Become a Fan
Follow us on TwitterLine in the Sand
Posted by Emily Toliver on November 13, 2009 at 5:20pm
It is hard to believe that it was just a few years ago Building Information Modeling (BIM) was just getting ramped up. The BIM manager position was new, and most companies were still unclear on the benefits of this new technology. Being an Autodesk shop, M+NLB had already invested in AutoCAD MEP (formally known as Autodesk Building Systems). The pitch that vendors and manufacturers were going to provide all the content never really came to reality. Besides content, other early challenges included software interoperability issues, poor publications, very little support, and staff training challenges. To make matters more confusing, right in the middle of this transition, Autodesk introduced Revit MEP. Fast forward to today and we ask, “how far have we come?” We now know the limitations of the software, and, for the most part, are working through most of the issues. By generously sharing ideas in user groups, online forums, and blogs postings, the issues are being resolved with the help of the greater community. It has taken a unified effort of users from all disciplines to push and drive solutions to these early problems.
However, one challenge still remains. Modeling has obvious benefits, but in the end 2D construction documents are still a necessity. Unfortunately, the assumption that all BIM applications are created equal is not the reality. Architecturally, the BIM applications are mature, and have overcome most of the display issues. BIM MEP applications do not translate all the 3D content into legible 2D construction documents. So, where do you draw the line in the sand between what is more important—a detailed 3D model, or only modeling the items that count with separate 2D construction documents? The industry in general is still somewhat confused about which effort is more important. To resolve this issue, on certain projects we have to produce a separate 2D CAD drawing. This is the only effective way to communicate what is needed for the reviewers to understand the work. The extra time and effort to manage two sets of environments is not always factored into the project. To add to the pressure, we experience additional frustrations when the expectations are not met (ie, having to show the work in two locations, or when trying to show every detail in the model).
So how can we make things better? Communication is the key. Setting realistic goals for the BIM project early and defining clear expectations are all very important. Push to improve the software. Great strides have been made, but we are not there yet. Emphasis on the engineering data and interopperabiltiy with energy software is without a doubt important, but let’s not forget that we still have to plot the product. If the product doesn’t translate, then the extra effort to produce the end result contradicts the concept of BIM all together. Most of all, share ideas and continue to collaborate. Without a doubt, we would not be where we are if weren’t for the generosity of the BIM community.
Subscribe to our Newsfeed