Tag: Software

To BIM or not to BIM that is the question

Today I came across an e-mail informing me that Autodesk had released the new 2011 versions of their CAD and BIM software, AutoCAD and Revit. If you are familiar with these products feel free to skip the following two paragraphs for my opinion about BIM and CAD, if not, read on.

For those of you who are not familiar with the world of architectural software it is broken into two different conceptual models: Computer Aided Drafting (CAD) and Building Information Modeling (BIM). CAD software has been around since the 1980’s and is a digital analog to hand drafting. In it, users work in either a 2-D or 3-D environment defined by points and lines (or vectors). CAD software is a time saver in that instead of each drawing being an independent sheet that needs to be redrawn whenever changes are made, the drawing lives virtually within the software and changes can be made rapidly without effecting other areas of the work. In addition drawing elements can be quickly scaled larger or smaller to create details or other drawings. Since CAD is a replication of the drawing process it is used by many different industries. For three dimensional work it can be clunky and hard to understand; to remedy this companies like Autodesk created add-on programs that extend the vector based system using pre-made and user definable blocks and proprietary elements indexed by a database to automate the three dimensional process. This system has its uses, but cannot compete with true BIM software when it comes to three dimensional coordination.

BIM is almost as old as CAD, but has only recently started to become a mainstream tool.  If CAD software is the digital analog of drafting, BIM software is the digital analog to model making. BIM uses a database of elements to define space: instead of drawing two lines to represent a wall, or using a wall tool to create a series of lines and surface to represent a wall, in a BIM system a user models a wall by selecting an element from a database and defining its values, like height, length, material components, etc. The element that appears in the program looks very similar to what you would find in a CAD program, but instead of being defined by its fixed points and vectors, it is instead being built from a database element. This allows individual elements in the building to be categorized and identified much quicker and allows for a higher level of integration. Instead of just defining a wall as X feet high, you can define it as running from floor 1 to ceiling 1, this way if the distance between floor 1 and ceiling 1 changes the wall changes without the user having to make any other corrections. This system can take lot of time and effort in the beginning to create a model of a project, because every major element needs to be present. Once the skeleton is in place, though it saves an incredible amount of time, because elements can be augmented at will, and, at least in theory, everything will adjust. This system can also be automated to produce warnings when elements intersect in ways that are not desired, which can be a godsend when coordinating multiple construction disciplines (architecture, mechanical engineering, plumbing, structural, etc.).

Since I recently started my own firm, I have been looking to buy software to automate our design process. In previous jobs I’ve used AutoCAD Architecture and in school I used Revit, so I am comfortable working in either CAD or BIM. The real issue for me is a cost benefit analysis. CAD software can be as inexpensive as the new version of Autodesk’s 2-D only non-enhanced software,AutoCAD LT, priced currently $900, or can ballon up to Autodesk’s expensive, but powerful, 2-D and 3-D software with architecture specific modeling tools, AutoCAD Architecture 2011, priced at $4995. On the other hand, Autodesk’s Revit Architecture 2011, one of many discipline specific varieties of BIM software, is priced at $5,495. To me as a small practitioner, the cost of either AutoCAD Architecture or Autodesk Revit is prohibitive when I have the option of software at 1/5 the price. On the other hand, if I was going to buy higher end professional software that can automate my tasks I cannot see a reason to by AutoCAD Architecture, for $600 more I could start working in what is sure to be the new method of construction design. In addition, the hardware requirements for AutoCAD Architecture or Revit far outstrips any machione I currently have, and would require an additional $2000 purchase. Now, of course, if I was an existing office the choice would be a lot more difficult, if my files and previous projects were all AutoCAD based, and my staff was all CAD trained, BIM might seem like an unreasonable hurdle to overcome. Thinking about this makes me wary of buying AutoCAD LT, because even though it is a reasonably priced entry level piece of software, if that is what I start my business with when I am ready to move to a higher end piece of software I may find myself trapped by my future staff’s ability and my past projects.

So, for now, I will content myself with hand drafting until I find either a profitable contract to offset the infrastructure purchase of a high end machine and revit or find myself wasting too much time revising a project and break down and buy the lower end software.

Virtual autoCAD

One of the most expensive purchases of any architecture and design office is drafting software. Not only does it cost anywhere from $1000 to $3000 a seat but the software changes yearly and every three versions the file formats tend to change as well. Whenever that happens firms either need to buy into the new version or be left behind. Autodesk has come up with their own solution to this, yearly subscriptions. The initial charge is the same as a usual one seat license, but every year they charge the firm about $500 per seat and send you the updated software. This is supposed to save you money while giving them a guarenteed revive stream, which it does but each version still needs better hardware to operate at maximum efficiency. That’s about a $2000 investment per machine on at least a three year rolling clock. In all, that’s a lot of expense especially for a new found firm. It’s no wonder people turn to piracy, unauthorized installs, and multiple seats.

Citrix has a different solution. They have developed a virtualization software which can eliminate the rolling hardware expense. This software is like most virtualization software, it lives on a host box which users can access through the desktop client. Where this differs from most virtualization servers is that it allows the users to run OpenGL software like REVIT, 3D Studio Max or AutoCAD with no real perceptible latency. This means that users experience the software as if it was on their own machine. In a large firm this could be a major cost saver, but in a small firm I’m not that sure it’s feasible. First, servers are expensive, especially those with good graphics capabilities. The amount of money saved on user terminals could easily be less than the cost of one server especially if there are only a few boxes being saved. Second, this software cost as much as a single seat of any CAD software on its own. If there are more than a few users this cost could be made up in the hardware savings but for a small office it could be prohibitively expensive. Third, this requires staff that understands servers and other complicated networking infrastructure. The cost for this kind of support onsite or off could ruin the brute cost savings exercise, yet a large firm should have this kind of staff already.

All told, for small firms, there really is no way to save money here. CAD is an expensive proposition and yet one that all office have to purchase at some time. I just wish there was a more cost effective option.

Autodesk meets Barbie Dream House Architect

I just read a great article on the New York Times about a new product from Autodesk (Design Your Dream House, Lamps and All – Bits Blog – NYTimes.com).

It looks like Autodesk is getting into the 3-D home architect/interior design business with their new product “Project Dragonfly”. But instead of charging an arm, a leg, and the blood of your first grandchild like they usually do, Autodesk is giving it away to the public and charging the product manufacturers to list their products. I don’t know what to think about this. On one hand its great that there is a free way for people to redesign their interior spaces without having to use the IKEA planner or The Sims. But on the other, the product placement aspect and limitations to using Autodesk’s approved library of products rubs me the wrong way. In addition, I can just see the army of housewives and weekend warriors storming their local home depot with print outs from this website in hand believing that they should get a “trade” discount because now, they too are designers.

Breaking the Autodesk Hegemony

In the modern architect’s office there are no more drafting boards; if they exist, they serve as extensions of the desktop and become semi-permanent homes for check sets, red lines, specs and trace paper sketches. Instead, we work in CADD – Computer Aided Design and Drafting – usually short for Autodesk’s AutoCAD or Architectural Desktop/AutoCAD Architecture software. This software (in practice) is little more than hand-drafting+; it is rare to find a firm using the full three dimensional capabilities of the software. In addition, Autodesk’s CAD is PC only. There exist a handful of other pieces of drafting software for the PC – specifically Bently’s Microstation comes to mind, but truly Autodesk is the most popular girl at the dance. Mac users on the other hand have a rough and varied landscape of numerous semi and fully professional software solutions. Since purchasing my first Mac when Leopard was released (a Mac Mini – my last apple before this was a IIc), I have been trying as many of these programs as i can find. All in all i can not seem to find one that balances the speed of use of AutoCAD and its keyboard commands and a good integration with the mac interface. Because of this I feel trapped in the chaotic world of XP and Vista and, even thought it would be in my office’s best interest and i know solutions must exist out there, I cannot in good conscience advise anyone who does full time CADD work to run a Mac.

As BIM (Building Information Modeling) becomes more pervasive, requested and sought after as a selling feature of an office, the fundamental functioning of computers in the design and documentation of buildings will be changing. At the moment Autodesk’s Revit is the real player on the scene and, like the rest of Autodesk’s software, it is PC only. I would really like to see a software developer take advantage of the better architecture of the Mac system and the upcoming Grand Central technology which will be a part of of OSX 10.6 – Snow Leopard. Better access to multi-core processing could help give BIM the speed and processing push it would need to become the de facto method of building construction, especially if the rendering times are speeded up by better hardware. For my current office, the savings from not having to outsource our renderings could easily pay for better hardware and software training. In addition, a logical user intuitive interface in-line with the mac development standards would help win over many of the “old dogs” in the profession who refuse to learn a new way of working.

With the specter of Windows XP’s death on the none too distant horizon and a general fear and loathing of Vista the climate is ripe for a industry wide transition to apple. As far as “artistic” professions go, architecture is the only one I can think of which is PC based and that comes form using an engineering based software. With the switch to building models instead of vector data a more graphic friendly solution seems around the corner. Now if only there was an easy network enterprise integration for the mac os like there is for windows business and I could easily see offices like mine making the switch. If this does exist – and I’m sure it does in one form or another – I have no knowledge of it.