Is Microstation true BIM or is it 3D solid modelling?

AECOSIM..

mlm said:

OpenBuildings Designer for Buildings is based on MicroStation

Arkadi P said:

AECOSIM

OpenBuildings Designer is the new name for AECOSim.

Just so you know, you will hate learning Microstation after using Autocrap all these years. I know I was when I had to use AC.

But a job is a job.

That's not exactly true as each individual is different. Do you actually know for sure the OP isn't receptive to learning MicroStation? I've taught many AutoCAD users how to use MicroStation and most ended up agreeing it was the better software package but that conclusion likely wouldn't have happened without proper support. The influence of others can ease any software transition so I wouldn't consider it wise to presume something based on your own experiences with entirely different software packages that you didn't get along with.

JuJitsoup,

JuJitsoup said:

I'm not sure that the company in question fully understands what true BIM is.

Yea... everyone has a different idea of what BIM is. If you have an hour or so to spare it is worth having a look at this debate between Keith Bentley  and Phil Bernstein (ADSK) regarding what they saw BIM as.... back in the day.

We use both R*vit and Aecosim in the office to produce BIM-deliverables for some time now. Both apps have their good and bad points. If you think that Aecosim somehow can not produce BIM deliverables then I think that you have been misinformed.

What is unfortunately true is that some the workflows in Aecosim are far clunkier and more error prone compared to R*vit.

JuJitsoup said:

genuine parametric modelling,

R*vit's parametric modeling is pretty slick especially if you deal with orthogonal designs. R*vit has improved quite a bit over the years. I am told that London Underground did a shootout comparing both for Crossrail and R*vit couldn't model even the relatively simple tunnel geometry satisfactorily... back then.

Aecosim's parametric modeling tools have been around forever (25+ years) and suffer from a fragmented patchwork UX as result. On the bright side, this seems to be slowly being corrected with Connect.

Genuine: yea... I think that you are refering to the pervasive use parameters in R*vit's Families. I would certainly agree that Revit still has the advantage here. For example. after decades there is still no way to parametrically assign the z-elevation of objects in the model. OTOH, old skool 'datum' modeling is alive and well, so much so, we do a huge amount of work in Rhino (previously Sketchup) before importing into Revit because 3d modeling complex shapes in Revit is so clunky... Yes, the imported Rhino geometry does slow R*vit down.

Also, check out Mstn CE's new Parametric Solids and Constraints tools. Still a bit clunky but very MCAD-like in approach and I think will be a lot more powerful that the constraints tools in R*vit's Family Editor, in the long run.

JuJitsoup said:

single shared 3D model

Ouch! Sounds like you haven't been using R*vit long and been drinking out-of-date ADSK kool-aid. Even for middle sized projects, we find that we need to break up or 'federate' the model. When it comes to breaking things up, the old ACAD Xref / Mstn Hypermodeling technology beats Revit's Model Linking hands down in terms of speed and functionality. Something that even ADSK freely admits these days with Project Quantum / Plasma.

Also, Revit bogs down so much that you have to export to Navis to do coordination. I know Model-Linking Navis files is now possible but it is still missing a lot of functionality.

We also find that we need much more support for our R*vit jobs, requiring a lot more 'Model Managers' to clean up the imports/exports, manufacturer's .rfa's, managing R'vit Server, untangling busted synch-to-centrals etc etc, compared to the old more CAD-like and less 'fly-by-wire' Aecosim/Mstn jobbies.

JuJitsoup said:

intelligent tagging

Again, I would say that R*vit is slightly ahead but not by much. Shared parameter files are a huge kludge. Aecosim's xml based Datagorup System is better but is not presented very well to the user. Both can be edited using text editing apps (if you know how). Mstn CE's Item Types have a better interface but is still finding its feet.

JuJitsoup said:

scheduling

Again, R*vit is still slight ahead, especially for uncomplicated bog standard formats, but Aecosim has the ability to edit and synch all your parameters from Excel. Something that R*vit requires an add on to do, AFAIK.

JuJitsoup said:

detailing callouts

Yea.. R'vit is far ahead here, although Mstn's Dynamic Views and Sheet Indexing has been improving... very slowly. Dynamo's ability to reach into R*vit's database to manipulate this kind of non-geometric info (geometric info is handled by Aecosim's GenerativeComponents) is a big advantage.

JuJitsoup said:

quantification

Yep.. R*vit QTO is far ahead here. Aecosim solids (Triforma-based) can report plan, elevation etc areas, but Mstn solids can only report total areas.

JuJitsoup said:

clash detection

Yea.. I am told R*vit clash detection is better and easier to use. Can't comment as to whether this is due to poor UI, lack of training or a real gap.

JuJitsoup said:

etc etc

We could go on and on... but both apps have their pluses and minuses. Since you are coming from ACAD background (ADT?) I think that you will find transitioning to Aecosim / Mstn in many ways more 'natural'. I would definitely register and have a look at the Bentley LEARN server.

OTOH, it does sound like you have already made up your mind. In which case, I wonder if you would be kind enough to come back in a year or two and let us know how best to coordinate 2d details in Revit. This is dead easy in Mstn using Hypermodeling and slightly less so in ACAD using XRefs. Coordinating this kind of 'CAD' info seems pretty iffy in R*vit.