Looking at these vids by ACAD clone maker Graebert, I wonder if R.I could be used to extract and/or round trip drafting-type information done in VisARQ / Rhino.
Graebert seems confident that there is a market for follow on drafting based on Revit / IFC models.
What features are you trying to coordinate?
Personally i find with Rhino’s accuracy, scalability, scripting & customization it can handle most anything. The Rhino Inside Revit providing access to its documentation features, low learning curve and being the industry standard format (Architecture).
Sure, unfortunately the majority of the market does not agree with you and uses Revit. I was thinking that a lot of revit users use rhino or ACAD in parallel and a lot of documentation is really CAD-like which could be done quicker outside of revit which tries to store all Sheets etc in a single file… which is still a problem.
R.I seems to do a good job of getting the 3d systems families out/in of Revit. The 2d annotation families are dimensions should be easy as well?
This would allow revit teams to keep the pesky 2d info out of Revit, which bogs down any way when you have too much model etc lines in the model.
I agree, if I’m putting out 1000’s of unique 2D sheets with dimensions, naming and CNC exports Rhino is the only way to go.
Sorry, I thought that this was the VisArq forum, where most Rhino users would be doing buildings. What kind of CNC work do you do? Curious.
My bad, didn’t the the VisArg designation. Facade Fabrications, so typically secondary structures and panels of some sort – plus everything in between. Architects typically provide poor models in revit which is now super easy to get into rhino, make constructible, and document either in Rhino or both (RIR)
Well, there are always problems. Is it lack of LOD that you find? It seems like every manufacturer under the sun has put out tonnes of rfas.
What people are passing off as Construction Documents is anything but, the industry generally delivers a DD documents /model at best. Go to any intersection of various planes and trades and it gets really vague. We all know the process: a higher level architect supervises arch grades that really have no idea what they are doing. The GC accepts the docs a CD and gets the subs to take on as much as possible at a fixed cost. The end result is bloated models and a situation where its hard to handle and make changes as the trades get developed. The GC will use dead end software to coordinate (navis or god help you revizto) and end ups with a model that doesn’t change with actual conditions but is considered record.
The end result is incredible inefficacies across the board, especially in the field due the inability to incorporate construction tolerances and real conditions into an ever increasingly irrelevant coordination model.
thx for the honest feedback.
DD-level info: Why do you think this still the case? Given that so much info is already provided in BIM formats online by the manufacturers?
Deskiling- this will continue. It’s not where the money is at for architects. And now with generative design, clients will expect to get a lot more options… for the same fee.
Navis: Yes, I think Navis is really a solution to a problem that shouldn’t be there. The overheads of weekly conversions and lag really shouldn’t be there to begin with.
What don’t you like about Revizto? Bugy?
DD Level - A building is combinatorially explosive, the architects of various experience get overwhelmed and lack the gestalt-feature shifts of relevance required that really only few have mastered.
Revizto is going down the Autodesk business plan. They are looking to lock in subscribers (1000$ a pop, 10 minimum) by giving discounts to GC’s who put it in the contract. Its only minimally more effective than Navis and rather slow and buggy. The Autodesk cloud stuff will outpace and perform better in the long run. Granted they are rent seeking financial capitalists to the extreme. Simple Open Source alternatives are in the works (speckle) but not even on the GC’s radar.