Home  /  Miscellaneous   /  Guest Bloggers   /  BIM Content With Too Much Detail — It’s All Your Fault

BIM Content With Too Much Detail — It’s All Your Fault

Quick note from Jared: Luke Johnston over at the Britex Group has started a new blog, which is a bit unique in the BIMworld. His goal is to write about BIM from a manufacturer’s point of view. To help him promote this new endeavor, we’re going to cross-post a few of his articles on Shoegnome in the coming weeks. You can either read this post here, or jump over to Britex Group’s new blog and read it there. I don’t care which. But you should read this post and what else Luke has in store. It’s awesome.

toomuchdetail

This Guest Post is by Luke Johnston

OK, so it’s not all your fault personally, but you’re probably contributing to the problem unknowingly. All too often I hear Revit users / ArchiCAD users / BIM Managers lamenting that manufacturer’s BIM content is “far too detailed”. Of all the mistakes that manufacturers make when creating BIM content, over detailing the geometry is the one I hear about the most. I’m happy to put my hand up here and say we made this same mistake early on in our BIM content creation journey. We even went as far as to model the thread on waste outlets (refer image above). Ridiculous.

So why do manufacturers continually make this mistake?

CAUSES THAT ARE NOT YOUR FAULT

The general school of thought is that manufacturers want their BIM content models to look as ‘real’ as possible. A sense of pride if you will. Most manufacturers invest a great deal of time and resources into the aesthetic aspects of their products to make them appealing to specifiers. So it stands to reason that the last thing a manufacturer would want removed from their BIM models are the intricate, aesthetic details that differentiate their products from all the others. “My product doesn’t look like that! This BIM model looks terrible! What sort of content creator are you?”.

There’s also the fact that some manufacturers will use the same geometry to create their BIM content that they use to model or manufacture them. Using AutoCAD, Solidworks, Inventor, 3DS Max (etc) geometry, even if it’s recreated natively in a BIM platform, will probably lead to content that is far too detailed for the purposes of BIM processes. Why go to the effort of deleting information if it’s already there right? More information is better isn’t it?

WHY IT’S YOUR FAULT

There is another key reason why manufacturers are so particular about the finer details of their products. It’s because YOU have trained them to be this way.

For the past 8 years I have worked with Architects, Interior Designers, Engineers (Hydraulic mostly) and contractors on a daily basis, assisting them with project specifications and technical queries. I have simultaneously been responsible for the creation of all our technical product data (data sheets, CAD/BIM content, catalogues etc). If there’s one thing I have learnt it’s that just when you think you have detailed every last, innocuous bit of information on a drawing or data sheet, you inevitably get a query from a client asking “What is the dimension of (X)? It’s not shown on your drawing”, or “Do you have more information on the water connector? I need to know the thickness of the back-nut on the inlet because I have limited cavity space and need to know if it will fit”. Do you know how frustrating this is? You probably do. If you’re an architect or an engineer or a draftsperson you know all about the devil being in the detail. You know how annoying it is to spend ages producing technical documentation, only to have someone ask for something down the track that you didn’t implicitly detail. So what are we trained to do? We’re trained to over-document the hell out of our geometry to avoid having to go back and re-measure or re-draw a detail later on.

WE’RE ONLY TRYING TO HELP!

Here at Britex, having worked with architects, engineers and contractors for the best part of 75 years, we’re taught to leave nothing to chance. Make sure all ‘shop drawings’ and product data shows as much detail as possible. Avoid any ambiguity. Designers want to know with the click of a mouse everything there is to know about our products and whether they fit their requirements. They don’t want to call us or e-mail us to find out. That takes too long and who wants to deal with a ‘sales person’ anyway? We put as much information as we possibly can into our technical data so you can find it online right away and get on with your job of designing. This is the culture that exists for us and rightly so.

HOW DO WE FIX IT?

BIM content is not ‘technical data’ as manufacturers have previously known it. Manufacturer’s BIM content has various uses by various project stakeholders at various stages of the BIM process and it needs to be created with this in mind. The problem is that most manufacturers don’t currently understand BIM and the way their content is used in the BIM process. They don’t understand that it’s not necessary to show all of the information in the model. In fact, it’s entirely detrimental. Rather than showing all the characteristics in the geometry, additional details can be included in the product data (not geometry) or linked to an external location (e.g. a data sheet on a website/cloud) that can provide far greater amounts of information. Creation methods like this (just to name two) help keep the file size/complexity manageable in a project model and avoid ‘weighing down’ the process. Obviously some content will need more detail than others in certain parts of the process, such as valve or pipe components in Revit MEP or Navisworks Vs. similar fixtures in Revit Architecture or ArchiCAD, but generally this intricate geometry is unnecessary. BIM Managers, architects, engineers, contractors and BIM content creators understand this. Generally speaking, manufacturers don’t. They think that simplified geometry is an excuse for laziness or an inability on the part of the content creator to re-create their ‘spectacular design’. Nothing could be further from the truth. A good creator understands that reducing model complexity will actually increase the likelihood of the content being used by specifiers and help the manufacturer achieve their sales/marketing objectives.

Manufacturers need to learn more about the BIM process. Until they do, they will continue to insist that their content be created to the same level of detail as their ‘for manufacture’ data. Here’s a tip. Whether you’re a content creator, a BIM manager, contractor or specifier, rather than simply telling a manufacturer “your content is useless to us”, take the time to explain the BIM process and why you want your content a particular way. If you’re a manufacturer, listen to your content creator (and your clients!) when they say not to stress too much about the intricate aesthetic, or component detailing of your models. They’re just not that important when it comes to BIM projects.

Once manufacturers better understand the BIM process, they’ll be far more likely to provide decent content that can actually be used. I know that was the case for me anyway.

Far more education is needed…

Jared here again: If you enjoyed this article, follow Britex on Twitter and Facebook. Then check out more of Luke’s thoughts on Britex’s blog. Oh and maybe download some of their extremely well done BIM content.

Comments

  • February 20, 2014
    reply

    Patrick May

    great post, and another blog I will soon be following! I have a couple of comments and ideas, most of which is simply a reiteration of what I just read. There are 3 major things I see necessary in any manufacturers BIM object; 1) enough detail to show accurate product geometry, 2) actual install components (if an object is flanged, and requires the flange for an install, model it. if it has connections and fittings at fixed and specific locations model them… thread size, interior structure or non-finish surfaces, etc., I don’t generally care) 3) accurate listing perimeters that actually work with my software.
    I have yet to see a product manufacturer or independent product modeler out there who meets these requirements completely; I’m not saying its not being done, it just doesn’t seem to be done for products I regularly specify.

    A prime example of BIM component by manuf. failure is Marvins ArchiCAD library. The library simply takes the standard ArchiCAD inset window and limits it to standard Marvin sizes. This is a short coming of Marvin (or whoever they paid to “model/script” their content) and a short coming of ArchiCAD. Wood windows have not been installed as shown by ArchiCAD for decades, outside of antiquated builders and custom site built units. If your window is a clad and flanged product, model it as a clad and flanged profile… even at the sacrifice of the trim elements. Marvin doesn’t sell trim, why even have it as part of their window part? I agree they don’t need to show all elements of their product, but the only information they do show is the rough opening, which ultimately has more to do with the framing than their actual product. Size: check, Pre-install flashing: nope, Post install flashing: nope, actual installed profile: nope.
    But at least they tried, most door window manufacturers don’t even provide .gdl or .gsm files.

    One good example I have come across is in TJI’s library. They have joist, rafter, beam and hanger parts that are flexible, parametric, just detailed enough, fully schedule-able with great plan labeling options. So I guess I resend my previous comment, I have come across one product for BIM applications that meets most of my expectations.

    I am just waiting on appliance manufacturers, hardware manufacturers, door and window manufacturers, siding, trim and finish manufacturers, etc. to get up to par and on the .gdl and .gsm band wagon (for good content it is a small wagon so far)

  • February 20, 2014
    reply

    Hi Patrick. Great points. Fundamentally I agree with everything you said, specifically the three points you outlined at the start that constitute quality BIM content that can be used in the project environment. BIM is all about the process. Different contributors to a BIM process (product suppliers, architects, engineers, contractors, subcontractors, facility managers etc) all require different information from the same project model, so it’s important that BIM product objects/families are created with this in mind. Manufacturers should avoid falling into the trap of trying just to please their immediate client in the supply chain, whomever that is (normally an architect). What a hydraulic engineer or contractor wants to see/know about a plumbing fixture can be very different to what an architect/interior designer wants to know about the same fixture, but they are equally important in the BIM process and they need to be looking at the same model. It is a big challenge for manufacturers to create BIM models that include (or provide access to) the right information for all these stakeholders without overloading the object so it becomes unusable for all, but we are testing various creation methods with our content libraries and think we have found some very neat ways of achieving this objective.

  • February 20, 2014
    reply

    Nathan Hildebrandt

    Great post Luke. As previously discussed there is no one else in the market tackling it the way that you are. There should be more manufacturers out there doing exactly what you are doing, Engaging with the users in all fields.

    Looking forward to seeing you present @ BrisBIM in April, it will be an eye opener for many people.

    Nathan.

    • February 20, 2014
      reply

      Thanks mate. Much appreciated. Looking forward to your feedback on our latest ArchiCAD library too. To be honest I’m looking forward to your critiques more than anything. I’m normally more interested to know how we can improve the library than I am to hear ‘the good stuff’, though it’s nice to hear this as well!

      As a super advanced user working at a company like Fulton Trotter than is driving ArchiCAD at the level it is, your feedback is invaluable to our continued improvement and finding ways to add true value to what we’re offering.

      Cheers,

      Luke

  • February 20, 2014
    reply

    REALLY great blog posting…same with Patrick’s additional comments.

    • February 20, 2014
      reply

      Thanks Lynn! I’ve got quite a few more blogs based around ‘BIM from a manufacturer’s point of view’ in the pipeline. Hopefully they strike a similar chord. Also a few boundaries to be pushed in creating our BIM content…. so much more than just ‘families’ and ‘objects’. Cheers, Luke Johnston.

  • February 20, 2014
    reply

    Jason Smith

    Hi Luke

    Yes, Architects and Designers are very demanding, we always want to know everything.
    Great Post, I agree with your points.

    As for manufacturers BIM objects I will download a specific object only if I can’t get a generic object to represent the over all size and basic look of the real item.

    What do you need a BIM object to do?

    1. It needs x,y,z dimensions (with connections if an MEP object)
    2. location in space,
    3. Have the right materials for visual output,
    4. Specification of model number, accessories, etc
    The 3D geometry is basically a place holder in space with a specification attached.

    The only caveat to this would be if you wanted to do a close up rendered images then you might need to have the real object.

    I maybe thinking too simple here but thats how I view BIM.

    On another note;
    Do you use Omniclass, Unicode or something else, when added BIM information to your objects when they are available to be used all over the world?
    In New Zealand we don’t have a BIM standard yet, which makes selecting a code system to use now very complicated.

    • February 21, 2014
      reply

      Hi Jason,

      I had the good fortune of creating the ArchiCAD content for Luke, its a shame there is not more like him.

      Your spot on with your list of 4; as long as the overall dimensions are correct and it looks enough like to product to be recognized as such, there’s no need to take the geometry too far.

      I created the geometry to millimeter accuracy but only modelling what is necessary and minimizing the number of surfaces (I’ve seen a lot of bad door frames).

      We also included a resolution control so that even the curved elements can be optimized by the user.

      As far as Uniclass/Omniclass etc; where in the same boat in Aus as you are across the ditch. There a working groups focusing on this and corresponding with other entities (nationally and internationally) that have done work in this regard, so hopefully we’ll have something soon. For now we just basically put in the typical info for product codes, performance ratings and general notes and descriptions.

  • February 21, 2014
    reply

    At risk of repeating other comments.
    Unless the object is to be used for hi-rez 3D renderings then all the object need to be is recognizable.
    Back in the day, using AC4, PC’s & Macs had very little ram and poor graphics compared with today’s machines. So each object had to have its polygons considered to ensure that a collective of objects, doors and windows don’t kill the workstation. However even then it had been possible to make the objects recognizable.
    Using gaming techniques such as texture maps, it is possible to refine the 3D appearance of the objects without having to resort to complex polygons. Also, within ArchiCAD surfaces can have hatching associated. (I don’t know what other packages offer), so in the documentation side of things, lines and arcs replace 3D faces, keeping the complexity down.
    So in the case of the cleaners sink shown in the article, have an option for hi rez for those doing full on 3D presentations like that produced by ArchiFORM3D (less the thread on the outlet) but for the rest of us, have the object developers assign texture maps with hatching applied to the surface materials.

  • February 21, 2014
    reply

    This is actually a deep topic. We have an object that has many features, but not all of are interest to all the users of this object. This is a general problem that impacts many areas of a building and each stage of design, construction, manufacture and installation and then the use of that object. Sample objects include HVAC ducts, valves, windows, pumps, etc. The architect’s model clearly cannot hold all the detail needed to manufacture the object. But I wonder if this problem can be solved by references to external databases that contain the model and other data about this object (furnished by the manufacturer). This seems to be the approach being used by FM databases that need to contain information about the specifications, repair procedures, parts lists, etc. for each piece of equipment. Do you think this would work as a general solution?

    • February 21, 2014
      reply

      Hi Paul.

      This is a great point and something that both manufacturers and content creators need to keep in mind when authoring BIM content. This is why in a subsequent comment above I specifically said “…create BIM models that include (or provide access to) the right information”, with the key point being ‘access to’. I have read some great articles online showing various methods for ways information can be directly accessed from the model (hyperlinks, QR codes etc), but not actually contained within the model itself. Depending on the platform you’re using (ArchiCAD, Revit et al), the exact methodology of accessing the data might change (although some are transferable) but essentially the concept is the same.

      Each object in our ArchiCAD library and every one of our Revit families has a hyperlink in the data to a corresponding product page on our website (not the home page!) and from this page users can download whatever technical data they want that relates to that product.

      There is however a whole raft of issues that comes with this topic like who hosts the external data (is it as simple as each product manufacturer’s site?) and who is responsible for updating the data. A quick note, we are looking at utilising QR codes in our library in the future, which I think Kristian and I have mentioned before somewhere? We already have QR codes set up throughout our literature (on our tech data sheets and handbooks) that point to a database that redirects for each and every product on our site. This means that if a product page URL ever changes for some reason we simply update this in the directory rather than having to deal with QR codes that lead to dead URLs.

      As we all move through this BIM journey, I think this notion of external data being accessed from the model will be key to ensuring that BIM models are kept as lightweight as possible and workflows are efficient. New methods will be adopted, more key information will be able to be accessed from the model to keep everyone in the process happy and we’ll all be better for it.

      Cheers,

      Luke

    • February 25, 2014
      reply

      A current unfolding discussion on how IFC could deal with product libraries…https://github.com/BuildingSMART/IFC4-CV/issues/3

  • July 4, 2015
    reply

    Himanshu Gupta

    Hi!!
    Great post! This post described many things I was doubtful about. But I want to raise a point about BIM exchange through Autodesk Inventor.First, It is always easier for manufacturers to convert their Solidworks/Inventor/CATIA model directly into Revit Families using Inventor BIM exchange, since their technical specification go along with the design.
    Also the designs which comes out of BIM exchange process are much simplified then their original versions and still similar in look substantially to their older version. Although most of the details like fillets, nuts , bolts , threads etc are gone since they cant be recognized by revit directly, the designs coming out still fullfill their purpose and we get a design with proper dimensions, optimum details and with all the specifications required. This process saves our time and we get an optimum revit family.

  • December 15, 2015
    reply

    Stefan Brorsen

    Good post. Thanks.
    Validating BIM models and components I come across a lot of overly detailed content. Using Solibri I report polygon counts for consultants to substitute with lighter components for better model performance. Door frames are often bad. Often it’s furniture. Mostly MEP components. A simple straight pipe with more than 40K polygons!? My favorite is the Grundfos pump with more than 750K polygons. Good stuff. It should be 3D printed and exhibited in a design museum.
    I hope a lot of manufacturer’s content creators, and BIM authors using the content, read and understand the meaning of this blog post and comments.

  • January 14, 2016
    reply

    I’d have to agree that too much detail hurts, but there’s also a need for the “right” amount of detail. Paid or free? http://www.turbosquid.com/Search/Artists/3D-Medical-Equipment

Post a Comment