Autodesk FMDesktop

[#1]

I'm curious, does FM Desktop have the ability to read IFC and RVT models?

--
Scott Robbins
TRO/The Ritchie Organization

[#2]

Scott,

Not today, but... As FMDesktop is further developed in the Autodesk family, you can expect to see much tighter integration with Revit.

The IFC option is an interesting idea that merits more investigation. Perhaps you can share some scenarios where an IFC import would be important to you?

Mark Evans
Product Manager, FM Solutions
Autodesk

[#3]

Hey Mark,

I'm speaking from an Architects view point that works close with developers
that rent out alot of retail space. I would never want to give up our Revit
model. The custom families were built to an extent that they are treated as
intellectual property. These parameters and methods, give us a genuine
advantage over the competition and our families do alot more for us then
most families found out there. With that view point in mind we would hate to
send a Revit BIM out to a client for FM only to have the client send it out
to the next guy who would get more then just or work on the building. They
would get our intelligent objects.

I do however for see more of my clients asking for the model for us in tools
like FM Desktop. I would like to give them something generic. An IFC seems
to be the perfect case to carry this information in for their use and mine.

I can give them an IFC for use. Seeing as IFC is the current solution for
BIM formats, I can feel comfortable offering the IFC from Revit and not
worrying about the client demanding more. If the client asks what programs
can I use to read this? I can respond Autodesk FM Desktop reads IFC.

With IFC in FMDesktop you have provided me with another option to come to
common grounds with the client. I don't risk giving up the advantage of our
custom families and the client still gets a BIM for use in his FM Desktop.
He can still use the BIM for use by his in house architect for layout/tenant
changes.

Scott

wrote in message news:5227304@discussion.autodesk.com...
Scott,

Not today, but... As FMDesktop is further developed in the Autodesk family,
you can expect to see much tighter integration with Revit.

The IFC option is an interesting idea that merits more investigation.
Perhaps you can share some scenarios where an IFC import would be important
to you?

Mark Evans
Product Manager, FM Solutions
Autodesk

[#4]

That's great input, Scott. Thank you for taking the time to crank it out for us.

Mark Evans
Product Manager, FM Solutions

[#5]

Just food for thought....
If you replace "AutoCAD block" for every time it says "families" (below) you
will have stated what architects and engineers loudly said in 1988-1992.
What changed in that time period? Clients demanded that the design industry
provide .dwg files - we in the design industry balked, but provided the
information. In the foreseeable future, I believe clients will demand Revit
files, including the families.
..
I believe your differentiator will not be those families created, but the
ability to design and document your design in a coordinated and thoughtful
manner.

I am not in disagreement about IFC, but IFC is very limited in the
information it provides. IFC gives information in the lowest common basis,
in this way it keeps the equality of the information. IFC would need to
greatly improve itself to be a true translator for BIM information. Maybe
XML (aecXML) will be a better format? Note that the IAI is looking into
aecXML.

Regarding FM:
I think it is very necessary that FM be able to carry the BIM information
forward to the Owner (that is really the bottom line).

David Haynes, AIA
Ideate, Inc.
www.ideateinc.com


___________________________________________________________________________________


wrote in message news:5228414@discussion.autodesk.com...
Hey Mark,

I'm speaking from an Architects view point that works close with developers
that rent out alot of retail space. I would never want to give up our Revit
model. The custom families were built to an extent that they are treated as
intellectual property. These parameters and methods, give us a genuine
advantage over the competition and our families do alot more for us then
most families found out there. With that view point in mind we would hate to
send a Revit BIM out to a client for FM only to have the client send it out
to the next guy who would get more then just or work on the building. They
would get our intelligent objects.

I do however for see more of my clients asking for the model for us in tools
like FM Desktop. I would like to give them something generic. An IFC seems
to be the perfect case to carry this information in for their use and mine.

I can give them an IFC for use. Seeing as IFC is the current solution for
BIM formats, I can feel comfortable offering the IFC from Revit and not
worrying about the client demanding more. If the client asks what programs
can I use to read this? I can respond Autodesk FM Desktop reads IFC.

With IFC in FMDesktop you have provided me with another option to come to
common grounds with the client. I don't risk giving up the advantage of our
custom families and the client still gets a BIM for use in his FM Desktop.
He can still use the BIM for use by his in house architect for layout/tenant
changes.

Scott

wrote in message news:5227304@discussion.autodesk.com...
Scott,

Not today, but... As FMDesktop is further developed in the Autodesk family,
you can expect to see much tighter integration with Revit.

The IFC option is an interesting idea that merits more investigation.
Perhaps you can share some scenarios where an IFC import would be important
to you?

Mark Evans
Product Manager, FM Solutions
Autodesk

[#6]

The client will defiantly want that BIM and will defiantly want to use their
BIM in FMDesktop. I think programs like revit redefine digital information.
ACAD files were just line work. Revit files can contain and reveal more
then just the BIM. They can reveal a work flow, a system and a way of
working. Alot more work is in a family file then in a block. I think while
clients might demand the actual rvt file, Architects will be more guarded
then with DWG. DWG you just lose the secrets of your layer standards(unless
you do a layer translater). With Revit the parameters and assembly of family
types can reveal how your work. I will not give up the raw rvt file, and I
am very avid with my full time company that they do not give it up.

But your right, what firms crumble to demands and what firms find ways to
work around will define what is given up.

"David Haynes - Ideate" wrote in message
news:5229685@discussion.autodesk.com...
Just food for thought....
If you replace "AutoCAD block" for every time it says "families" (below) you
will have stated what architects and engineers loudly said in 1988-1992.
What changed in that time period? Clients demanded that the design industry
provide .dwg files - we in the design industry balked, but provided the
information. In the foreseeable future, I believe clients will demand Revit
files, including the families.
..
I believe your differentiator will not be those families created, but the
ability to design and document your design in a coordinated and thoughtful
manner.

I am not in disagreement about IFC, but IFC is very limited in the
information it provides. IFC gives information in the lowest common basis,
in this way it keeps the equality of the information. IFC would need to
greatly improve itself to be a true translator for BIM information. Maybe
XML (aecXML) will be a better format? Note that the IAI is looking into
aecXML.

Regarding FM:
I think it is very necessary that FM be able to carry the BIM information
forward to the Owner (that is really the bottom line).

David Haynes, AIA
Ideate, Inc.
www.ideateinc.com


___________________________________________________________________________________


wrote in message news:5228414@discussion.autodesk.com...
Hey Mark,

I'm speaking from an Architects view point that works close with developers
that rent out alot of retail space. I would never want to give up our Revit
model. The custom families were built to an extent that they are treated as
intellectual property. These parameters and methods, give us a genuine
advantage over the competition and our families do alot more for us then
most families found out there. With that view point in mind we would hate to
send a Revit BIM out to a client for FM only to have the client send it out
to the next guy who would get more then just or work on the building. They
would get our intelligent objects.

I do however for see more of my clients asking for the model for us in tools
like FM Desktop. I would like to give them something generic. An IFC seems
to be the perfect case to carry this information in for their use and mine.

I can give them an IFC for use. Seeing as IFC is the current solution for
BIM formats, I can feel comfortable offering the IFC from Revit and not
worrying about the client demanding more. If the client asks what programs
can I use to read this? I can respond Autodesk FM Desktop reads IFC.

With IFC in FMDesktop you have provided me with another option to come to
common grounds with the client. I don't risk giving up the advantage of our
custom families and the client still gets a BIM for use in his FM Desktop.
He can still use the BIM for use by his in house architect for layout/tenant
changes.

Scott

wrote in message news:5227304@discussion.autodesk.com...
Scott,

Not today, but... As FMDesktop is further developed in the Autodesk family,
you can expect to see much tighter integration with Revit.

The IFC option is an interesting idea that merits more investigation.
Perhaps you can share some scenarios where an IFC import would be important
to you?

Mark Evans
Product Manager, FM Solutions
Autodesk

[#7]

As someone who is not a designer, I try to have sympathy for your position
and not wanting someone else to have access to all of your hard work (and
the
obvious leg up you have now that you've created the families that facilitate
your work), but, from my facilities perspective, the most motivating thing
should be the **client contract**.

We have firms who hassle with us about getting CAD documentation period...
and we're not happy with those firms. Then we have firms who understand and
happily accept our contract and give us what we need to maintain our
systems.

Right now of course we're using strictly 2d dwg files, but, I've been
watching Revit Systems (and abs) eagerly thinking about all of the ways such
design
documentation could help us maintain our facility. If we end up hiring a
company
to design for us with such a tool, then part of our contract will be that we
end
up with an entirely usable model.

Not every facility has someone on staff who will demand such things. So, the
companies who are *not* willing to provide them will still be able to find
plenty of work... but, not from me.

wrote in message news:5229851@discussion.autodesk.com...
The client will defiantly want that BIM and will defiantly want to use their
BIM in FMDesktop. I think programs like revit redefine digital information.
ACAD files were just line work. Revit files can contain and reveal more
then just the BIM. They can reveal a work flow, a system and a way of
working. Alot more work is in a family file then in a block. I think while
clients might demand the actual rvt file, Architects will be more guarded
then with DWG. DWG you just lose the secrets of your layer standards(unless
you do a layer translater). With Revit the parameters and assembly of family
types can reveal how your work. I will not give up the raw rvt file, and I
am very avid with my full time company that they do not give it up.

But your right, what firms crumble to demands and what firms find ways to
work around will define what is given up.

"David Haynes - Ideate" wrote in message
news:5229685@discussion.autodesk.com...
Just food for thought....
If you replace "AutoCAD block" for every time it says "families" (below) you
will have stated what architects and engineers loudly said in 1988-1992.
What changed in that time period? Clients demanded that the design industry
provide .dwg files - we in the design industry balked, but provided the
information. In the foreseeable future, I believe clients will demand Revit
files, including the families.
..
I believe your differentiator will not be those families created, but the
ability to design and document your design in a coordinated and thoughtful
manner.

I am not in disagreement about IFC, but IFC is very limited in the
information it provides. IFC gives information in the lowest common basis,
in this way it keeps the equality of the information. IFC would need to
greatly improve itself to be a true translator for BIM information. Maybe
XML (aecXML) will be a better format? Note that the IAI is looking into
aecXML.

Regarding FM:
I think it is very necessary that FM be able to carry the BIM information
forward to the Owner (that is really the bottom line).

David Haynes, AIA
Ideate, Inc.
www.ideateinc.com


___________________________________________________________________________________


wrote in message news:5228414@discussion.autodesk.com...
Hey Mark,

I'm speaking from an Architects view point that works close with developers
that rent out alot of retail space. I would never want to give up our Revit
model. The custom families were built to an extent that they are treated as
intellectual property. These parameters and methods, give us a genuine
advantage over the competition and our families do alot more for us then
most families found out there. With that view point in mind we would hate to
send a Revit BIM out to a client for FM only to have the client send it out
to the next guy who would get more then just or work on the building. They
would get our intelligent objects.

I do however for see more of my clients asking for the model for us in tools
like FM Desktop. I would like to give them something generic. An IFC seems
to be the perfect case to carry this information in for their use and mine.

I can give them an IFC for use. Seeing as IFC is the current solution for
BIM formats, I can feel comfortable offering the IFC from Revit and not
worrying about the client demanding more. If the client asks what programs
can I use to read this? I can respond Autodesk FM Desktop reads IFC.

With IFC in FMDesktop you have provided me with another option to come to
common grounds with the client. I don't risk giving up the advantage of our
custom families and the client still gets a BIM for use in his FM Desktop.
He can still use the BIM for use by his in house architect for layout/tenant
changes.

Scott

wrote in message news:5227304@discussion.autodesk.com...
Scott,

Not today, but... As FMDesktop is further developed in the Autodesk family,
you can expect to see much tighter integration with Revit.

The IFC option is an interesting idea that merits more investigation.
Perhaps you can share some scenarios where an IFC import would be important
to you?

Mark Evans
Product Manager, FM Solutions
Autodesk

[#8]

It's nice to hear from someone on the "owner's" side of the equation. Thank you, Melanie.

Maybe IFC is not the right answer, but it seems like we should be able to use a file format that gives the owner/client the 2D and 3D graphical representation they desire and carries the attribution (sizes, capacities, upstream/downstream relationships) of all the equipment and components. That could give the client the information they need for operations and maintenance without giving up the Revit families or other intellectual property that the AE wants to keep. Is this thinking on the right path?

[#9]

Thank you, Mark... I can't expect anyone to give me what I want if I don't
voice my needs. I do think it is important too for both contractor and
owner to empathize and realize the different ways that we both use our data.


It's hard to say *exactly* what we'll need... not only do we have
maint/upkeep/future planning to keep in mind for ourselves... but, it's also
a case of being able to easily share bits and pieces of the information with
contractors who will renovate those spaces for us in the future.

Not being fully familiar with Revit Systems and the type of data it could
potentially carry... nor FMsystems and it's data... ~shifty eyes~ nor our
BAS or MP2 systems, with which I'd like to be able to exhance data with...
so I'm not sure what all a contractor would need from us in the future (not
something I could really ask right now, as only one of our contractors has
even started implementing Revit, and not on any of our jobs, our mep guys
are the furthest back as to releases/software packages - still using acad).


wrote in message news:5230003@discussion.autodesk.com...
It's nice to hear from someone on the "owner's" side of the equation. Thank
you, Melanie.

Maybe IFC is not the right answer, but it seems like we should be able to
use a file format that gives the owner/client the 2D and 3D graphical
representation they desire and carries the attribution (sizes, capacities,
upstream/downstream relationships) of all the equipment and components.
That could give the client the information they need for operations and
maintenance without giving up the Revit families or other intellectual
property that the AE wants to keep. Is this thinking on the right path?

[#10]

That is the right thinking path. Maybe it isnt up to the point that FMs
like Melanie needs which might not make it the right answer for FM Desktop
at the moment. Possibly 3D DWF is the solution(not sure if FMDesktop can
import that).

I have been playing with IFC and it seems like the most viable option from
the end of the designer. Maybe in the future it will be better for FM
Desktop. It can be imported into Revit and BIM programs and be used the
same as a RVT file would be. Meaning that walls maintain their basic
functionality(height, length, width) and doors, windows, ect. are still
schedulable.

What it boils down to on my end(which is probably not your concern
considering I'm not the one you are marketing to) is the more options you
give FM Desktop to import various forms of BIM the more I can say, FM
Desktop will import this file format that I am giving you.


wrote in message news:5230003@discussion.autodesk.com...
It's nice to hear from someone on the "owner's" side of the equation. Thank
you, Melanie.

Maybe IFC is not the right answer, but it seems like we should be able to
use a file format that gives the owner/client the 2D and 3D graphical
representation they desire and carries the attribution (sizes, capacities,
upstream/downstream relationships) of all the equipment and components.
That could give the client the information they need for operations and
maintenance without giving up the Revit families or other intellectual
property that the AE wants to keep. Is this thinking on the right path?