What are the current problems with Revit/BIM?
Revit as a standalone tool is a great tool for visualization
of a total building. It, along with others like it, has given insight into
pre-construction that was not possible through 2D drawings and renderings. It
is quick, simple to use, and has plenty of room to grow.
The advantages today stop there, however. Revit and other
BIM software still lack severely in total building analysis when it comes to
structural and mechanical systems, among other. It is simply too cumbersome at
the moment to perform these analyses because there is an overwhelming reliance
on every part having very specific properties that are difficult to input. For
example, a structural analysis of a building is not simply columns and beams.
The structure also needs to take into account connections and fixities which
are tough to model without a program like SAP2000. This is just for steel
construction as well. The calculations get increasingly more complicated when
using concrete frames with internal reinforcement, since the entire geometry
will have to be created and defined for every column and beam. There is also currently no good way to
transfer data between the two programs, so models must be individually created
which can lead to issues down the road with updates to the building’s layout,
changes to the structural systems, among other reasons. The same is true with
most every other system, with special consideration to HVAC. Revit has decent
flow analysis, but once again every facet of the building needs to be defined
or else there will be significant error, and such definitions and constraints
would take about as much time as simply doing the hand calculations.
With the introduction of add-ons like Dynamo, these issues
are becoming less of a problem as definitions and constraints can be programmed
in. The issue arises however that this capability is available through add-on
software only, Dynamo is also very new and most firms don’t use it to its full
potential as of yet.
These problems lead to the biggest issue with the use of
Revit: efficiency. From an economic standpoint, using one program to model
everything just seems like the best course of action, but once again the lack
of interoperability combined with the steep learning curve makes this not
attractive to companies. If everyone was using things like Dynamo to make
calculations through Revit easier, then it would be easy for an employer to
simply adopt it. If the employer instead has to invest money into the training
of employees just to start to use this software, as well as purchase a license
to get the software, without a concrete future benefit of such investments then
it won’t happen.
Comments:
Jordan S:
I appreciate how you brought up the lecture by Mr. Allen as it seems like it emcompasses the best outlook for BIM. To be fair, we don't really know what exactly the future holds, but using Revit or other software as a self-optimizing tool would greatly impact the field. My question for this is where Dynamo or some of the other visual programming plugins fit into this view. Will they be the key to self-optimization, or will they end up being left behind as BIM evolves past the need for them. My best guess is that they will be totally integrated, and will be the way that the user interacts with the program.
Zac A:
I love your topic just because you can go on and on about they differences between the two programs. I think you nailed the primary difference however. All this time, we have been finding quick tools and tricks to make modeling a building's floor easier, with offsets and geometry, when BIM can do it all for you. You can even get those same 2D drawings that are exactly representative of the 3D building because they are a direct result of the building. Personally, I wish I could still work with CAD since I spent all that time learning those tricks, but I am excited for the future that can be found in BIM.
Allison A:
I enjoyed your coverage of multiple future advantages of BIM, but I especially liked how you talked about simulations. That is one thing that I think we haven't really talked about too much in class but seems to be the obvious benefit of BIM. Being able to see potential building performance before it even goes up could save large amounts of money, but also improve how buildings perform. These simulations could be used in conjunction with optimization tools to tweak building systems to perform better than what we could have done through the trial and error methods currently adopted. I wonder if, through this, we will ever really need to perform hand calculations in the future, other than for calibration and checking.
Comments:
Jordan S:
I appreciate how you brought up the lecture by Mr. Allen as it seems like it emcompasses the best outlook for BIM. To be fair, we don't really know what exactly the future holds, but using Revit or other software as a self-optimizing tool would greatly impact the field. My question for this is where Dynamo or some of the other visual programming plugins fit into this view. Will they be the key to self-optimization, or will they end up being left behind as BIM evolves past the need for them. My best guess is that they will be totally integrated, and will be the way that the user interacts with the program.
Zac A:
I love your topic just because you can go on and on about they differences between the two programs. I think you nailed the primary difference however. All this time, we have been finding quick tools and tricks to make modeling a building's floor easier, with offsets and geometry, when BIM can do it all for you. You can even get those same 2D drawings that are exactly representative of the 3D building because they are a direct result of the building. Personally, I wish I could still work with CAD since I spent all that time learning those tricks, but I am excited for the future that can be found in BIM.
Allison A:
I enjoyed your coverage of multiple future advantages of BIM, but I especially liked how you talked about simulations. That is one thing that I think we haven't really talked about too much in class but seems to be the obvious benefit of BIM. Being able to see potential building performance before it even goes up could save large amounts of money, but also improve how buildings perform. These simulations could be used in conjunction with optimization tools to tweak building systems to perform better than what we could have done through the trial and error methods currently adopted. I wonder if, through this, we will ever really need to perform hand calculations in the future, other than for calibration and checking.
Thomas S,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post on the current problems with Revit and BIM. I agree with you that most BIM software is lacking on a total building analysis standpoint. With the introduction of Dynamo, I wonder if companies will start to utilize it since the biggest roadblock is the learning curve and cost of the software. I do think that Dynamo will be on the forefront of a total building analysis but only question is how long will it be until it becomes universally accepted?
Thomas,
ReplyDeleteI am not very familiar with Revit so I asked some friends who are about how they felt about the program. They echoed your posted to a degree. Even though they have been working with Revit for a few years now they are no where close to using the program to its full potential. Some blamed this on what you referred to as the “learning curve” associated with the program. They found it to not be very intuitive so even performing basic tasks could be difficult. It could be especially difficult for older engineers who didn’t grow up in a world filled with technology to quickly adopt these programs even if it would be beneficial for them to do so.
I also agree with your take on Dynamo. After what we were able to find in class it seems like it could be a great first step toward creating a more efficient program all around.