3d isn't really an option here yet...
I've got 6million square feet on my campus dating back 100 years (and
consult with our facilities because their cad guys are... quasi-cad guys
if they have any at all).
Not to mention the politics of dictating a switch or dropping a
contractor who has been working on this campus for 30 years. ~shudder~
Politics are the bane of our existence here.
BUT, I don't think we're exactly talking about an entire switch to 3D
here. I'm thinking 'facility in 3d' I'm thinking Revit and Revit
Structure and Revit Systems and Civil 3D (or ADT, ABS and LDT, if
properly utilitzed). There's no flippin way.
BUT, if we're talking about zoning areas with 3D architectural spaces
that can be automatically generated with a handful of input from the end
user... Well, I think it's doable and I'll be trying it if I get the
go-ahead on my pilot here.
Unfortunately, if the pilot succeeds (on approx. 5% of the campus) that
will mean planning and trying to allocate resources to do the other
95%... then probably rolling it out to the rest of the Facilities in the
Health Care System. I can't even begin to estimate how many square feet
( or cubic feet) all of our other buildings are or the current
state of their document resources.
josrios wrote:
> Isee this discussion as follows:
>
> Want precise and inteligent information about your property, and you have the money to pay for 3d documents, and your architexts are 3D powerd? Go 3D!
>
> Want precise area information about your property, and you do not have the money to pay for 3d documents, and your architexts are not 3D powered? Go 2D!
>
> Want precise and inteligent information about your property, and you do have the money to pay for 3d documents, and your architects are not 3D powerd. Go 2D or change architect.
>
>
> Use 3D for to work with complex and non stopping maintenaces task to improve your maintenace operations and acurancy.
>
> Use 2D if you deal with normal facility issues and the mechanical systems are not too complex.
>
> Another factor is your cultural background. There are countries where the 2D or 3D will never make a diference because if the job can be done with 2D, why bother with 3D?
> I've seen this with CAD Management. If the final product is a set of sheets, Why do we bother to set CAD Standards? We will built the same thing. And believe me, that has hapened to me very often here in my island, Puerto Rico. Some cultures see the value in things that goes beyond the expected, others just are not that impresed at all. It is a huge change resistance. Some people prefer to be uin a comfort area where they master what they know, and for them, that is better than learning a new thing to master.
>
> Bttom Line 3D or 2D is about money, your daily practice, and how much resistance you put to changes.
I've got 6million square feet on my campus dating back 100 years (and
consult with our facilities because their cad guys are... quasi-cad guys
if they have any at all).
Not to mention the politics of dictating a switch or dropping a
contractor who has been working on this campus for 30 years. ~shudder~
Politics are the bane of our existence here.
BUT, I don't think we're exactly talking about an entire switch to 3D
here. I'm thinking 'facility in 3d' I'm thinking Revit and Revit
Structure and Revit Systems and Civil 3D (or ADT, ABS and LDT, if
properly utilitzed). There's no flippin way.
BUT, if we're talking about zoning areas with 3D architectural spaces
that can be automatically generated with a handful of input from the end
user... Well, I think it's doable and I'll be trying it if I get the
go-ahead on my pilot here.
Unfortunately, if the pilot succeeds (on approx. 5% of the campus) that
will mean planning and trying to allocate resources to do the other
95%... then probably rolling it out to the rest of the Facilities in the
Health Care System. I can't even begin to estimate how many square feet
(
or cubic feet) all of our other buildings are or the current state of their document resources.
josrios wrote:
> Isee this discussion as follows:
>
> Want precise and inteligent information about your property, and you have the money to pay for 3d documents, and your architexts are 3D powerd? Go 3D!
>
> Want precise area information about your property, and you do not have the money to pay for 3d documents, and your architexts are not 3D powered? Go 2D!
>
> Want precise and inteligent information about your property, and you do have the money to pay for 3d documents, and your architects are not 3D powerd. Go 2D or change architect.
>
>
> Use 3D for to work with complex and non stopping maintenaces task to improve your maintenace operations and acurancy.
>
> Use 2D if you deal with normal facility issues and the mechanical systems are not too complex.
>
> Another factor is your cultural background. There are countries where the 2D or 3D will never make a diference because if the job can be done with 2D, why bother with 3D?
> I've seen this with CAD Management. If the final product is a set of sheets, Why do we bother to set CAD Standards? We will built the same thing. And believe me, that has hapened to me very often here in my island, Puerto Rico. Some cultures see the value in things that goes beyond the expected, others just are not that impresed at all. It is a huge change resistance. Some people prefer to be uin a comfort area where they master what they know, and for them, that is better than learning a new thing to master.
>
> Bttom Line 3D or 2D is about money, your daily practice, and how much resistance you put to changes.
