BIM MSc at Salford

The University of Salford are offering an MSc in BIM and Integrated Design. There’s a launch party at the Old Fire Station in Salford, Tuesday 7th June at 4:00:

MSc BIM and Integrated Design launch event

Native DWG handling

DWG format is going to be used for years. Many of our partners don’t use Revit and never will: It’s just not appropriate for many specialist sub-contractors for example.

But we need to bring their DWGs into Revit. So Revit needs to handle DWGs seamlessly.

It shouldn’t be hard. AutoCAD handles DWG data pretty well. Autodesk own the AutoCAD code. Those of us with Revit Suites already have the AutoCAD code installed. Revit’s code ‘just’ needs to talk nicely to AutoCAD’s.

Oh, and how about seamless in-place editing of DWGs in a Revit session? For an example, just look at how you can embed an Excel spreadsheet into a Word document (Insert/Object/Excel). Double-click the Excel sheet to edit it in-place, and the toolbars and ribbons all change to Excel ones.

Imagine taking the same approach with AutoCAD, Revit, Inventor, Max, etc: Use the most appropriate set of tools for the job in hand, within one fluid interface.

In-place edit

How about in-place editing of linked Revit files?

It’s been a wishlist item for a while, here and here for example. There are workarounds, but none achieve the simplicity and flow of being able to edit in place.

Automatic annotation

So I’d like to define a view (a plan view) in which all the rooms are always tagged. If I add a new room, this view creates a tag for it automatically. So I don’t have to go round to all of my fifty plan views tagging all the untagged rooms before every issue.

Oh, and the room tags adjust themselves to fit, of course. Didn’t I mention that? If you move their room, they move with it. If they’re too big to fit in their room, they move into a clear space nearby and generate their own leader line. They place themselves nicely in odd-shaped rooms.

Is that too much to ask?

Just extend the principle to enable self-documenting building models. You model the building. Revit generates the documents.

(Sub)components 2

So I’m designing a brick cavity wall. The brick face has a stretcher-bond surface pattern, which I’ve aligned accurately. But when I come to draw the details, I have to position repeating details to show the bricks and mortar joints.

Wait a minute, I’ve told Revit I’m using brickwork. I’ve told it how the joints are aligned. Why can’t Revit work out where the bricks are in the detail?

How would it be if, following on from Friday’s post, you could define the brick bond in terms of sub-components and not just as a simple surface pattern?

Then the brickwork could come alive. Walls could snap to brick dimensions. Openings could clip into place. All the cavity wall hardware (weep holes, wall ties, cavity trays, lintels, etc.) could auto-generate.You could project or contrast-colour individual bricks to create daiper patterns.

Yes, perhaps not on today’s hardware. But by 2020, why not?

(Sub)components

A stud wall is made of components – studs, board, nails and so on. How would Revit change if it could easily model all the components?

You wouldn’t want to lose the simplicity of placing a wall. You’d just need to be able to define the way the wall generated its studs and board, both in the field and at junctions and openings. You might need a calculation- or code-based solver for stud sizing and spacing. For a full bill-of-materials, you’d need rules for itemising nails and fixings. You might even have manufacturer-specific plug-ins for proprietary framing systems and fabrication machines. And all parametric, so that the components flex with the wall.

None of this needs to impact on the simplicity of placing a wall. It just allows us to move closer to a fully-designed BIM.

Some designers won’t need so much detail, but those who need to check that the power sockets don’t clash with the studs, and those who are designing for manufacture/prefabrication, could really make use of sub-components.

And just to be clear, I’m not really asking for a stud framing solution within Revit, because there are third-party solutions for stud framing. I’m just using stud walls as an illustration of the need for a general-purpose sub-component solution.

Spot Annotations 2

Following on from yesterday’s post on step annotations, I wonder whether there’s scope to expand the range of similar annotations. Currently, there are three special-purpose spot annotations: Spot Elevation, Spot Coordinate and Spot Slope. I’m always looking for ways to generalise special-purpose tools, to make them more versatile and perhaps more intuitive.

If you imagine how you would design tools like these in the family editor, you’d need to define host points and be able to annotate based on the properties (X,Y,Z) of those host points. That’s all the spot annotation tools do, and it’s what my proposed step annotation tool does.

Thinking about how you’d place these annotation in the project, it would be simplest to just place them with one click, and then drag any extra host points to position them. Alternatively, you could place multi-point annotations with a series of clicks – it just might make for an awkward user interface, each family needing a different number of clicks.

Step Annotations

It would be nice to have step annotations. Similar to spot elevations, but with two hosts: The annotation value would be the difference in level between the two host points.

Lumpy Levels

Levels are level. But what if they weren’t?

Imagine a building on a sloping site. The ground floor is stepped. Conceptually, everything on the ground floor could be on Level 0, no matter what its actual elevation is. Level 0 could just tell you what the elevation of the ground floor is at any point on the site.

I’m currently dealing with a project which has just ten storeys, but over 100 distinct floor levels.

Another example from a 2006 AUGI post: A mile-long building on a slope of 1/32" per foot.

FOA's Yokohama International Port Terminal, Frank Lloyd Wright’s Guggenheim Museum, there’s a fair number of buildings that would be easier to model with non-level Levels.

Favourite Views

You can sort and filter views and sheets in the project browser.

How about being able to select some ‘favourite views’ and have them grouped together at the top of the browser?

Better still, have several sets of favourite views, so you can have different sets for different purposes? One set for editing facades, one for cores, one for rooms, and so on.

The closest you can get to this at the moment is to create print sets (using Selected views/sheets in the Print dialog), and then create a browser organisation for each print set, using the print set as a filter (thanks to this thread for that tip).

But it would be better if the print sets were just listed in the project browser. Add in drag/drop add-a-view-to-a-set and right-click access to the print sets dialog box, and you’d have a winning feature.

Highlight Lineworked lines

You can use the Linework tool to change the linestyle of individual edges in a view.

It would be useful to be able to highlight which edges have been Lineworked.

Default + Overrides = Power + Flexibility

Curtain walls are flexible and powerful. Part of that flexibility and power comes from the way you can set up a curtain wall Type with grid setting-out, mullion and panel types, but then override those defaults individually: You can unpin just one panel to change it into a door, for example.

Contrast curtain walls’ flexibility with that of railings. With railings, you can set the spacing of the balusters in the Type, but there’s no way to override an individual baluster in a particular railing instance.

Default + Overrides. It’s a powerful, flexible pattern.

Group = Family

If you could make a parametric component from any collection of Revit elements, there’d be no need to distinguish between groups and families.

Groups would have parameters. Exclude Elements From Group would be replaced by visibility parameters on the group elements. Edit Group would be replaced by an uprated Edit Family In-Place .

Families could be created simply by selecting the elements and hitting the ‘Create Family’ button.

You’d need to be able to add relationships and constraints after creating the solid geometry, which is the reverse of the usual family-creation process. That might need some better tools, but I’ll leave them for another post.

Project components and Flexible Buildings

If project files had controllable parameters just like families, you could make a parametric component out of any collection of Revit elements.

And you could flex a whole building model as easily as you can flex a conceptual mass in Revit 2012.

Project = Family

A simple question: Why do we distinguish between projects and families? What if 'projects' could be flexed with parameters? What if 'families' could contain walls, floors and roofs?