Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25
Like Tree21Likes

Thread: C4R Opinions

  1.    #21
    Member anthonyB's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 31, 2011
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    385
    Current Local Time
    10:39 AM
    Our architectural Revit models have slabs and columns. When we link in our structural collaborator’s model, we use their slabs and columns for reference purposes, not for incorporating into our documentation sets. There can be similar double-ups with our MEP friends. This is not very BIMmy. We would like to have just one set of data for a project.

    Is anyone successfully doing this please? Does C4R provide an environment where this might be possible? Are the model turnaround times reducing enough?

    C4R is spoken about as being a high trust environment. Is anyone working with their collaborators with enough trust to allow working in each other’s models? Do your BMP/BEP/BXP's definition and delegation of MEA (Model Element Authors) cater for this situation?

    Any thoughts would be much appreciated.

    Thanking you in advance.

  2.    #22
    Forum Co-Founder Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    8,414
    Current Local Time
    05:39 PM
    Just my very humble opinion, but C4R doesn't change anything that would make.me.out all disciplines in one model.

    And all disciplines in one model is the only way there isn't model overlap.

    The goal is to get done more efficiently, not to only have one of everything. I endorse (and encourage) the model overlap. It's a great coordination tool in and of itself.

    PS: if you put all disciplines in one model, architects will go batshit crazy when they see how much complex concrete framing joinery will slow down their SWC's. MEP stuff too.

    Sent from my Phablet. Please excuse typos... and bad ideas.

    Aaron Maller
    Director
    Parallax Team, Inc.
    anthonyB and GMcDowellJr like this.

  3.    #23
    Member anthonyB's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 31, 2011
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    385
    Current Local Time
    10:39 AM
    Thank you.

    And I still hear people say their firms are uncomfortable about users work being immediately public to the wider project team before there is the opportunity to rule a line under it and say, I'm finished in this area. Does anyone find this situation to be a problem?

    I also hear Autodesk may have some developments in this area. Is this the case and might this address these concerns?

  4.    #24
    Forum Co-Founder Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    8,414
    Current Local Time
    05:39 PM
    I personally don't have any issues with that. That's why I have email and phone.

    But i think Kyle mentioned in a c4r thread that it's on their radar.

    Sent from my Phablet. Please excuse typos... and bad ideas.

    Aaron Maller
    Director
    Parallax Team, Inc.

  5.    #25
    Member
    Join Date
    May 18, 2011
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    224
    Current Local Time
    04:39 PM
    Multiple discipline firm over here - we tried the 1 model method a few years back (well, everyone but structural, they insisted on their own model) it was a disaster.
    The greatest challenge is dealing with design iterations, as you mentioned above. CD's=continue design right? I joke that the design isn't done until the owner has keys in hand... even then that's not a guarantee .

    All we use C4R is when there is a joint venture between two firms and they need to access the same model... (like to two architecture firms) much easier to divide and conquer in one model than try and split the building in two. Our structural team likes the real time changes... but our mechanical team prefer static updates and I'm pretty sure that's electrical's feeling as well. Even then you have to communicate that an area is changing and when it's done.

    There is a perceived misconception that real time collaboration is better, I have yet to see the benefits.

    The teams that communicate the best, with old school model exchanges will trump teams with poor communication and using the latest bells and whistles.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. new computer nedeed - (use and budget explained) - some opinions ?
    By guinioul in forum Hardware and Infrastructure
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 29th, 2015, 08:24 PM
  2. Workstation opinions? HP Z420
    By JonWPI in forum Hardware and Infrastructure
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 7th, 2014, 07:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •