UK BIM Standard launches - forgets that ArchiCAD exists

laszlonagy wrote:

Krippahl wrote:
I expect we will have .rvt export capabilities then, as with .dwg for all this years.

I don't know about that.
It seems to me that Autodesk is trying to take total control of DWG. They may do the same with RVT.
If only Autodesk software can read-write RVT and it becomes some kind of a standard then everyone will be forced to use Autodesk software.

.....um... Is'n't that already the case? (i.e. only Autodesk software read-writing rvt format)

The last I recall, I think that the .RVT format is already a proprietary format. Which means that only Revit can open, read and write .rvt files. Unlike .dwg format which is an open format and can be opened by multiple non-Autodesk software.

Of course, if it were to become a standard, they might be forced to change that and make it at least partially open so that at other software can at least export to some .rvt format, but this is not currently the case. I don't think Autodesk are willing to go this route (opening the rvt format) because the last time they did that, (dwg) they lost control of the standard when every other software was capable of writing out into their format and directly reading dwg files. It meant that not everybody had to own AutoCAD to be able to read or write dwg files, despite AutoCAD's industry dominance.

If it (.rv)t did become a standard and they didn't make it an open format, then yes, everybody would be forced to buy Autodesk software (Revit or a Revit-like reader/viewer) to be able to either transform their models into .rvt format or to read-write .rvt files.


The paradoxical question is how can you have the Industry standard, if it is not an open format. But on the flip side, how can you maintain Industry dominance or a monopoly, if your format is open and accessible to your rivals and competitors.

Bricklyne wrote:
The paradoxical question is how can you have the Industry standard, if it is not an open format. But on the flip side, how can you maintain Industry dominance or a monopoly, if your format is open and accessible to your rivals and competitors.

You can't.

A PERCEIVED standard is one thing, the corporate yearning for monopolies is IMHO exactly opposite any effort to standardize an industry.

Bricklyne wrote:
Unlike .dwg format which is an open format and can be opened by multiple non-Autodesk software.

DWG is a proprietary file format. It is not open and cannot qualify as a standard either. It only looks like a standard to many because it is so widely used.

Autodesk are continually striving to prevent others from using DWG - take a look at the Legal Issues section of the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.dwg

Bricklyne wrote:
The paradoxical question is how can you have the Industry standard, if it is not an open format. But on the flip side, how can you maintain Industry dominance or a monopoly, if your format is open and accessible to your rivals and competitors.

You either become a standard through official recognition (big-S standard) or by default through widespread usage (small-S standard). DWG fits into the latter. It might not be officially open, but because it is so widely used it has been reverse engineered so competing applications can read/write the format. It is this process that Autodesk is fighting against in the hope of shutting down competitors unlicensed* access to the format - but doing so would i think be shooting themselves in the foot as it could result in:

a) further moves to develop a non-DWG industry standard and bypass Autodesk even further

b) have regulatory bodies mandate Autodesk open up the format officially instead of the current industry initiatives like OpenDesign Alliance DWG libraries. I really do think this is something the EU would do if Autodesk shut all competitors out of DWG.

*Autodesk currently allow non-competing applications access to their DWG format, and I note from Ralphs link they are now co-operating with Bentley to officially (Autodesk) support DWG/DGN exchange. I wonder where this leaves Graphisoft?

AutoDesk wants to hold on to a proprietary dwg format for the same reason that Microsoft was so reluctant to open up their own MS-Office file formats -- keeping the competition at bay.

Owen, the ODA has to work their butts off to reverse engineer dwg every time there is a format change - usually with every alternate Acad version. AutoDesk, meanwhile, seems to be wanting to make them spend as much of their resources as possible on court cases. See this article for instance.

owen wrote:

Bricklyne wrote:
The paradoxical question is how can you have the Industry standard, if it is not an open format. But on the flip side, how can you maintain Industry dominance or a monopoly, if your format is open and accessible to your rivals and competitors.

You either become a standard through official recognition (big-S standard) or by default through widespread usage (small-S standard). DWG fits into the latter. It might not be officially open, but because it is so widely used it has been reverse engineered so competing applications can read/write the format. It is this process that Autodesk is fighting against in the hope of shutting down competitors unlicensed* access to the format - but doing so would i think be shooting themselves in the foot as it could result in:

a) further moves to develop a non-DWG industry standard and bypass Autodesk even further

b) have regulatory bodies mandate Autodesk open up the format officially instead of the current industry initiatives like OpenDesign Alliance DWG libraries. I really do think this is something the EU would do if Autodesk shut all competitors out of DWG.

*Autodesk currently allow non-competing applications access to their DWG format, and I note from Ralphs link they are now co-operating with Bentley to officially (Autodesk) support DWG/DGN exchange. I wonder where this leaves Graphisoft?

You raise a lot of interesting (and very valid) points. For one thing, this can be construed as being a very large reason as to why Autodesk have been so lukewarm and lackadaisical to supporting the IFC format - which has otherwise been adopted and openly supported by all the other major players. It basically puts them out of control of an open format, and forces them to follow rules laid out by others - despite their integrating IFC export capabilities into recent versions of Revit.

But in the context of what you just said, and going back to the question of the adoption of the .rvt format as an industry standard, I believe Autodesk would prefer for it to be an Industry standard - small-s, in which case even if other software can read-write .rvt files, they still wouldn't allow full manipulatabilty the same way one would directly through Revit itself. Of course, the ideal situation for them is if most people entering the BIM field are forced to have to buy Revit or Autodesk products exclusively to have full access to the .rvt format.

But given the potential problems they could face with Anti-trust monopoly issues and lawsuits here in N. America, it's no surprise that they are playing nice with others like Bentley ala Ralph's link.

But even with that, I just don't think they see Bentley (or rather Microstation) as a direct AEC-BIM competitor (seeing as they are more Engineering based) in the same way that they do or would Graphisoft. Hence the reason you're unlikely to see that level of cooperation with GS, and the reason they would be eager to establish .rvt formats as a standard of sorts with Building councils, and municipalities, while GS still dillydally in their blissful complacence.

Ralph wrote:

Bricklyne wrote:
Unlike .dwg format which is an open format and can be opened by multiple non-Autodesk software.

DWG is a proprietary file format. It is not open and cannot qualify as a standard either. It only looks like a standard to many because it is so widely used.

Autodesk are continually striving to prevent others from using DWG - take a look at the Legal Issues section of the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.dwg

You're right. I should have qualified that and said that .dwg is a de facto Industry standard and quasi-open format (in the sense that it's widely available and used as a standard and in the sense of what's been reverse engineered by others to allow their software to read-write .dwg formats)

Autodesk are obviously continuously trying to "lock" the format with each cycle or release of AutoCAD and their other .dwg capable software (like very other year, I believe, they make it, non-backwards compatible), but the dilemma of having the Industry standard (which is as a result of their own desire to monopolize the field) is that other players have to be able to at least read or write into your format.

They learnt that the hard way when they tried (or at least are still trying) to bite into Adobe's dominance of the portable document format (PDF) of electronic transmission of documents, when they introduced their own format (was it .dwf? I believe) a couple of years ago, only to have it fail to catch on as a serious competitor to the PDF format, when only Autodesk software was capable of reading/writing in that format, whereas PDF is used in far more fields and in many more software (spreadsheets, Word processors, Desktop publishing, etc) than Autodesk currently cater to.

I don't believe Adobe are too bothered (not to the degree that Autodesk are) by the fact that tons of non-Adobe software can read/write and create PDF documents since, that only popularizes their brand even further. But then again, Adobe are not seemingly hell bent on total Industry domination the same way that Autotable are.

On the other hand if Autodesk bought out Adobe (not entirely an impossible scenario) then we would have a serious problem. Autodesk Photoshop CS7, and Autodesk Illustrator (eeeww).

Bricklyne wrote:
I don't believe Adobe are too bothered (not to the degree that Autodesk are) by the fact that tons of non-Adobe software can read/write and create PDF documents since, that only popularizes their brand even further.

Nor should they. As opposed to DWG, PDF is an open standard.

PDF was made an ISO Standard in 2008 - http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1141

IFC 2x seems to be under ISO review but is a published standard.

However when it comes to 2D CAD there is still no ISO Standard file format ... incredible given the 30+ years of widespread 2D CAD usage. DWG is the default and just about any application can read/write it (errors aside) so i wonder what is stopping it getting certification? I guess it can be only one thing and that is Autodesk not wanting to lose control of it. Perhaps understandable from the perspective of wanting to be able to push the format at your own pace (and not the glacial speed of international committees) but the commercial desire to maintain a monopoly is narrow minded in the extreme (heard the one about the barn door and a horse bolted)

The parallels with PDF are identical - but only one of the two companies made the right decision.

The problem I see with efforts to stop .RVT becoming BIMs DWG is that IFC is not mature enough to be accepted by many people. The various applications are really starting to develop highly complex tools and entities and these are often not fully supported through the IFC process, leading to a lack of confidence in the reliability of the process when it comes down to the crunch.

If you had a choice of using a mixed bag of applications and having 80% of your data work with each exchange, or use a suite of applications using a proprietary file format and have 100% of your data intact then it is totally understandable if you pushed for the latter.

It is up to the competing products to develop a viable alternative in IFC unless they are prepared for the consequences - and this time i do not think Autodesk will let .RVT be opened up through initiatives like the ODA. It will stay locked down unless regulators force them to open it up. Development of IFC really needs to be sped up - it is falling behind what the applications can feed it.