Using/developing another companys stage 3 MEP model into stage 4 by us

[Twiceroadsfool]

Wow. I'd hate to live in your world. That little box of yours must feel pretty small at times.

Its very easy for "BIM folk" to 'automatically assume' everyone elses stuff "sucks," which isnt necessarily terribly fair, but it also doesnt mean that its not correct. Granted, its more of a case by case basis and specific model evaluation, but its completely true that "more of the time rather than less," what we see from other firms, we wouldnt want to "inherit and use" for a number of reasons.

If someone was asking me to (blind) write up a process for taking over a Design Project from another company or firm, step 1 would automatically be "start the model over because there is a good to fair chance a bunch of stuff in their model wont be done to our liking, or in a way that would make us efficient."

Sure, after an extensive model review, MAYBE we would keep SOME of it. But hardly ever.

Does that make "our box small, at times?" Of course it does! But, if its "deliver a higher fidelity and better quality model, and be lonelier because we are perceived as arrogant when we tell folks we dont want to work in their model," or "be people pleasers but deliver a lesser than product," im going in the former camp every day of the week.

[tzframpton]

Wow. I'd hate to live in your world. That little box of yours must feel pretty small at times.

It's just kind of reality. Imagine all the Shared Parameters for tags, text standards, leader standards, Object Styles, View Templates, content, fighting hosted/non-hosting Families in the existing file, Project Browser setup and sorting, Schedules, etc x 1000. It's really bad when you've reached a certain point in your template.

Also you have to put a lot of trust in the model that comes in. I've seen some much better Revit models these days from a design team but usually it's just from a handful of small teams within a small set of companies.

Imagine having all your fittings in your Template finally worked out so they work right AND look right, for your weld pipe, grooved pipe, threaded pipe, DWV pipe and domestic water pipe. That's usually a huge undertaking for any MEP company. Or imagine all the duct fittings, taps and dampers, etc that all have been tweaked to finally work good. All of that is usually erased in someone else's project file, not because it doesn't exist, but because it's set up differently.

There's just so many things to consider. If you're just starting out in Revit, or don't have a high-level team that have put in the investment in their MEP Template, content and processes, then yeah you can use someone else's file because it doesn't matter and you'll just absorb into how they have it set up.

-TZ

[RobDraw]

If you are going to call me out like that, keep it in context. Chasm said all other peoples' BIM is a joke. That comes across as a really **** poor elitist attitude. (There is a lot of that around here.)

SMH...

[Twiceroadsfool]

If you are going to call me out like that, keep it in context. Chasm said all other peoples' BIM is a joke. That comes across as a really **** poor elitist attitude. (There is a lot of that around here.)

SMH...

Aw man, i actually didnt mean it like that. Sorry if it came off wrong.

I was responding more to the "box must feel pretty small, at times." It totally does feel small, thats the ****** part of such a disjointed industry: So many people do **** work, or mediocre work, and then upper management (who almost never understand the details) dont understand why people cant *reuse other peoples trash.*

I hadnt thought hard about Chasm's actual terminology, but i completely agree with you: It comes off as snotty and elitest. Its something i would probably say similarly (on an internal call with my team), but i doubt i would say it publicly facing.

Plus, while *I* may think our way is *good* and a lot of other peoples ways *suck,* or are a *joke,* in the context of THIS discussion (this thread) i dont even think Chasm's point matters, because its not even necessarily about "Good" and "bad:"

There are some folks on this forum that i think probably do great work. And if my team had to assume/consume a model from THEM, it would STILL be getting converted/remodeled/redone in our template. Thats why i sort of just ignored how Chasm thinks their stuff rocks and all of us lick the lolly of mediocrity: Because it doesnt matter.

Anyone with efficiency workflows built in to their own setup, wont be repurposing someone elses model anyway. Not if they know whats good for them.

[tzframpton]

If you are going to call me out like that, keep it in context. Chasm said all other peoples' BIM is a joke. That comes across as a really **** poor elitist attitude. (There is a lot of that around here.)

SMH...

Those were definitely harsh words and I don't agree with using that context at all. I do agree that most design models are not to be used in our world, which is detailing and fabrication shop drawings. The layouts are design intent in nature. Sometimes the design intent is very well done, sometimes it is very poor, but either way they do not meet any standard to be used in our world at all.

For the record I wasn't calling you out, just adding to the discussion that it's a reality on our side of the pond.

-TZ

[RobDraw]

While I do agree with most of what has been said, I'm going to stand by my original response. Before trashing the model and starting it from scratch, having a look could prove to be valuable and possibly be time saving. Most likely not, but one never knows unless they look.

[Twiceroadsfool]

While I do agree with most of what has been said, I'm going to stand by my original response. Before trashing the model and starting it from scratch, having a look could prove to be valuable and possibly be time saving. Most likely not, but one never knows unless they look.

Yeah, i dont disagree with that at all.

The only time we COMPLETELY ignore the model, is when were doing Design Reconcilation for Contractors. And even then we open it now and then, but thats a very specific type of work, where we HAVE to go off the Contract Docs (which arent the models).

But yeah. If one of my clients is AOR, and some other arch firm did the design, we dont COMPLETELY ignore and throw out their model. Just saying we would need to create a new one in my clients templates. But there are workflows that can be done meticulously, to "bring items over."

And i wouldnt ever "laugh" and say everyone elses **** stinks. That's just.. Arrogant, and not nice.

[ChasmFlame]

I did not say

...all other peoples' BIM is a joke.

I said

In our experience, other people's version of 'BIM' is an absolute joke.

That is - the models we have received are a poor excuse for our understanding of BIM. What possessed you all to bash on me quite so hard when I made it clear I was up for a polite and meaningful discussion on the subject, I can't quite fathom but I don't think it was justified.

Every single model we have received has had a combination of the following:

• Disconnected ductwork.
• Ductwork and pipework on barely perceptible slopes.
• Obscene levels of detail in families (think screw threads).
• Tens of worksets - treating them like layers.
• No sorting in the Project Browser.
• Families which are a dot but which represent a full blown electrical fixture or fire alarm or security device.
• I'm sure there are others but none I can think of off the top of my head.

None of which is reflected in the Stage 3 or even Stage 4 design drawings.
The drawings are still the only thing people are interested in where I am from (South Eastern UK) and as such people throw any old cr*p in a model, so long as it looks right on the sheet.

I would love to see some decent Revit models but as yet, it's not happened for me. I wasn't trying to be pompous or anything like that.

Twiceroadsfool said it best though: (paraphrasing) if I am looking to produce a high quality product, I am not going to use someone else's model. Either it doesn't work the way we want it to or it's actually rubbish.

Again, not sure what your problem is Rob but I was merely expressing my opinion, based on my company's experience of working with others, in the MEP industry, in the UK.

I also did not mean to put forth the idea we do not look at the models we get from others. I simple mean we do not use any of their elements within our own models. We will absolutely use them as a reference should the 2D Drawings prove insufficient, but we will not use the content unless we find a particularly nice family which only needs some tweaking. Generally we find that families are not very well thought out and need too many adjustments to work with our set-up and so we don't bother. It's just not efficient, time-wise.

As I said, I would like to have a discussion around the actual topic of this thread. Please share your thoughts about those ideas posted above!

Edits: Spelling errors

[Twiceroadsfool]

We will absolutely use them as a reference should the 2D Drawings prove insufficient

Since we are getting back on topic (somewhat), this particular phrase intrigues me quite a bit, since- in the United States, at least- this same thing DOES happen, but it can also create a ton of issues.

The main cause for that, is that the models (at least here) 100% are not official Contract Documents, even if they are *required* to be turned over, with the documents. So, if a ceiling height isnt shown in the PDF's, and i open the model to see what height its at, and then use that height for Construction, if there IS an issue in the field pertaining to that ceiling height, i could fight about it, but (contractually) i would lose, because there was no Right of Reliance on the model.

The sad sad sad sad truth compounding this, is Design Teams know this, and its part of the reason so many of their models are trash (yes, we agree there, and yes: Im also not saying ALL of them, but a lot of them).

The approach my team takes is:

If that ceiling height (or pipe slope, or component size, etc) isnt in the documents, but i see it in the model, we will simply issue our RFI saying "this isnt in the documents, but we see its value is this in the model. Please confirm this is the correct height, or please provide the correct height."

It sucks Donkey Balls that we have to do it that way, but thats the contractual game, here in the States.

Do all Contractors do it? NOPE! Lots of them will "just get it from the model, and use it." And the reality is, 90% of the time it might not be a big deal, and might not make any issues on site. But damn, that ten percent that it does...

[RobDraw]

I understood your original comment fully and stand by my response. Just because their stuff doesn't meet your standards, doesn't mean it's a joke. That is your opinion and it sucks that you talk about other peoples work like that.