This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Small Project Practitioners and Technology in Architectural Practice .
-------------------------------------------
I have owned and used Revit since 2000, since Autodesk bought it in 2002, and since I uploaded my first object to revitcity.com in 2004. I got it because I could quickly get a 3D image to show my client and, if not drastically changed, use that to get a running start on construction documents. It was not and still isn't as convenient of a 2D drafting tool as Autocad, but not having to start from scratch on plans, elevations, etc. after preliminaries are approved makes up for that, maybe.
It appears that the majority of architects are using some kind of BIM program. I am curious to what extent and "how close to the software seller/developers claims" are most architects actually using BIM?
I never leave (anymore than I have to) 3D objects in the final model. 3D cabinets, plumbing fixtures, furniture, etc. in every room creates a huge file, not worth the trouble. I never have the site as a final BIM component. The site tools in Revit are still pathetic and if there was a way to import an intelligent site into the BIM model it would be enormous. If I have a standing seam metal roof, I still have to create a 3D model of that using sloped glazing with the same metal as the "one way only" mullions for the glass. The site plans are either created as 2D drawings in my office, many times in Autocad, or imported from the Civil Engineer using my title block, etc. All of my final print sets are PDF's (printing directly from Revit burned me in the past so I now only do prints from PDF's) so assembling the engineers prints consists of them just sending me their sheets on my title block as PDF's. I have phantom sheets in my Revit model for all of theirs so they automatically fill in the sheet list with their titles and numbers.
So, there is no building model complete with every sidewalk, shrub, cabinet, roof, etc. all 3D, all available for accurate take-offs, every object full of helpful information, etc. No reason for my client, contractors, consultants, code officials, or anyone else (the software seller/developer can think of to try to sell more software) to have their own version of my software, updated, subscribed, signed on for life.
I can see my structural, HVAC, and electrical engineers having their own Revit models that we might merge for checking. This combined model might be helpful for communicating to the contractors, owners, etc. general information but I see no way this replaces any drawings or even should be part of the contract documents. It is just not complete. There are too many "work arounds" still needed to trust it as an accurate document to build by.
So, is this just a small firm way (last time I checked 75% of all licensed architects worked in firms of 4 or less employees) of doing it and the big firms have this all worked out and gladly furnish the BIM model as a complete and accurate representation of all things in the building and they gladly assume all legal, financial, and moral liability for anything wrong or incomplete?
Those of you doing BIM, how far do you go before you jump off the BIM bandwagon and finish the contract documents with non-BIM drawings? I am just curious.
-------------------------------------------
Darrel Odom AIA, LEED AP
President
Odom Peckham Architecture, Inc.
Little Rock AR
-------------------------------------------