Answer day : UK BIM Standards Compliance?

[Keith_Wilkinson]

I appreciate that Autodesk as a US based company but are there any plans to develop Revit further to assist with compliance with UK Standards?  This has become more of a focal point since HM Government's BIM mandate came into affect in April.

In particular revisions (P series, D series and C series*) and direct support for Uniclass 2015 are 2 things that spring to mind... 

*I know functionality exists to add a prefix to a revision in 2017 but this is project wise and not per sheet.

[loboarch]

Autodesk does make efforts to "countrify" our product when there are resons to do so. The Revit product team must make decisions on what/when to do these kinds of efforts based on many factors. I would encourage you to post this request to the Revit Idea Station so the product team can use that as part of the decision making process to undertake helping in this area.

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/idb-p/302/tab/most-recent 

[Keith_Wilkinson]

Hi Jeff, 

Are you guys providing responses on that forum as well today?

K.

[loboarch]

The Idea Station is not providing answers. It is really a place where you can get these requests "closer" to the team and the people who are making decisions about where to allocate development resources. Ideas that gather community support and are visible there will get more attention when development plans are being made. Once an idea is acted upon the status will be changed so you can see if/when something has been taken up by development.

[Keith_Wilkinson]

Thanks Jeff.  I was hoping today might provide a bit more insight into the direction Revit might be taking but I appreciate that this is a publc forum and such things would be considered commercially sensitive.

[mp_thompson]

Have you looked at these?

http://www.autodesk.com/products/revit-family/features/interoperability

Auotdesk have a few addins that should help 

[mp_thompson]

Autodesk did a webinar titled Autodesk Solutions and BIM Level 2 on the 28th April, which covered the following:-

Autodesk solutions including Autodesk Revit and Civil 3D, and how to respond to the UK BIM Level 2 requirements. We will discuss the implementation details of how our current solutions can be configured to support the mandate, and specifically BS 1192.4 (COBie) and PAS 1192.2 (Information Management). We will outline projects currently underway to explore more detailed UK BIM Level 2 requirements with additional solutions from Autodesk BIM 360 portfolio including BIM 360 Docs.

[Keith_Wilkinson]

It's not so much compliance in terms of the design but in terms of the outputs in terms of drawings that's the issue.

The webinar sounds interesting - do you know if it's still available? 

[mp_thompson]

This is the video from the webinar, from c. 26mins details the add ins etc for revit.

[mp_thompson]

You can assign attributes etc and export COBie XLS files etc

[Keith_Wilkinson]

Yeah, I get that.  This is more about dealing with revisions of which there are 3 flavours depending on the stage and purpose of the drawing, there are ways around it but none are ideal, and also looking at the sheet names which when working with BS1192 are lengthy and made up of a variety of fields - again i can work around this by using project parameters and dynamo but it's not ideal.

Thanks for the webinar link - I'll have a look at that tonight.

[mp_thompson]

Sorry it's not really a direct answer to your question but I found it to be quite a useful webinar and autodesk already have some handy addins for Revit that I hope they'll expand upon.

[Keith_Wilkinson]

@mp_thompson - listened to the webinar last night - very interesting.

The Revit Classificaiton Manager definitely takes care of one of the aspects I've been struggling with (http://www.autodesk.com/products/revit-family/features/interoperability/classification-manager-for-r...) and will be rolling that out.  Unfortunately the issue of drawing numbers and revisions seemed to be largely skirted over but I need to watch the supporting videos again to see if there is more to be gleaned from those.

At least one step further on though so that's good.

[mp_thompson]

One step at a time! Glad it was partly useful.

I agree that, despite recent updates, revisions could do with quite a bit of improvement/more flexibility