OK, here is where I stand on this release (BTW, I do have a copy yet). All users of Advance Steel have their own personal preferences as to how they want it to work for them and what is useful or redundant to their needs. Several items that I have been complaining about for a number of years have been addressed and for this I am grateful and this release makes AS a much better tool for me.
These are:
- Call outs on drawings - very useful to all users and a great enhancement
- Ball post handrails - these are now implemented as part of the program and no longer a plugin. This may be a minor thing to people who don't use these products but they are a major addition to the Australian , New Zealand, English and Asian markets. This will be a huge time saver for me as I currently use a custom library and insert as special parts, works but a pain.
- Purlin to purlin connections in the form of purlin accessories, a major time saver when doing a roof with a lot of openings. Again this is specifically for the Australian and New Zealand market so may not be useful for the majority of users. Add this to 2017's bridging tool and doing purlins has become a much easier process.
- Wall mounted handrails is another great addition to the program and brings it into line with the other detailing software on the market.
The other enhancements will help but are not the time savers like the previous items. Migration tools are OK but seldom work as promised and you use these once only, good if you are installing on 50 seats but there is only me so an extra 15 minutes once a year is neither here nor there for me.
Mike (steeldesign), in Australia we are very fortunate that our local development team has Stephan Gumpert (Gumbie) who is responsible for items 2 and 3 on my enhancement list, he is from a fabricators background and a skilled detailer, programmer and all round good guy. Thankyou for your contributions. I would think that in other locations the same may apply.
I agree with you on the other matters and my previous posts highlight this, a lot of time and effort has been spent on the Revit collaboration but I do not see this as being driven by detailers or Architects or Engineers. As I said before the Architect doesn't really care what the detailer does and the whole flaw in this collaboration thing is this.
The Architect designs a structure and uses steel members in the model, the Engineer looks at the model and changes the steel elements to what will make the building structurally sound. This has impacts on the model and this goes back and forth until the design is agreed by everyone. The Engineer details some connections (typical only just to get his drawings out for the fabricator) and issues drawings. The Builder is now in a position to get quotes and issue contracts. The fabricator is given the model to work from, his detailer commences adding all connections and produces drawings for submission uploads his model to the Engineer to update his model and the Architect to upload to his model. Ideal scenario.
However...
The Engineer won't upload the new model because his work on the design is done he doesn't really care if the steel is in the right place or not just that the connections are correct, the Architect doesn't care about connections as that is the Engineers job and anyway he is too busy moving walls and changing the design because the client had an epiphany. The builder in the meantime has poured concrete and anchors close to the mark but will need site checking and adjustment before final fabrication drawings can go to the workshop. The model going back to the Architect won't fit perfectly and it is upsetting his model because of clashes with walls.
The ideal world relies on everyone working to mm accuracy but that is not the case. Over the years on many projects the detailer has less and less direct contact with the Architect or the Engineer when a simple phone call can sort out most issues, but now through all the collaboration the detailer goes to the builder who sends to the engineer who asks the architect who comments and sends back to the engineer and then to the builder and then the detailer who then says there is still a problem. Weeks are spent on simple design issues or getting clarification when 2 minutes on the phone is all that is needed. I find the common response that comes back is put it on the drawing and we will look at it at review stage. No amount of Revit toing and froing will change this and I don't see our models being looked at anyway. So the whole process falls apart.
Overall, this is a good update for me, but there are still a lot more things to do.
Gary
