thread ...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.