[Daniel Ewald]

Well said.

[Daniel Ewald]

Apologies for my ignorance regarding your SketchUp addons. I interpreted your reply as adding BIM functionality to AutoCAD, so I must have misunderstood. 

I’m not trying to make your software look bad – heck, I applaud any effort to make tools more suitable for our profession. My issue is with the need to patch up existing software in order to make it work better for us. That is to me the core of the problem, not that people do and make a living out of it. 

[Daniel Ewald]

So it’s not BIM, because operating with information modeling implies building with objects that are able to interact. As we know, AutoCAD does not operate with intelligent objects, it operates with geometry that can be given descriptions. And of course, the whole point with information modeling is to use an open format to allow collaborative models being shared between disciplines, which then can interact to reveal collisions and provide accurate reports according to material properties and dimensional standards. 

DWG is not progressive, it’s a closed format, does not support intelligent objects, and cannot be opened by everybody, unless they work with software developed by Autodesk or their software supports it. Of course, most software attempting to compete with Autodesk does indeed support the de facto standard that is DWG, as it would be ridiculous not to with the firm hold they have over the industry. But I digress.

As for the other points above, Lauren sums them up elegantly. There are of course examples of projects where a BIM workflow is unnecessary, no question, but that’s not to say information modeling could be part of the workflow from scratch while not feeling like an additional process (as tools like Revit and Vectorworks aim to accomplish). 

[Daniel Ewald]

Because I have issues with software that was not initially designed for our profession. With addons, one attempts to better the situation, but the unescapable fact is that one simply builds on a broken model in order to make it up to par. Now, to make ends meet, every landscape architect I know of use a patchwork of different software, often by applying addons such as this (Focus Software’s CAT for Civil 3D is popular in Norway). In most cases, it will do the job (naturally, at a higher cost than having a “clean” software, with more user accounts, costs, patches, updates, things that can go wrong), but are we satisfied with that? Why can’t we have “our own” software, as architects and civil engineers do? 

Regarding the BIM-term, I agree – you probably prefer SIM or LIM, but one can argue that more terms for the same way of operating ultimately leads to more confusion around what we’re actually talking about…

Now, considering you have eight years of experience with BIM for landscape, I’m curious of your use of standardised objects. Have you created your own catalogue of objects which you then use in collaboration with your architect/engineer teams, or have the process of creating object definitions from national standards gotten further where you are from? 

[Daniel Ewald]

First things first: Civil 3D is not, by definition, a BIM-tool. It attempts to be through use of some intelligent objects (road elements, corridors etc), but the fact of the matter is that it is not in essence centered around information modeling; more so on computation and analysis of geometry. It is nevertheless one of the very few options available to us in regards of calculated terrain shaping with results that can be exported to an actual BIM platform.

Revit and Vectorworks, respectively, are both in essence object based BIM tools, with several pros and cons. Revit, as mentioned, is not designed for landscape architects and as such lacks severely in the terrain and vegetation department (the latter non-existant in Civil 3D besides form and graphics), but at the same time works decently with Civil 3D in terms of importing terrain data and is intuitive in its design approach – when it comes to hardscapes. Vectorworks (Landmark) is on the other hand designed for landscape architects and as such comes with a set of appropriate functionality – the terrain shaping tools and planting tools may well be worth the license cost alone for many practitioners – but I feel it operates best on its own, without interference with other software (even though it supports various Autodesk formats), excluding SketchUp. In my experience, most of the tasks I use Civil 3D for as a landscape architect is easier to accomplish in Vectorworks. I could go on in great length about this, but for the sake of this reply I’ll restrain myself.

When it comes to the ‘one and only’ BIM tool for landscape architects, the answer is simple; it doesn’t exist yet. This is because a) we are not a priority for software developers as opposed to architects and civil engineers, and b) there lacks sufficient standards for intelligent objects for site planning, and c) as a professional group we are not clear enough on what functionality we need, and as such the task of the software developer becomes an if not impossible, then a lot more challenging one.

[Author]

Posts