![]() If its hapening bi-weekly, those hours add up, and if there was a way to review clashes by area, and not by randomly generated numbers - popping all over the place, i would greatly prefer it. But the amount of effort needed to sort through the base clashes generated through creating reports for review by the design team - seems a bit unneccesary. We are trying to amplify/streamline our model coordination proccess. Fun walkaround presentations are still in Enscape.This is pretty much the workflow we are looking at right now. When we are doing Design Reconciliation Projects, our workflow is:ĥ. So, i think it depends on what features you want, and what you want to do with it. Fun walkaround presentations are still in Enscape. Actual Coordination is in Navisworks, which is also tied to BIMTrack.ĥ. RFI's / Issues are in BIMTrack (at the GC's discretion they either go ONLY to the GC, or directly to the Design Team)Ĥ. PDF's are in Bluebeam Studio (where we mark them up as we model the project)ģ. Models are in Revit (typically on BIM360, because parties are in multiple locations)Ģ. ![]() When we are doing Design Reconciliation Projects, our workflow is:ġ. I also dont believe one tool has to do the entire job. Thats why im still okay exporting to Navis (results are way better than appending RVT). Any task that i do that requires exporting the model to another platform, the export tool has to be insanely fast (less than minutes). But it is what it is, and its a relatively low cost for what we use it for. I dont love either products Licensing Model / Hub Model, and they both know that. But the absolutely simple UI/workflow is why WHEN i needed a coordination tracking tool, i went with BIMTrack. To be clear, Revizto and BIMTrack probably both do the tasks that are important to me. The selling points (for me only) about BIMTrack was that i dont have to export the model at all, i dont have to leave the application at all (i just use it in Revit, or Navis), and then the other parties access it through the webpage. I simply want to track issues, and comments, and task responsibility, and so on. I didnt/dont need the other functionality like drawing markup, model export, etc. Then i started doing Modeling-For-Construction projects where i DID want to track issues. (Again, at this point, i wasnt looking for a coordination tool at all). ![]() I didnt have to export anything, or bake in lights, and i could just walk around in real time. So, (in terms of my ORIGINAL need of walkaround and presentation modes), that was the decision maker. Somewhere in there, when i started Parallax Team, we suddenly had GPU's that could handle our models in Enscape. The Export Time was a big drawback for me, as my models tend to be very large, and the sheer amount of time needed to export models and all their sheets, basically meant i didnt have time to ever export, even with spare machines. At the TIME, i wasnt looking for a coordination tool, so that was less appealing to me (personally), although it worked great. Revizto starting gaining a lot of new features and functionality related to Project Coordination (marking up sheets (if you exported sheets), measuring, issue tracking, etc). I was still using Revizto, as it was much easier on the GPU (it wasnt rendering in real time, since it was an export), and the company i was at had lesser-than GPU's. It was great for this, and there wasnt anything else (besides custom solutions) really doing it (Enscape wasnt really around yet, or if it was, it wasnt very widely known).Ī short while later, enscape was out for realtime walkthroughs. My intent with it was to use it strictly as a presentation/navigation/project-review tool, since it offered WASD walkarounds, in models. I originally started using Revizto when it first came out. I think they do some things that are similar, but then they do other things very different. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |