The Open Design Project
Design Information Model. BIM for the rest of us.

This website is my attempt to pull the Woodworking trades kicking & screaming into the 21st century. As of this writing, BIM is starting to take hold in Architecture, and Digital Prototyping has been a part of Mechanical Design for many years, but the two do not play so well together....and many of the trades, including the woodworking trades, were left completely out of the loop.

The reason for this, for the most part, is due to shortsightedness on the part of the major design software developers. Where AutoCAD was a generic design platform that could be shared by all stakeholders in a particular design, the 21st century brought exciting new design tools that are to this day targeted to niche audiences. In fact, the new tools are now so specialized that differing disciplines can no longer communicate efficiently. When you add the still prevalent 2D design to the mix, you get a collaborative nightmare.

 It is akin to having a project where all team members speak a different language. There is a perpetual need for translation, and many of the words simply do not translate at all. You can all be on the 'same page', yet everyone can have a different interpretation as to what the page says.

My little BIM Eco House is a prime example. I started developing the design with Revit, and immediately found that the program was incapable of creating the level of detail I needed. So I switched to Inventor where I can design anything.... but then I lose most of the BIM and architectural features of Revit. I may be missing something, but I haven't found a way to export a rafter back to Revit and have recognize it as such. Do I need yet another program? Revit Structure? Trying to create architectural drawings in Inventor is like pulling teeth, so I hope there is a solution that I have overlooked.

 
Then comes the Architectural Millwork for this little project. How is it represented in the overall design? 2D AutoCAD drawings plastered into a 3D design? Dumb models? And how about the kitchen --arguably the most important room in the minds of a potential client. At best, the kitchen design software available these days can produce a static DWG solid to add to the collaborative mix. Do I plop in a dumb solid representation? What happens when the design, as it inevitably will, changes? Does the Kitchen Designer need to put in a bunch more work to stretch the design by six inches? Is it even possible?

The way things are today, there would be numerous emails and phone calls, and eventually a redesign by the kitchen designer. Then another version of the design would need to be exported into a neutral format such as DWG solids, sent to the designer, and inserted into a master model. This is a best-case scenario. The kitchen designer may not have the ability to output anything useable in the first place.

The problem is that major software companies have, for the most part, completely ignored the wood trades as a possible customer, and have focused on silly notions like Autodesk's "functional design" schema. The theory behind functional design is that a focus group(?) predicts what I will design, and will automate the process for me. This would be great if these focus groups were focusing on what I build and how I build it, but the best they can ever do is to be three or four years behind the times. And the current focus on gears, pulleys, and shafts is just a different ball park that wastes my computing overhead.

Innovation never comes from the top down, therefore Designers need the ability to easily create their own functional design modules. Anything else can only be reactionary, and a waste of development resources on the software designers end. Cutting edge design needs a robust palette, not a canned 'solution'. We need a decent hammer, not a suggested nail pattern.

iLogic is a great step in the right direction, but any iLogic rules created need to be round trip between all stakeholders in a larger, collaborative design. If we are to have four or five separate software programs involved in a project, they damn well need to preserve and make useable the knowledge created by others (wherever applicable).

In my opinion, all elements of a design need to be modularized  components that can draw intelligence from the overall design parameters of the project. A kitchen module must fit to a space parameter and adapt to changes according to the abilities described in its own parameters. If it cannot adapt, a red flag could be raised and solutions put forth early in the game. Other parameters relating to aesthetics should also adapt automatically or semi-automatically to global changes made at the top level of the project.

This is where I am at today. I am currently working on a modularized iLogic kitchen design that I hope to make representative of a typical high-end custom cabinet shop. My desire is to represent the full capabilities of said shop in as few modules as possible (one door represents all doors for instance). I will be adding a slick interface to the modules with the confidity 'configurator' as soon as a 64bit version becomes available (slated for the end of Feb.). From there, I will attempt to collaborate in a larger design, which is likely to be the little BIM house, but with any luck, possibly Revit. Progress will be posted in the blog. Have a great day!