|
|
Will BIM Make CAD Irrelevant? At Larson & Darby, the Answer Is 'No'
26 Jan, 2011 By: Heather LivingstonA transition to Autodesk Revit doesn't need to be an all-or-nothing proposition. Day to day, AutoCAD still gets the job done eloquently.
Editors' Note: Through a sponsorship by Autodesk, Cadalyst editors bring you this feature, part of a special series of articles that highlight the role of AutoCAD and 2D design in today's demanding CAD work flows. You can watch for the next installment in February.
Building information modeling (BIM) seemingly is ubiquitous in design firms today. Large, medium, and small firms are using it. Clients increasingly are asking for it. There's no doubt that its rendering and integration capabilities are unsurpassed, and its life-cycle planning potential as of yet isn't fully realized. So, then, with all that power, should we assume that traditional 2D programs such as AutoCAD eventually will go the way of the dodo? Gedeon (Ged) Trias, Assoc. AIA, Associate Director of Design with the Larson & Darby Group in Rockford, Illinois, firmly believes that answer is no. Although the architecture, engineering, and interiors firm has rolled out Autodesk Revit and successfully completed numerous BIM projects using that software, Larson & Darby still chooses to perform the bulk of its work in AutoCAD.
Larson & Darby was one of the first firms in its region to integrate AutoCAD into its daily work flow, and during the past twenty-odd years, the firm has produced the majority of its projects using AutoCAD. The firm typically installs every other version of AutoCAD and currently is using 2010, although it does have a few seats of 2011 to afford designers the opportunity to try out some new and updated features, such as the text editing, transparency, and constraint tools.
Although Larson & Darby has started to use Revit in project work flow, AutoCAD remains its choice for a lot of its design work. Here, an overall shot of a project lets the designers quickly show clients how the proposed design integrates with their building. (Image courtesy of Larson & Darby.)
The ability to bring all its legacy information forward through each AutoCAD update is an invaluable asset for a firm that has a many long-term and repeat clients. "DWG is still the gold standard for our industry, at least as far as I'm concerned, so the fact that we could pull up those old projects and work on them today, we wouldn't know what we would do without that capability," said Trias.
Choosing to Have It Both Ways
The decision as to whether to execute a project in AutoCAD or Revit depends on several factors at Larson & Darby. Most small projects, and those that rely on legacy information, still are executed in AutoCAD, while many large projects begin in AutoCAD and then move to Revit. For example, the firm recently completed an addition to the University of Illinois College of Medicine at Rockford using AutoCAD. The choice to complete the College of Medicine in AutoCAD was driven primarily by its history. The project began in the mid-1990s and was in development for a long time, predating the firm's Revit implementation. Trias believes that changing platforms midstream wouldn't have been cost effective or beneficial to the client.
The firm also just finished a bus terminal project that was started in AutoCAD but completed in Revit. The bus terminal was unique because of the complex forms of the project, explained Trias. "The updating and refinement of the complex architecture made the 3D approach that Revit offered an easy decision," he said.
"We've got this established work flow for utilizing [Auto]CAD and, though some of our designers are using Revit as the base point for that work flow, [most] will start in [Auto]CAD as a 2D plan exercise," Trias explained. "Then, depending on how the project goes, [they] will either move it through [Auto]CAD entirely or we might move it over into Revit or something like that and use [AutoCAD] as a documentation tool."
The reasons for choosing AutoCAD or Revit vary by project. Sometimes it's determined by availability; other times by schedule or need. "We currently have more trained AutoCAD users in our office than we have trained Revit users, so the choice becomes obvious," explained Trias. "[Additionally,] the timelines we have for some of our projects don't make it cost effective for the front end that Revit can require, but that may be a work flow or even a perception issue based on where we are in our Revit implementation. This may change as our Revit user base expands."
Even before Revit, 3D modeling was an important part of the firm's design work flow. The precision and speed of 3D modeling was essential in communicating to project teams how the structure of this addition was going to work. (Image courtesy of Larson & Darby.)
Trias also noted that particular elements of a project likewise can lead to the decision to use both software programs. "We've had projects where Revit was used for the conceptual and design development portion," he continued, "but due to timeline and personnel availability, we've ported the project out to AutoCAD for construction documents. We've also had other projects like the bus terminal that conceptual design and design development were done in AutoCAD and then brought into Revit for the coordination power that Revit brought to the table. More recently we've seen a few projects require a BIM platform as part of the deliverables, making our decision for us."
1 2
About the Author: Heather Livingston
|
|
AutoCAD Tips!
Autodesk Technical Evangelist Lynn Allen guides you through a different AutoCAD feature in every edition of her popular "Circles and Lines" tutorial series. For even more AutoCAD how-to, check out Lynn's quick tips in the Cadalyst Video Gallery. Subscribe to Cadalyst's Tips & Tricks Tuesdays free e-newsletter and we'll notify you every time a new video tip is available. All exclusively from Cadalyst! |
|
