I agree with John, that the current state of interoperability is insufficient given our level of technology. Often the approach to transfer drawings to/from CAD is so difficult that it is easier to start from scratch. Last week as I listened to Group E discuss the capabilities of computer software and hardware, I was intrigued by the idea that all of the different programs for building modeling should have some sort of intercommunication. This fact seems obvious from an outside perspective. However it is easy to see how each type of modeling developed separately, catering to the specific needs of its respective industry. Of course, HVAC contractors are going to have different drawings from that of a structural fabricator/erector, and so on.
I saw this first-hand when working with a steel subcontractor on my last co-op. The architectural drawings were different from the structural drawings, which varied even from the outside erector's steel drawings, which further varied from our own stair drawings, and all of this had to fit inside the openings on the inconveniently separate precast plank drawings. There was an enormous amount of coordination required just to fit a stair tower into a building for which drawings had existed almost a year prior. All of this confusion could clearly have been reduced by the implementation of one unified building model. (To the contractors credit, they did provide CAD drawings after a while that could be used by all of the utilities contractors.) The availability of a singular 3-D model, at the very least in terms of building geometry, is an invaluable asset over the course of project.
As an idealist, I find it frustrating that, as Nathan and David point out, perfect interoperability will likely never exist due to the nature of competing industries and numerous technical issues such as incompatible XML schemas and display outputs. I would further point out that the diagram Elda used, while informative in showing the relationship between each program, is somewhat misleading in showing two-directional arrows between every linked program. Although I'm not completely sure, I would suspect that some, if not most, of the programs listed are not compatible in both directions. For instance, something developed in SAP 2000 cannot be converted to a general Tekla Structures format, then reconverted to Bentley, and then converted again to a format viewable in Autodesk programs. Still, it seems that the way forward for most compatibility programs seems to be native BIM formats such as DWG, RVT, DGN, or GSM files, as shown in Figure 3-5.
All this considered, I wonder if it would be beneficial for a third (or 25th or whatever it is) party to develop a program that merges the top BIM file types into some sort of super-program that handles the functions of every BIM program available and compiles them into one cohesive model. Such a program, if it were successful, would of course greatly enhance the construction process. However, given the much more likely possibility that it flops, the effort would only serve to muddy the already murky waters of BIM compatibility.
Sources:
No comments:
Post a Comment