I’ve recently done a posting on LinkedIn regarding the licensing cost development in our office for our Tekla licenses ( #tekla #teklastructures | Andreas Zieritz ). One issue is that the costs have increased much more than our hourly prices, but the much bigger issue is the decision to end floating licensing by the end of 2027.
So we are looking for alternatives, and a Rhino / Grasshopper / VisualARQ solution is on the top of my list.
To be honest, I have not done one single thing with VisualARQ yet, besides doing ifc import/exports.
But we would be absolutely interested to buy a product which at least gives us some basic structural engineering capabilities. On top of the list would be rebar detailing.
Hi Andreas, are you also using Revit in your workflow?
If yes, Rhino.Inside.Revit could be worth exploring alongside Rhino. It is a free add-in that connects Rhino and Grasshopper directly with Revit.
We have developed a few rebar components in Rhino.Inside.Revit where the reinforcement is controlled by modelling curves in Rhino and the rebars are then created directly as native Revit elements.
I recently shared an example of this workflow on LinkedIn. I can share with you if you are interested.
VisualARQ can already cover part of a structural BIM workflow, even though it is not currently a specific structural engineering or rebar-detailing application.
These are some of the features you can look at VisualARQ that may help:
Beams and columns are native parametric VisualARQ objects. They support standard international steel profiles as well as custom profiles, curved beam paths, beam joints/end cuts, column extensions, and intersections with other building elements.
Slabs, walls and other structural geometry can also be modeled as parametric BIM objects and generated directly from Grasshopper.
Custom structural objects can be driven by Grasshopper, (the Grasshopper Styles). For example, a beam style can be completely defined by a Grasshopper definition while remaining a VisualARQ object with editable parameters and BIM data. The same principle applies to columns, slabs, elements and other object types.
IFC is an important part of the workflow. VisualARQ supports IFC 2x3 and IFC 4 import/export and automatically maps its structural elements to classes such as IfcBeam, IfcColumn and IfcSlab. Rhino geometry can also be assigned IFC classifications and properties.
Quantity take-offs. All information stored in VisualARQ objects or Rhino geometry can be listed in quantity take-off reports (See video tutorial here)
Plans, sections and other 2D drawings (they can be created either as a 2D block in the model space or as real-time views in page layouts that can be printed to vector output or exported to DWG).
It would be interesting to know more about the “basic structural engineering capabilities” you mention to ensure the combination of Rhino+Grasshopper+VisualARQ can be a good solution for you.
I am aware that this is a full blown package which took years to develop. And I don’t expect something overnight either.
When we ditched Bentleys solutions years ago and moved to Tekla, we also considered Revit. But it simply was not good enough when it came to rebar detailing. I’ve heard that it got better now, but still - I don’t consider it as an alternative as we again would be locked in.
On first glance the problem is that the last release is from 2024, and it lacks functionality.
While I really embrace Open Source (I’m actually having a project on my own on codeberg & Github), as a company we need security and reliability. As a consequence, our suppliers need to be paid in the end.
That’s also the reason why I am posting in this forum.
Probably VisualARQ could take this project under its wings, who knows?
I had posted this thread: Looking for Structural & MEP Engineers in Greece (Rhino/GH/VisualARQ) in the past. Unfortunately I had no luck on this. I’ve already discussed in this thread: Structural walls-slabs with @fsalla about possible improvements on the whole workflow (Architectural one) in order to be able to make some basic structural analysis and collaborate with structural engineers without getting out of Rhino. We have our disaggrements but maybe you can elaborate on this in general and provide valuable info to VA team and fellow VA users.
I consider Karamba as a necessary addition to rhino-visualarq workflow but I’ve already talked with a Karamba user based in Athens and Eurocode Compliance for concrete works is not there yet, and for this reason still structural engineers in Greece at least are obligated to work outside of Rhino, thus the collaboration is very hard between Architect and Structural Engineers. What exactly are you thinking of? Are you going to perform analysis or not? I believe that if VA team would unlock some API of the software, then through scripting many things could be accelarated compared to the normal development/roadmap curve of VA. Have you tested Visualarq? Having already knowledge of Tekla (which can be connected throught grasshopper, right ? ) can give a hand to all of us if you share some experience and thoughts about your workflow.
I understand that the feature you are asking is something specific, but from my experience in Rhino-VA it’s not about a specific feature but having everything together in a whole workflow. The whole philosophy of the software should turn in a way to what a standard workflow demands. For example the Rebar, should rely upon a nice LOD system, which currently does not exist. Or maybe on a phasing system, which also does not exist currently. That’s why I mentioned API and scripting, because through this, everything is possible.
Just a quick intro, we are a small / medium sized engineering company in Bergen, Norway. General information is available on our homepage www.node.no.
Our main CAD software is Tekla, our main design software FEM-Design from Strusoft. Both have excellent links to Grasshopper, which we (unfortunately) haven’t made use of very much yet. But we are learning, and have intentions to become much better on that side.
Our structural design software is quite good and we are quite happy with the features and also the licensing, which is floating licenses. So for the next couple of years I don’t see any need to do big changes there. Well, probably I shouldn’t say couple of years, because nowadays one cannot plan any longer than maximum 6 months ahead.
Regarding Tekla, the big issue is cost increase and license change in 2028. That’s why we are looking for alternatives. Rhino / Grasshopper with VisualARQ could be a solution with a bit of development. Not as a substitute for Tekla immediately, but as an alternative in the lower end in the beginning.
What I haven’t really found out with Grasshopper is what you do when you have different software to connect to (but I guess that’s just because I am quite fresh and at the beginning of the long slope). What I mean is, e.g. you have a column with a certain material and section, and probably some loads. Ideally I would like to have that in Rhino, and export all changes to Tekla / FEM-Design or whatever else you want. How is the workflow?
Btw., we have never done definitions of a structural system in Tekla or somewhere else (we had Microstation earlier). It just never really worked out, regardless if using Bentleys solution or Teklas. There is always too much work afterwards, and it was easier transferring the ifc file and do the conversion in the structural design software.
I think you won’t need these links since you’re using Strusoft, but there’s Karamba 3D: https://karamba3d.com/ and Kiwi3D (old but capable, especially for hobbyists): https://www.kiwi3d.com/
This will sound crazy in 2026 but I actually just model rebar manually in Rhino. This would be for SMALL projects only. If I have the bar shapes ready it’s quite easy to resize them. Placement more closely reflects actual construction.
I had some time this morning so I was trying to look up info on how good Tekla has gotten with rebar detailing. It didn’t impress me much - or rather it was just a total waste of time - marketing slop rather than proper demonstrations of real features. Some of Tekla’s official videos have an AI voice over - this is $4,000 per year software!!!
The more expensive software gets, the more detached the development teams seem to get from real projects and real use cases. Automated features work great until they can’t handle something. When they can’t they fall flat on their face. Having software that allows you to take the gloves off and detail something manually avoid that. The best shop drawings still come from AutoCAD.
I’ve heard of Karamba3d, one of our former employees was a Grasshopper Guru (still is), and he told me about it.
Quite cool that it is from Vienna. I studied at TU Vienna a long time ago.
Regarding capabilites of Tekla vs. other software, we did a competition many years ago, when we moved away from Microstation. Revit and Tekla were the 2 competitors. While it was a draw regarding modelling constructions, when it came to steel and rebar, Tekla was the clear winner. At that time Tekla had done all the reinforcement for the new main airport in Oslo, while Revit was more like - in the next version we try to catch up.
I’ve worked with Autocad before, and it was nuts in 3D. Probably with an external package, but nothing out of the box.
We’re doing 3rd party check on a big infrastructure project in Bergen at the moment, everything in 3D, no drawings. The main bridge is done in Tekla, but there are over hundred other objects (bridges, retaining walls, tunnels, etc.) as well. As far as I can see a mixture of Revit, Allplan, Tekla and probably more software I don’t know about.
Everything is merged in ifc at the end. We do access everything through Dalux.
Tekla users on average seem to have a much higher standard of quality compared to Revit. I did however have a really long battle with some bad Tekla shop drawings. This may or may not have been the detailer’s fault. The output was really bad - I’m not sure if this was Tekla or the detailers themselves. Said and done I would say that if I created the same shop drawings in 2D in AutoCAD, I would be ahead on time. The catch is that the detailers didn’t (as far as I know) have to eat the full cost of their ‘bad’ drawings. These would have been structural steel drawings. I’ve come across Tekla rebar shop drawings - they look about the same as RebarCAD / Others… I’ve never had to dive deep into them. Most the rebar drawings where I am are going to either be RebarCAD or ASA Rebar. And steelwork drawings are usually Advanced Steel (and appear to be outsourced to people with no local knowledge - and output the worst drawings ever!!!). All the above can be improved upon obviously; I’m curious to see what ‘good’ Tekla shop drawings look like.
AutoCAD for 3D: If anyone’s doing that in 2026 they ought to have a very special/unique use case. I think most AutoCAD users should be on AutoCAD LT or switch to a 3D program (like Tekla). Even in the age of 3D, creating 2D shop drawings is still feasible. But more on smaller projects. I like the fact that I can control the appearance, especially on unique items that don’t fit well into the constraints of more advanced software. I think on the larger projects I would run into trouble, especially if I have to get back into a large project that I’ve been away from.
In North America, very few structural consultants / engineers will go near shop drawings. It’s usually the contractor (and they’ll do it in-house or outsource it). Some engineers claim to create shop drawings but they aren’t actually shop drawings. In fact the term is getting very blurry in recent years (especially for millwork!). Often times there will be “shop drawings”, actual shop drawings, and even “fabrication drawings”. In the case of millwork there would also be “interior design” drawings (maybe named something else) and those would be based off the main architectural drawings. BIM was supposed to bring all these things together (like you guys are doing by the sounds of it) rather than having like 5 different drawing sets :-S .
As far as I can see it would cost around 35% less than our Tekla licenses with the same number of floating licenses. In that case I have used 6 professional and 6 ultimate licenses.
There are of course a number of backdraws as well, like moving over everthing to a new system. In addition, Allplan is not really a big player in Norway, so we would be on our own more or less.
An additional issue is - Allplan does not have a Grasshopper connector. And that’s why we are all here, aren’t we?
Hi, interesting topic. I am not structural engineer but basic civil engineer, small projects. I started to evaulate Rhino + VA and on that way started to test GH to dump Archicad. I have to say, that compared to Revit/Archicad/Vestorworks/Bricscad for civil engineering RH+VA have some flaws, but nothing which could not be overcome with little workarounds. All mentioned software packages has its weaker and stronger sides.
Price to value ratio with RH+VA+GH is just not comparable to other “bigger solution”. I decided to write here mainly for encouraging You to try if it could fit Your workflow.
My case, last week - I came accross terrain modeling features, which are only manual. I have 3D scanner so made terrain mesh and needed to cut/fill terrain for my project. But I need to do it parametrically to test different versions of CUT/FILL for final terrain decison. So i tried asking AI how to do this. In few minutes I had first python script for GH, then I wanted to add another features and test, came back to AI with new instructions and during 1 day and about 6 USD in credits I have now working script for terrain work inside RH+GH. Just input curves or surfaces to edit terrain as I need. Together with cut/fill statistics etc. Better script for terrain modeling than any of the mentioned softwares have by default(without addons) - written in 1 day for few bucks.
So there lies the power of this workflow. I believe that those rebars 3Dmodels could very precisely achieved in GH based on Your specific needs. Through basic nodes and combining them with scripts. Or just search or ask on the forum and there are always a lot of solutions. It takes some time to prepare and master, but it works for fragments of prices compared to big ones out there
We bought the package together with VisualARQ, as we were missing a tool for excavation. Haven’t even opened it yet to be honest, still stuck in the Grasshopper courses.
Yes i know about Rhinolands, but I only needed basic operations, like grading and pad and for that my scripts works correct. Maybe in the future I will go for it. But I wnated just to say that RH+GH is really flexible
Allplan is not really a big player in Norway, so we would be on our own more or less.
That is interesting since my I thought Allplan was primarily European company, it was until recently that they have tried to push into the US market by adding US sizes ect…
My issue with Allpan is the file structure for a building can get pretty convoluted, and won’t work for our office. I have heard that their strength is concrete/rebar, which is why I brought it up. As and engineering firm in the US we don’t do rebar detailing so that another reason we looked elsewhere.
If you are looking for something that has BIM capabilities and grasshopper connections I think your list is pretty short. The ones that I know of are Tekla, Archicad, Vectorworks and BrisCAD BIM, other than obviously Revit.Inside and VisualArq.
I do think Revit rebar tools have gotten better, since Autodesk brought Graitec a few years back. I think they pretty much scrapped their Advanced Concrete and folded it into Revit. Advanced Steel still lives, but again since we don’t model rebar I don’t use those tools on a daily basis.
