DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
buildingSMART Canada
HTML https://buildingsmartcan.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: STANDARDS & GUIDELINES
*****************************************************
#Post#: 99--------------------------------------------------
Generic Object Libraries
By: davidwatson Date: March 17, 2017, 12:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is a call to anyone reading, to answer this question.
Would a standardized generic BIM object library be welcomed?
Background:
I'm referring to a library of BIM objects that are not biased
toward a specific product (most online libraries carry models
constructed by a manufacturer). Instead, a generic object
library would contain models designed to be used as a design
tool BEFORE a make/model has been selected. It might only
contain properies relevant for an object at such early stages,
or relevant for establishing required property values regardless
of manufacturer.
This would be analogous to a generic master specification which
is commercially available, versus product-specific specs that
are created by manufacturers specifically for their product (and
generally offered for free). There is still a very strong
market for consultants to purchase data that they trust will not
be biased toward one product (and encourage competition).
Someone recently pointed out that the Revit families are generic
"out of the box" objects already and wondered why anyone would
create or download something new or different? The
counter-argument might be that the Revit objects meet only one
standard - that of Autodesk. I don't mean to suggest that their
standard is inferior, but the industry may prefer objects
constructed (or populated with more generic data) from a third
party source. Also, Revit families are only useful in Revit; a
generic object library could be produced in IFC or other generic
format so they could be imported/consumed by any BIM software.
#Post#: 116--------------------------------------------------
Re: Generic Object Libraries
By: philipmreynolds Date: March 22, 2017, 2:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
David,
As a government architect I believe this is a very important
topic. Our requirement for fairness and the propensity of
suppliers to complain to crown ministers, if they feel
mistreated or left out, has led to a variety of bidding
requirements including restrictions on single/sole sourcing,
generic specs and listing multiple "acceptable products". I have
also worked with these requirements as a private practitioner
going back almost 40 years, and I assure you this concern will
not go away anytime soon. Over the years I have seen cycles of
stringent standards and less stringent standards, and a variety
of project delivery models that try to circumvent the need for
open bidding. The various attempts to get it right have
sometimes created headaches for owners, design professtionals
and the construction industry alike. Getting the right balance
to achieve the right quality product, in a fair procurement
system, without placing an unreasonable burden on any of the
participants can be quite a challenge. I am pretty certain that
this will catch up to BIM, if it has not already, and objects
with supplier data or other ties to a specific supplier will be
challenged, whatever the delivery model.
So generic BIM objects will, I believe, be a necessity. As to
whether the generic object should be from a third party generic
object library or a generic library from a BIM platform such as
Revit is a valid, but different question. I suspect it will not
matter too much, as long as it is truly generic. Other issues
such as a need for models to be IFC, or a need to accommodate
platforms other than Revit, will then enter into the discussion.
It would be interesting to know where this issue has gone in
Europe or the US, where similar issues have likely come up. Good
question though.
#Post#: 119--------------------------------------------------
Re: Generic Object Libraries
By: davidwatson Date: March 23, 2017, 11:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Philip,
Thanks for confirming that the industry needs generic objects.
My main point was that Revit generic objects are not nearly
sufficient for our needs in product selection and specifications
(can't speak to other uses). A good analogy might be the
templates that come with Word; sure, they will work but they
are not customized to the level of detail you might like. You
could modify the families, of course, but the more that happens,
the less standardized the objects become.
As for Europe, all I can say about my experiences attending
international ISO and buildingSMART conferences is that there
are generic libraries and they are used (and continue to be
maintained). Although much of the hoopla lately is about
building standardized product libraries - likely because there's
a lot more money in it.
#Post#: 136--------------------------------------------------
Re: Generic Object Libraries
By: ml70 Date: April 13, 2017, 2:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Generic objects or families are good for understanding that a
piece of equipment of roughly comparable size and shape might be
installed in the approximate area while designing and
engineering a building system. As the models progress in
sophistication and requirements more detail and data is needed
especially when dealing with MEP connections routing and
installations
[list]
[li]What is the connection type? PVC, Steel, Copper, flex etc.?
What is the voltage 120, 208, 230, ..... 600? Phase?
What size? How many?
Weight?
Where is the exact location of these connection in to and out of
the equipment?
Will these connections be located on site with Trimble/RTS?[/li]
[li][/li]
[/list]
All of the above change between vendors or manufactures or final
equipment selected and affect the conduit/pipe/duct route and
size connected to said equipment, and coordination with each
other along with any other obstacles.
Detailed equipment has richer information for our needs,
workflow and coordination we tend to substitute out the generic
for the "real" to be installed equipment.
Mirra
#Post#: 138--------------------------------------------------
Re: Generic Object Libraries
By: davidwatson Date: April 13, 2017, 3:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Mirra,
I think you hit the nail square on the head! Generic objects
are useful for a "design" model, and proprietary objects more
useful for creating construciton or as-built models. Your
example clearly shows the need for both!
The drawback to "skipping" a step and trying to use a
proprietary object for design models is that the proprietary
models would be far too specific, making it nearly impossible
for other manufacturers to match (if the model is used as the
basis for a contract). Also, all that additional detail is
irrelevant for the design purpose and greatly increases the
physical size of the model. I think design models should be
limited to approximate size/orientation and required (design)
properties only, until such time as we know which vendor will
supply the product (normally after contract award).
*****************************************************