📝 Future AEC Software Specification - What's your thoughts?

[handjonathan]

This week we have seen the publication of the Future AEC Software Specification; an ongoing initiative to define the future tools that the AEC industry needs to shape the world around us.

The specification poses some interesting foundational thoughts on the principle and capabilities for the future. What are your thoughts?

*Don't have time to read the Specification? Read the Key takeaways attached.

[HVAC-Novice]

I like #4 (User-friendly, efficient and intuitive). I recommend Autodesk development team look into the Ideas forum. Because that is full of really good ideas that should not take ages to implement. 

It also would be nice if the 20+ Autodesk tools that for some reason are part of our subscription would get integrated or more unified. As of now, many seem to have similar functions (something 3D), but are from completely different sources. If a tool is related to AEC and BIM, it should be (nicely) integrated in Revit and not be a standalone software that has a completely different UI than Revit and requires exporting/importing. 

I don't know if the universal data frame work (#1) means you can use an Archicad model, and open and edit it in Revit and so on.... but if it is, this will never happen for so many reasons. Even if it would happen, any changes would be decided by committee and would either never happen, or would be the combination of the worst of all ideas. (Like how the CSS plug was designed by committee vs the formerly proprietary NACS). I'm not aware of a design software where competing software solutions are readily compatible without major sacrifices.  It already isn't possible (for valid reasons) to save to older versions. I honestly don't see how it would fork flawlessly for competitors' products. So this may be a dream (or nightmare).

I'm not an insider. But I wonder if the members of that "association" are insiders and if their wishes are based on actual realities and possibilities. To me that all sounds like Elon Musk colonizing Mars will happen sooner. 

[mhiserZFHXS]

Something I have commented on here and the idea forum several times is the improvement of exported documents like PDFs. Whether these can be done in the PDF format or if a new format needs to be created, I don't know. But currently, PDFs are not a whole lot different than just having a paper set of drawings, other than not having to physically carry them around. You flip through pages. What you see on the page is what you get. There is no additional information that is accessible. With the proliferation of smartphones and tablets, Autodesk, and all software companies related to AEC, really need to stop thinking of construction drawings this way and expand on what digital formats can do.

There is a minimal amount of interactivity that is currently exported from Revit models to PDF, but there's a big emphasis on "minimal". This is the ability to click on a section head, callout, etc to jump to the page the corresponding view is located on. This concept needs to be expanded to the nth degree.

For instance, when looking at a digital drawing now, if you want to look up information about a door, you have to find its mark on a floor plan, then go and find the sheet that has the door schedule on it, then look through until you find that door, then look through what can be a very long row of information to find what you are looking for. This process is hardly any different whether you are looking through a physical set of drawings of a PDF, and that needs to change.

In plan, you should simply have to click/tap on that door or its tag, and then a window should pop up with every piece of information the Revit user wants to show. The process for putting this together could be very similar to creating a tag in Revit, by using shared parameters to link information in a door to a tag, but instead of a tag that shows in the drawing, its a tag that only shows when activated. It keeps drawings clean, but allows for a wealth of information to be easily accessible.

There are countless things this process could apply to. Autodesk just needs to stop thinking about their exports as pieces of paper and start thinking about how to preserve the immense amount of information embedded in Revit. Again, I don't know if this is achievable through the PDF format. At the least, Autodesk would likely need to create their own PDF viewer that is able to decipher this information. Or they may need to come up with an entirely new format. But this is what the future should be.

[HVAC-Novice]

They PROBABLY could make a tag a link, If you click the tag, it jumps to the schedule (like the view references do). But anything else likely wouldn't be "PDF" anymore. If the yield is a PDF that can't be used and edited in Bluebeam and other 3rd party tools anymore, this would be a step back. PDF kind of is electronic paper with the advantages and limitations of paper. But it really needs to conform to PDF standard. Otherwise it is like picking up a book in a completely unknown language - data still is there, but useless to majority of readers.

Autodesk could have a Revit-viewer that would do something you suggest. Then you export nothing, you just use the rvt-file and a browser can have a very simplified Revit interface. 

[SteveKStafford]

Perhaps you recall DWF? Autodesk's attempt to build a better "PDF"... the industry was either not ready for it or at best ambivalent to it. DWF has been able to provide a deeper integration of information and the "printed" page all along but few pay any attention to it at all.

[mhiserZFHXS]

Expanding on the hyperlink system that is included now would certainly be an improvement, but its not as far as it should go. There is no reason this new format couldn't have all of the functionalities of Bluebeam or other software. It could still be marked up and stamped and all that. PDFs are the standard now because they are the best option. But it doesn't have to stay that way.

And I'm not saying to remove the ability to export to traditional PDFs. Not yet at least. There will always be people that refuse to move on to better options just because they don't like change, so they'll need PDFs. And I'm sure cities, states and other jurisdictions will still want PDFs for 50 years even if a new system were released tomorrow. That's fine. But for the practicality of working in the field, and even going through a construction set in the office, there are better ways to do it. We just need to stop thinking in 2D paper space.

[mhiserZFHXS]

---

@SteveKStafford wrote:

Perhaps you recall DWF? Autodesk's attempt to build a better "PDF"... the industry was either not ready for it or at best ambivalent to it. DWF has been able to provide a deeper integration of information and the "printed" page all along but few pay any attention to it at all.

---

I do not, though I've always seen it under the export settings. But after looking into it briefly, it looks like the intent is just to view dwgs and 3D models without Revit or AutoCAD. It doesn't look like any BIM aspects of Revit are preserved. But this is after only 5 minutes of trying to educate myself.

[SteveKStafford]

Autodesk started DWF (Drawing Web Format), if the stories I've been told are true, because discussion with Adobe didn't go well to incorporate PDF into Autodesk products back in early 2000's. There was a big DWF unveiling splash at Autodesk University 2005 in Orlando. Basically what you described in your "better PDF" is what DWF can do. A light weight model and document viewer that could be shared via the web easily and viewed in a browser. You can select elements in views and see their native properties, like you'd see listed in Revit...for the most part. It obviously didn't overtake PDF...

[mhiserZFHXS]

Kept looking into it. Looks like it preserves SOME information, but not all (keeps instance parameters, but not type parameters), and that information isn't really organized or filtered at all. So yea, they kinda started going down this path, but its pretty half-***ed, so of course no one uses it.

I also still think things should be organized in sheets. I'm not advocating for an entire model that folks have to work their way through, though again, that could be an option. I still want plans and sections that are easily read. I just want the information that exists within Revit to be usable in those drawings.

[HVAC-Novice]

Do you intent that tool for users that DON'T have Revit? Because Revit users already have access to all information by using... Revit. So, it would be redundant or inferior to Revit. 

And if you want capability of Bluebeam, you likely pay as much, or more. But then everyone who is not a designer, also has to buy into the Autodesk eco-system. Right now we designers have to pay for Autodesk products. Everyone downstream who uses our PDF can use Bluebeam, a browser, Adobe or whatever solution on a PC, or any mobile device. Imagine every contractor and installer now has to subscribe to Autodesk instead of using what they use elsewhere. 

PDF has the advantage that if you find that file in 15 years and know nothing, you still will be able to see what someone with a paper planset could see. With a proprietary format requiring subscription (and that new format could disappear from the market in 2 years!) you just have a file of gibberish. 

[ToanDN]

Navisworks and even Autodesk Viewer are pretty good at accessing and displaying model element information, sometime even easier than Revit itself.  Some models are garbage because you know, GIGO.

I think the outcome from Revit have little room to improve, program wise.  How easy to get there?  This is where they need to look at.

[ToanDN]

---

@handjonathan wrote:

This week we have seen the publication of the Future AEC Software Specification; an ongoing initiative to define the future tools that the AEC industry needs to shape the world around us.

The specification poses some interesting foundational thoughts on the principle and capabilities for the future. What are your thoughts?

---

What do I think about something has not yet existed?  Or what do I think about the ambitious article about something has not yet existed?

[CEdwardsUN5MX]

You might ask, what do we think of Autodesk trousering considerable income from software it hasn't really put much in the way of development in the past 10+ years...why should we expect anything else to be an improvement, when they won't fix long standing issues?

[GaryOrrMBI]

Most of the listed items just seem to be wish-list stuff they wish their software could do or using current buzz words and calling it progress.

The whole direction discussed by many of the previous posts concerning making PDF's capable of this or that... My thoughts there are straight forward, PDFs already allow for too much editing as it is in my opinion. there should be no way to edit or change a PDF (the content or visibility of any of that content) once it's produced without having to take extra steps to protect it... with paper going away and being replaced by digital record copies it is critical to actually have an unchangeable record of what was produced at a given point in time.

Back to the main topic:

There are two items that actually address advancing the original concept of BIM (and I've been doing this since before the turn of the century), and to me, that should be the future direction of the AEC industry. Items 1 & 2, a universal data framework and access to that data regardless of it's origination.

Unfortunately, resolving those issues will never be addressed in a society with companies driven by the short sight of "how much money can we make off of it this year" or "What new client base can we gain by doing this".

IFC specs already address most of this. The problem is that the current implementation is via import and export with various degrees of usability at both the producer and consumer ends of those processes. But imports and exports will never fulfill these goals.

For these "dreams" to become reality it would require a shift in what it takes to qualify as a "BIM" software. The GSA could possibly influence this (and whatever similar government or other organizations may exist in other countries). Right now, to sell yourself as having BIM software, all you have to be able to do is export to IFC and import from IFC with a given degree of accuracy. That underlying concept needs to change.

BIM software, all of it, regardless of software vendor, or discipline served by them, or stage of progression from preliminary concept to eventual demolition of that building or facility, would all need to have a partition of their file format that could be read by any other software (without having to have a copy of the originator's software) using something like the IFC format within their files/databases that is connected to the proprietary entity types in a live manner, updating with every save, etc.

But, here we are... Companies like AutoDesk selling us software, even suites of software, that can't talk to each other in any real and truly connected method, and, if they can't do it within their own company, with the same programmers writing all of the software programs, what hope do we have of competing companies cooperating to reach such a lofty goal?

Just my opinion, since you asked and all...

-G

[RobDraw]

---

@HVAC-Novice wrote:

I recommend Autodesk development team look into the Ideas forum. Because that is full of really good ideas that should not take ages to implement. 

---

They have been doing that for some time now. If you look at the new features list provided by Autodesk, they tell that the idea came from that forum. Some of those "really good ideas" caused some unexpected results and didn't really make things easier.

[CEdwardsUN5MX]

Call me cynical, because I am, they know the ideas are there, the question is whether they are prepared to spend the time and money on doing anything, and whether the marketing result is worth it, when they know people will buy it anyway.

Honestly they could have done many things years ago, instead its an excruciatingly slow drip feed of micro-improvements that does little to improve the software overall.

Why, for example, as per many quite public complaints in the past few years from major buyers, are we still stuck with some features that were old 20 years ago, and which look like they came from Autocad 2000 (or thereabouts?).

Revit is increasingly starting to look like an analog implementation in the age of digital, but Autodesk have cornered the market, have little real competition (like Micro$oft in desktop OS), and so can dictate the pace of development, price paid for increasingly antiquated software, and features that seem half-completed before release, that cost users money as they have to keep going with the workarounds.

And they'll still sell, make $millions, and the executives will still get their bonu$e$ for a 'job well done'.

What it absolutely isn't about, is a lack of input from the user community...

[HVAC-Novice]

Nothing in Revit comes from AutoCAD. Revit was developed by a different company that Autodesk purchased later. 

Maybe point out what feature should be improved and how? Just saying a feature is old, doesn't mean it is bad. I know I have a long wish-list of changes. but blanket statements like "fix the software" or "make it look newer" doesn't help the developer or other users at all. i agree many of our wishes remain unfulfilled. but blanket statements also aren't helpful. 

I only used Revit since 2009 or 2010 or so. But I saw many nice improvements over the years. A few every year, and fewer with SP. On the upside, they never had a major problem with a newer version. 

No change in 20 years? Really? So, when they introduced the ribbon in 2009 (?), you did not notice a change in UI? 

[mhiserZFHXS]

---

@GaryOrrMBI wrote:

The whole direction discussed by many of the previous posts concerning making PDF's capable of this or that... My thoughts there are straight forward, PDFs already allow for too much editing as it is in my opinion. there should be no way to edit or change a PDF (the content or visibility of any of that content) once it's produced without having to take extra steps to protect it... with paper going away and being replaced by digital record copies it is critical to actually have an unchangeable record of what was produced at a given point in time.

---

Just to clarify this. I don't want PDFs to be any more editable than they are now. I just want them to be able to be more functional by allowing more information to preserved when exported from Revit. A lot of the things I'm asking for are already there is some way. They are just unrefined or not linked up properly. The pop-up tags I was referring to aren't all that dissimilar from tool tips. I'd imagine the process to be not dissimilar from creating a tag now, only instead of placing the tag on a sheet, you would embed it in an element. And when that element is selected in the PDF or whatever format it is, it shows up.

All of the tools to do these things already exist in one form or another. They just need to be linked together and cleaned up.

[GaryOrrMBI]

@mhiserZFHXS 

My point is this: if all of the information were stored in the active design and management files as a companion set of open source information to any proprietary information and made accessible to any other application that was needed at any time throughout the lifetime of the building, there would be no need for PDFs to be anything other than a record of the construction documents at any point in time.

Whatever application you needed and used for your piece of the puzzle could be built for that need but work on that shared data set(s).

Open source viewers could easily be created (there are already a couple floating around for IFC) that would allow anyone to access that open source partition of data from any project they had access to and, it would be as "live" as the source files themselves.

No need to even talk about specialty viewers such as DWF or PDF and expanding them to have live links for easy navigation of document sets, or pop ups for information embedded within a specific file format that may or may not have any bearing on a given user's needs.

Just use what's already been developed in the manner in which it was intended and we're already there... but no software company will agree to provide such easy access to information that was developed by their application without being able to sell you their application to be able to read it.

And that is the real breaking point for the progress that we could be seeing this very day.

[Simon_Weel]

The article reads as science fiction. How to create a better world in 10 easy steps. Good incentive, but will never materialize. Like collecting thousands of frogs in a bucket. In his day and age, you need someone or some company willing to invest billions of euro's / dollars to get this off the ground in the first place. Too bad Elon Musk burned his billions in Twitter.