thread I saw another Nam June Paik piece in Japan last year,
that was basically a huge pyramid of CRTs, all flickering away with all sorts of different images and sounds. Quite beautiful it was, mesmerising.

Today, I are mostly swearing at Revit, because it is ALL teh cunting shit at 2d detailing.

Noodles, Sloggis,
permalink I think revit for detailing is hell
the only good thing will be that it'll prove that nobody looks at the drawings.

permalink This.
It's taken me 4.5hrs to do 9 details. That's about a third of my usual output using MSTN or AutoCAD. We're not going to hit our C01 cast-in connection plate issue today, and possibly not even on Monday, despite having 4 of us CAD monkeys working flat out.

"Yeah, but BIM" say the engineers, conveniently forgetting that BIM is all very well, but it still comes down to guys with drawings on site.
permalink Most people aren't even trying to detail in Revit...
What we see is people attaching 2-D dwgs made in something sensible into Revit for details.

Revit is an awful pile of crap. Autodesk have achieved their long-term goal of making the worst software possible, which looks alright until you actually start trying to do anything real in it at which point you immediately consider suicide.
permalink The trouble is, clients.
These ones – LendLease – are making it very difficult for CAD monkeys to do their jobs. The cunts insist that we split the model into 5, sub, super, frames, roof and existing, and ref them into a master sheet file, which slows things down hugely (by comparison, the Bishopsgate job is three times the size of this, but is done in one file, and is waaaaay faster than this one). This means, for instance, that all superstructure steel is in one file and the concrete in another, which is fucking ludicrous. And the cunting fucks insist that *all* CAD work, including all the detailing, is done in Revit, or we’d be doing all our details in AutoCAD and reffing them in.
permalink ...which would be the sane thing to do.
People who haven't any idea what they're on about trying to dictate how BIM should be done is a disaster.

(says the guy who manages to avoid actually doing BIM personally...)
permalink “Yeah but BIM!”
has become an angrily sarcastic catchphrase in my team.
permalink Right with you
BIM is hideously shit for lighting... it wants everything to be standardised and modular, which lights aren't.

BIM will result in hugely compromised design for a lot of buildings, because it doesn't like doing difficult things like, say, curves... consultants won't be getting enough fee to spend the time fighting it, and will go for the easy option. Everything will be like an out-of-town B&Q shed and it will be Revit's fault.
permalink The bendy wiggly Zaha style stuff
we do a lot of *can* be done in Revit, but it is painfully clunky and awful, sometimes needing to be left overnight, so we draw it up in Rhino, turn it into Grasshopper scripts, and export them to Dynamo so they can be generated in Revit. Means that the Rhino model needs to be editited every time the architect changes his alleged mind, but it’s still quicker than doing it all in Revit. Sadly, we weren’t allowed to it in this project.
permalink A colleague of mine is a king of that sort of stuff
He has made some great Rhino/Grasshopper tools for making linear lighting and so on for Revit.

Yes... it can be done... but it is so insanely painful that people will start to design according to what doesn;t hurt too muvh in BIM world.

BIM is the enemy of good design.
permalink Yeah,
we use a lot of GH scripts. If you know GH, you can use Dynamo, it's pretty cool; gets round the stupid Revit problems that all the other CAD packages sorted out in the 90s, like adding revision numbers to PDF filenames, uprevising, and distinguishing between A1 and A0 when doing a print run.