It stands for Parametric-ENabled design. I might be double posting but I haven't seen my 1st reply to this and my memory is highly unreliable (can't recall if I hit the submit button)

rick

interesting topic

will post with some, very biased, views tomorrow when i've had a chance to think about it

bill

I would like to see a civil, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing package for ArchiCAD of my past inquiry was disregarded and after a decades I realized that they do not have the proper resources to integrate a British product they own Cymap.

I generally design my own MEP and Structure out of necessity to make a living and then it is a breeze to coordinate the project. An integrated approach would be a dream as far as collaboration with engineers. I am on MAC but if someone shows me a product on any other platform comparable with ArchiCAD having those capabilities rest assure I will embrace it.

We run a Architectural and Engineering office and have done a great deal of research to get our entire company onto one platform. After several months of evaluation on which platform seemed to work best we came to the conclusion - Split.

We now run Archicad for our architectural department but found it limited for engineering needs so our engineering runs Building Systems. By staying on split platforms, all users got a program that better suits their needs. The key to it all is to make sure your set-up and standards work in translation between the formats.

Any current platform can be made useable for any design discipline - some just have more benefits for some disciplines than others.

I don't think we will see a one size fits all (or one product line serves all) anytime soon (if ever). I don't even think it is desirable, as it is contrary to the maintenance of diversity and competition in the market place.

The present best practice is (as tprokop says) is to up standards for interoperation according to the specific needs of the firm(s) & project(s) involved.

The situation should improve as standards such as IFC develop and as it becomes easier to create or obtain quality add-ons for the various primary apps.

tprokop wrote:

We now run Archicad for our architectural department but found it limited for engineering needs so our engineering runs Building Systems.

Currently we use plain AutoCAD with heavy in-house customization to suit our needs for S and MEP and AutoDesk's civil packages for (obviously) our civil department.

My task is to study which product is going to lead the industry in the future. Which Virtual Building or BIM package is the one to back. Ideally we want to team with the developer's and become a beta test site so we can not only stay on top of the technology but help develop it to suit our industry's needs.

This is some fun research, but oh the pressure!!

Thanks for your thoughts, look forward to more....

Rick

as matthew said, hopefully the future is not in backing one specific solution but in using software that accords with (non-proprietary) standards

i understand that revit will have IFC integration by xmas which should provide the momentum for others to follow suit, for the benefit of both users and the software companies

whilst bentley provide a software solution for pretty much anything you can think of, they seem to have no intent to add IFC support. so they might be ideal in a large, multi-disciplinary, company, but could be sidelined where co-operation with outside consultants is required. as AA said, keeping things in house can make for a highly efficient operation but it's rare for it to be possible

i think archicad and revit's likely success in the bim future is that they have been designed from the ground up as purely architectural solutions, not trying to do everything. autodesk certainly seem to be pushing revit as a stand-alone solution, not a bolt-on to an existing product (unlike adt)

bill