The main problem that I see in the future of BIM/Revit comes
from the current problems that came up in class. As Laura Worley discussed, the
major issues with BIM and Revit currently is the errors that occur when converting
from one software to another. I think that because of the competition inherent
in capitalism, companies will have more of a push to develop their software to
compete with the others by offering the same program capabilities, such as
structural and HVAC design for a model created in their particular interface,
rather than creating more compatible programs that allow users to switch from
one company’s program to another’s. For this reason, I think the main problem
with BIM/Revit in the future will be companies competing against each other
through broadening their products’ scopes and capabilities rather than
specializing in one field, such as creating a program that is the best in steel
design, that can then be transferred to and from other company’s interfaces
that focused on the other aspects of the building’s design. The second would be
more beneficial to the field of engineering because the programs that exist are
already better at one thing over the others. If companies could focus on those
specialties that they have already established, they could improve our
abilities to model the real world, and improve our design abilities overall
through the use of multiple different programs that have been fully developed
to accurately and easily model and design for their one field specialty.
Another future problem that I think will be a major issue is
the problem discussed by Laura Worley that engineers will become too dependent on
these programs for our calculations rather than learning the basic principles
and equations ourselves. In my graduate classes, there is a significant
emphasis on not just putting things into our programs and taking the output as
it is. Instead, our teachers have us check our work using the programs to make
sure we obtained the right values. The reason for this became apparent to me in
CIVE701, when my friends and I would create the same exact structure with the
same loads and would somehow get different results, even though we cannot find
any differences between the models. There are clear errors in the program
interface and human inputs. As we use these programs more and more, it becomes
dangerous how much weight we put on their answers.
Comments:
Laura Worley
Derek Zaccheo
Comments:
Laura Worley
Derek Zaccheo
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRebecca,
ReplyDeleteYou have no idea how much I hate the fact that after revit has been released for so many years, there is still not a mac version of it. The windows version also has many issues such as resolution and overall fluency of the software. Anyway, my point is that it is still a starting software which requires a lot of improvements. Because it seems to me that they are still trying to work on the fundamental aspects of the software. So if that is the case, no wonder why other softwares would have compatibility with Revit.
For you second point, I do admit that we cannot simply rely on softwares, but if the software gets good enough to a point where even a high school kid can operate, it would certainly be revolutionary. At that point, I am assuming it would become a "tool", just like hammers or knifes. We do not really need to know how to make those hammers or knifes in order to use them. It is the result that matters, especially when it comes to real life projects.
Rebecca,
ReplyDeleteThat is a good point in the prevalence of capitalism throughout the design software available today. It is a limiting factor in design for sure. I have experienced it firsthand having to plan a trip, so to speak, importing a model on multiple platforms and reconfiguring it along the way to run an analysis. It seems to me that this will always be a point of contention in today’s market. The push to subscribe to a certain product because of its capabilities in a certain field. The need to specialize and stay ahead of the curve, so to speak, means that a structural design software that is also proficient at HVAC modeling is not likely unless a focus is taken off of a ROI, which is not likely. Hopefully as time goes on companies will see the benefits for all consumers and start to move in this direction.
Rebecca,
ReplyDeleteThat is a good point in the prevalence of capitalism throughout the design software available today. It is a limiting factor in design for sure. I have experienced it firsthand having to plan a trip, so to speak, importing a model on multiple platforms and reconfiguring it along the way to run an analysis. It seems to me that this will always be a point of contention in today’s market. The push to subscribe to a certain product because of its capabilities in a certain field. The need to specialize and stay ahead of the curve, so to speak, means that a structural design software that is also proficient at HVAC modeling is not likely unless a focus is taken off of a ROI, which is not likely. Hopefully as time goes on companies will see the benefits for all consumers and start to move in this direction.
Hi Rebecca! Converting from one program to another is one of the most irritating things in my opinion. While I haven't really had to do it with Revit, I have had to convert from AutoCAD to Microstation and from Microstation to AutoCAD. Life would be so much easier if all programs would use the same save file type. While I realized that industries might do it on purpose so that people are forced to buy their products, I think it is detrimental to society and the profession overall. Great post!
ReplyDeleteI didn't even think about conversion issues in my post. You are right that's going to be a huge issue that companies will need to address. Hopefully the companies will see a market for specializing in certain fields and will expand into that also but it seems iffy as to whether that will actually happen or not.
ReplyDelete