Is there a benefit for Engineers and Architects to both use Revit?
Recently on LinkedIn Stephan Langella asked a very simple question:
“To my Revit enabled architectural peers, what are the benefits to your business by having your services engineers in Revit?”
As of yet no one has been able to give him an answer affirming the benefits. I think this is a fascinating for two reasons: one grand and one very personal.
The grand reason is about our community as a whole
If all (or a majority of) the benefits described by being an all Revit team are really just the benefits of BIM collaboration then we are doing ourselves a disservice by treating it as anything special. This isn’t a dig against Autodesk or Revit users. It’s just about clarity. If so much of the high level collaboration is going to happen in Navisworks, Solibri, or a similar model checking program, who cares if everyone paid money to the same company for their authoring tool. This gets to the heart of BIM collaboration and model sharing. What are the benefits, reasons, and pitfalls? If there is nothing uniquely special about the Revit to Revit collaboration then let’s move beyond that as an excuse to pick one software over another.
What does Revit to Revit provide that IFC or .dwg or any other solution doesn’t offer? If there are special benefits, I think those outside the Revit circle will be very curious to know what they are.
The personal reason is about my current work
I’m working on a project that is mono-platform. The architect, the structural engineer, and the contractor are all using ArchiCAD. This is the first time I’ve ever been in this situation. And in fact, we’re going a step further. We will all be working within the same model. The project is only two weeks old, so I’m the only one in the model so far, but I’m interested to get a taste of this mono-platform life-not to mention experimenting with the mono-model paradigm. It will be interesting.
In the coming weeks, my hope is that a) I’ll hear about the benefits of Revit to Revit and see how I can gain those benefits in ArchiCAD to ArchiCAD. b) I’ll discover some benefits of mono-platform and mono-model myself. c) I’ll learn more about BIM in general.
Is there a benefit for engineers and architects to both use Revit? Or let’s expand the question to is there a benefit for engineers and architects to use the same software? And if so, what is it? Leave a comment.
And remember we are all in this together and use great programs…
In Related News
Bentley’s AECOsim Building Designer (SELECTseries 5)Â will be able to import and use RFA files (Revit Families). Maybe more developments like this will help make all this worry about who’s using what program completely moot. And while we’re on the subject of using RFA content in non-Revit programs…if Bentley can do it, why not ArchiCAD or SketchUp? Come on developers, let’s do this!
Subscribe to my blog to read more about the tricky world of being an Architect in the 21st century: Shoegnome on Facebook, Twitter, and the RSS feed. If you are really into having your work environment similar to other people, wouldn’t it be cool if you were using the same ArchiCAD template as other people? Turns out that’s possible: download the Shoegnome Open Template.
Darren Bell
I think its only a matter of time before the likes of ArchiCAD start to directly import and export revit files, much the same way DWG became the adopted standard for 2D files, ArchiCAD ended up being able to open, edit and save better than AutoCAD.
However as far as BIM in its current format stands, when it comes to engineering, all I want is the result, I would rarely need the entire model, ie for a steel frame, why would I need to see all the nuts and bolts when the main structural members are sufficient for clash detection etc.
Billy Earnest
I’m no longer in the ‘commercial’ world, & no longer using archicad, but the one thing I remember when we sent our first IFC files (from archicad) to the engineers to use in Revit Structure, it was nothing close to smooth. As a matter of fact, it was such a mess, that we ultimately started exporting dwgs for all out consultants. I’m no longer with the company, & mostly what I do now is all my own work (very little back & forth)…I haven’t had any coord. with other Revit users yet, but from what I saw, the simple fact of being in the same world & speaking the same language means a helluva lot to me…whatever software it is. Not having to deal with coord. issues has some value in my little world. Especially when were all busy & have more important things to spend out time on.
Willard Williams
I think there are inherent benefits to people using one program for different disciplines on the same project. There are also benefits to having teams colocated within the same room too. But in this digital world having a single place where information resides is key, and in formats that are readily accessible and dynamic in nature. I haven’t heard if Revit is really capable of working effectively with one file over long distances without significant file transfer size requirements and special hardware or software to make it viable. But I might be wrong. There is nothing like the Delta Server within the Revit or Autodesk software suite.
One thing I have recently discovered is that Archicad is really awesome at working with IFC files. The files come in with all of it’s attributes as Archicad elements. And even scarier is that you can manipulate the IFC information as if it was generated within Archicad natively. So there is the potential to have Revit files converted and placed onto the Delta Server or within a Archicad file so that teams can more or less work together, dynamically, in the same digital space using this technology.
Often I wish I could have the entire team in one file or in one space, or both. There is nothing like actively collaborating with professionals in various disciplines on projects. That is the major point is just to be able to work together actively, happily, and in a file that reflects the level of work the team has completed without having to jump through hurdles and siloed data.
Damian
I’ve worked in Revit to Revit and I didn’t saw any advantage because most of the other flavors of Revit (MEP & Structure) are not mature enough to work at all.
An IFC, shouldn’t be the tool we use to overcome all this conversation?
TroyGates (@TroyGates)
Sorry, but you heard wrong. Revit MEP is very capable. My previous MEP firm is doing all modeling in Revit for small, medium, and large projects in healthcare projects. All HVAC, piping, electrical, technology, and medical equipment is done in a single Revit model.
Stephan Langella
I agree with Troy but there are some god awful users out there giving Revit MEP a bad name.
Cheers
Brian Skripac (@BrianSkripac)
Well said Troy, we have a full MEP team and work in the same way with no problems.
Damian
Troy,
That maybe the problem, and maybe it has improved. But I remember about two years ago even Autodesk claimed that their product was not ready.
Jason Matthews
There are benefits of the design team working in one platform rather than separate ones. Speaking specifically of Revit, linking other Revit files and using Copy/Monitor are two very important tools that you can exploit that do not really come into play when using multiple software. I have worked on several projects where the structural engineer is also the metal building company. They work in a completely different structural package than Revit. The only format read by Revit that could be linked in was the DWG format. We had to insert the exported model into a family and then insert that family into Revit just to get the sections to cut the structural model. While I understand this is a limitation of Revit, it still does not offset the value of having the entire design team in same software.
Furthermore, if you are the MEP engineers using Revit and the building was done in another software then the engineers would have to recreate all the ceilings, walls, and floors to host their families on. This could be substantial given the size of the project.
From a coordination standpoint, there is no issue with bringing in models from various software platforms.
What about the end of the project. What are the turnover requirements for the client? Do they want one cohesive model? Do they want just O&M manuals with 2D drawings? Are thy going to be utilizing the models with FM software? What format does their FM software utilize? This has to be taken into consideration as well.
Jared Banks
Jason, thanks for your insight. Could this not all be done via IFC though? The MEP guys could import an IFC model from another platform and get the same results, right? Is there a fundamental difference to MEP between a model from Revit and successful IFC import?
The cohesive model for the client is a great question too. That raises a lot of questions about what the client will do with the model. Just archive it (then one model doesn’t really matter) or use it for some other purpose. And if that purpose isn’t to open it in Revit, then again all the parts and perhaps a Navisworks or Solibri model become more important.
Really appreciate the comments and glad it’s giving all of us more to think about.
Stephan Langella
Hi guys,
In my experience, the one cohesive model is a misnomer. Firstly if you combine all disciplines into a single Revit file, your building doesn’t have to get to big before it’s useless.
In Autodesk land that means Navisworks.
Most model enabled FM systems accommodate multiple model files and formats. Eg: Maximo uses the Navis engine. Ecodomus talks to a bundle I formats.
Back on copy/monitor, I asked this question of someone in my original LinkedIn post and they said its fine for walls and columns but doesn’t look at beams (this guys is a Revit developer). Crazy!
Haraldur Ingvarsson
In reality everybody except Revit are using IFC very efficiently. IFC has been evolving since before Revit was even conceived, so Autodesk should give Revit a real IFC connection, like they have done with Navisworks ( so they do know how to do it ), instead of trying to dominate over the connection to Revit. In my opinion Revit is not a real BIM software because of their lack of open access, which other software like VectorWorks, Tekla, Bentley, ArchiCAD, Solibri just to name a fiew have all done.
Stephan Langella
Hi Haraldur,
Word on the street is 2015 will have much better IFC export options.
I get a lot of IFC files from Revit users and it pretty reliable. Sometimes default settings from Revit are not the best and many users don’t look at them.
IMHO, certainly in our market, the AD vendors have been bad mouthing IFC for a long time. My reply is if it’s so bad how does a multi million dollar a year business like HDR Rice Daubney (where I work) remain highly profitable?
Cheers
Haraldur Invarsson
Hi Stephan and thanks for your comment,
to be fair Revit has improved its IFC export options a lot in past few years, the size of the IFC files was one of the major issue in early versions.
It will be good for all, both Revit users and others when IFC is good.
Now with the COBie Design and Construction Documents IFC connection it will even be more important.
Cheers
nandomogollon
Hi all,
When following the “Federated-Models” approach by using exchange files (i.e. IFC, BCF) it is likely that you will link / import other discipline’s models and use it as a reference for coordination rather than a “live” background.
This approach gives you the advantage of not being restricted by what BIM software other companies are using at the expense of you having to model your own version of the other’s models e.g. Architectural columns and slabs Vs Structural columns and slabs.
When following the “Mono-Model” approach by using the same file format within the same BIM software, either by having it all in the same file or linking files, you use a live background that comes from it’s originator, but you have little control over it (not too much other than show/hiding it and partially manipulate it’s graphics).
This approach partially gives you the advantage of having live backgrounds that will update very frequently, showing things as they are according to it’s author; this is both a blessing and a curse, because most of the times the architect will have the lead on changes while the others are catching up, e.g you want to get rid of a certain column or increase the size of an opening in a structural /concrete wall… too bad you can’t because it’s in someone else’s model, so you are back to have your own little version of it.
One thing I’ve noticed is that it is highly recommendable to have a common ground for cross-disciplines coordination.
Let me explain: by using an exchange format from all the models and coordinate via BIMSight, Solibri, or Navisworks ( or similar) the coordination occurs in equal conditions and you get rid of the eternal complain of “I can’t trust your model because it doesn’t look correct in my software”.
You get everyone to export IFC files and validate it in a checker / viewer before they deliver it, then you can run the coordination over common non proprietary formats and a purely coordination software.
My 2 long cents
Regards
Brian Skripac (@BrianSkripac)
Why is there so much concern/issue about using Revit and a Revit users working with another Revit users? If your firm has a collaborative process that works and is beneficial to your organization, why should there be a criticism if there is a consistency to the design technology platforms?
Jared Banks
Brian, I think that’s essentially the point that’s trying to be made, but in reverse. This isn’t about a criticism of Revit to Revit teams (which obviously work well) or of all the flavors of Revit (which also obviously all work well), but about confirming that it doesn’t matter. That it’s about a collaborative process that works and is beneficial to an organization, regardless of the tools used. As there is often constant pressure for non-Revit shops to conform many of us regularly face the question “why aren’t we doing what everyone else is?”. We all know that both Revit and ArchiCAD (or whichever software) can get the job done. And in the hands of skilled architects and engineers those programs can do amazing things. But when we are asked “aren’t we missing something by not using the same software as firm X or engineer Y or contractor Z?” it’s good to understand if there are benefits we’re missing. And that’s what I think both Stephan (and I) are curious about.
And as many of us will agree one of the most critical aspects of BIM is Collaboration, so focusing the question on that is super helpful.
Jeremy Schmidt
I am a MEP guy. I am a firm believer in OpenBIM and using the appropriate authoring software for your firm. I have been utilizing IFC’s to transfer models between ArchiCAD and Revit MEP since 2008. I have had mixed results using IFC’s over the years. At one point the process was broken totally. You will lose data using IFC conversions. In 2012 we had a project that had phasing and it wasn’t supported through IFC then. We had to use separate models for each phase which added extra level of difficulty. Constantly lose hosting with model updates because element ID’s get switched up. We have had some crazy side effects from losing hosting. Archicad ceilings come through as floor slabs during the conversion process, and we can’t reference ceiling grid lines without using DWG files.
Essentially, it is easier going between the same authoring software between design teams. Using IFC you will lose information, and will have validate the conversion process. On the MEP side you lose trust in the model for design purposes and it starts turning Revit into a CAD program in lieu of a design software.
Chris Ehly (@cjehly)
My personal concern is that this “collaborative process” is now getting pushed down the food-chain, to the detriment of projects. Just because a tool CAN be used, does not mean it is necessarily the RIGHT tool to use. I’ve said this over and over again, but you CAN absolutely dig a ditch with a spoon, but that does not make the spoon a superior tool compared to a shovel or a backhoe. (speaking from a fabrication point of view here).
sydsalStephan Langella
Hi Brian,
What has generated this discussion is my experience is here in Australia. The Revit vendors have been pitching a particular message to the market for a number of years that you can’t successfully interoperate unless you are on the same platform. It has got to the point where major contractors have intimated that any practice’s submissions not on Revit get put to the bottom of the pile. My many years experience says that you get on with it and solve problems and we’ve have been debunking the myths as we go but I thought it was time to have a broader discussion to see what alternate views and experiences exist.
Dan J
I have worked on one project where the engineer worked directly in the archicad model via the BIM server, typically our template has no requirements for using the extensions so found this useful for applying similar layers where you can differentiate between structural and architectural, another thing we did was set text colours so we know who wrote what, From memory all architectural text was black but all structural text was blue. It was mainly to safeguard from architectural deleting anything the structural did and vis versa.
Jason Smith
Hi Jared
I have heard that Consultants using Revit really have a single BIM model in Revit. File size is the issue. I haven’t had the an engineer using AC & Teamwork yet. I only know of one firm that is using it.
As for Revit IFC and AC, I’m using a structural steelwork IFC from Revit in my AC model at the moment. You do have to understand the IFC import export workflow. I have Merge the Revit IFC into a separate PLN and link it into my main file. The IFC merge into AC was done with the IFC types importing with layers So I can have layer control in the main model. Its working very well.
I’m not using the IFC concrete work in the model so that I can change surfaces and I need something to install doors and windows into.
As for things that a wrong in the structural model. Its annoying but at least you can send them am image with a mark up so it can be fixed. I can now deleted my structural model items, less work for me to modify my model to match the other.
I have found that IFC does work, I have had issues but I now understand what those issues are and can use this in my workflow.
I have also have a project under construction at the moment the BIM model was all down in AC by me. Structure, MEP and Architectural. Shop drawing models have also been imported. IFC models have been given to contractors and client.
I have also imported a Revit Mechanical IFC model in to AC worked very well.
Ewoud
Hi Jared,
Being a Revit user with experience in multi discipline models in Revit, I can advise one thing. If you collaborate use linked files. In Revit there is the advantage that you can use data from linked files in your model (tags space bounderies etc) these are the things you will need most. I don’t know how AC handles this. Unless you have a very experienced team and really good demarcation don’t go the all in one model route. Every discipline has its one needs and setups and you don’t want all of them in one model. I agree that all in one sounds like the best there is. But risks will increase and these aren’t software related. Just my experience.
Djordje
Just on the topic of AECOSIM reading Revit families …
… really, if you look at the families’ limitations, everything should read GDL. Look here for example:
http://crawfordsolutions.bimobject.com/cra_1042_p
ONE ArchiCAD GDL object for ALL the Crawford doors. FOUR Revit objects.
On top of this, detail level limitation, scale sensitivity does not exist, etc … not to mention the size.
Djordje
Some years ago, there was an interview with a partriarch of one of the more important families of Dubai. The reporter asked him how did they survive before air conditioning, and he replied “we did not know that it could be different”.
People who are BIMming for decades, namely using ArchiCAD, Bentley, AllPlan, VectorWorks (sorry if I forgot anyone!) are used to working in openBIM, to file exchange, and to ever looking, searching and improving their workflow.
The majority using Revit is doing so because Autodesk says so, and have never even tried to look out of the big A. They did not do any evaluation, just dusted off the boxes they got for free with their AutoCAD upgrades when the big A told them to.
How things work or don’t work depends on people first, their knowledge second, and software third. The limitations of Revit do not mean that IFC does not work, as the fact that ArchiCAD does not come in three flavours does not mean that you can not do structural and MEP design in it.
Perception is more important than facts. I will finish with the answer one extremely capable structural engineer, old time BIMmer (close to 3 decades now) gave me when I have asked him why is he not on any of the BIM forums:
” If you are trying to teach a pig to sing, you will achieve two things: waste time and annoy the pig”
Kenny McNally
Firstly, I don’t use Revit, so please excuse my ignorance. I’m happy to listen to any other perspective.
What I don’t get is the idea that everyone uses the same version of the software (“Revit”). They don’t. Some will use Revit for Architecture, some Revit Structure, some MEP.
When Architecture is updated with new features (great new stair tool etc), but you are not allowed to updated to use it because the MEP software hasn’t yet been updated to be “compatible”… how does this help anyone?
Isn’t it better to have everyone use the software which makes them most efficient? Why should you have to delay the use of a new version just to make it easier for another consultant who doesn’t want to or can’t upgrade?
Yes, you may have to translate the software between consultants or contractors, but that’s a small price to pay compared to being obliged to use something which stops you using the great tools for your trade which are becoming better every year (no matter which ‘brand’ it is).
Another query. If you are working on two projects and one Design Team agrees to upgrade to the latest version, but the others don’t, can you really expect your own team to work efficiently between jobs when using different software for each job?
Sorry, but there are too many strings attached to being tied to one version of software, no matter who makes it.
Armando M. Martinez
Being a BIM Manager at an MEP Engineering firm and having specific categories from the Architecture Model that I need to turn off, tag, schedule or change graphically either per view or globally, is the number one reason for me. I can’t imagine what the process would be like having to turn off layers for each individual view to make our Construction Documents clear and concise. I face this issue whenever the architect gives us a piece of the floor plan in CAD. Now even if I turn off the layers, the next time they send us the Revit model with the CAD portion and they created a new layer, boom there it, craziness is all over our sheets, and so the prep work continues. I will admit though, I have very little experience massaging an IFC in Revit, just worked with them in Navis
Jason Matthews
I think at the end of the day we are limited by the software. Revit is extremely limited in the files it reads -IFC interoperability (Revit 2015 is supposed to have IFC linking abilities). However, as I am reading the “workflow” statements above I cannot help but think that there has got to be a better way. But who knows. I am not a programmer.
Back to my original statement, the people using Revit to do MEP work cannot utilize any other format to host their families on (ceilings, walls, floors, etc.). IFC will not work for their purposes, to the best of my knowledge. So the MEP guys are stuck recreating the geometry in order to place their objects. Again, software limitation.
Truth be told, I evaluated both Revit and ArchiCAD back in 2009. I felt that ArchiCAD was the better platform for architecture. The southeast US although moved very slowly in adopting BIM as a way of working was nearly all Revit. All the consultants we used all used Revit if anything. The MEP tools inside ArchiCAD were not very good at the time. Hell, even Revit MEP was three years behind where it needed to be. Nonetheless, we are where we are. People hate change.
Jeremy Schmidt
IFC will import into Revit. I don’t have to recreate geometry to place my MEP objects. The issue we have is the accuracy of the imported geometry. Example being a ceiling slab imported 6′-0″ thick once. Next time imported it was back to normal. Ceiling Grids/patterns have to be linked in through DWG files, extra level of complexity to view controls.
Armando Martinez
Fortunately all of our families do not need a host to place them. They are all level based and all you do is specify a mounting height/offset. This is how we are able to work with dwgs as backgrounds with no real geometry.
ВаÑÑ Ð’Ð°Ñин
AECOSIM is the best sollution at all! Luxology inside. Generative Components better than Rhino and Cinema and Max…