monkeybrain wrote:I know what you are saying but the client has the strictest requirements.
it sounds like this is the only real issue you may
have with using ArchiCAD - converting non-AutoCAD entities to AutoCAD entities. It is impossible to say anymore without knowing exactly what those requirements are.
monkeybrain wrote: .. therefore the client insisted that all package drawings are to be done in Autocad.
Well really what your company decides they will use get the job done is none of the clients business, so long as you deliver the product in the format they require, i.e compliant DWGs. So as others have suggested you could do most of the work in ArchiCAD and have a few guys on AutoCAD as kind of a 'clearing house' for your drawing output. I would assume you could do a similar thing with Microstation which you already use (i have not used in so long i cannot remember).
monkeybrain wrote:Archicad is apparently off the table as a 3D resource because the consultant thinks it could not cope with the size of the project. (500 meters long, 37 meters wide and about 6 stories high..)
Well i don't think he knows what he is talking about. There are plenty of projects towards that size that have been done in ArchiCAD. How you structure the model will be critical but it is the same in any CAD program (Microstation sounds like it has a bit of an advantage here though)
monkeybrain wrote:The senior staff think it is a great opportunity to look at new possibilities but the consultant argued that Graphisoft only have 1% market share and are too niche.
Well although they seem to be doing their best to lose market share and stay niche they are nowhere near 1% ... yet.
If you compare ArchiCAD to Revit difference is much closer - its just most of the world still thinks it is flat. ArchiCAD and Revit are much closer to each other as programs than Revit is to AutoCAD as far as i know. Anyway, this is a stupid argument - its like saying we shouldn't use hybrid cars because they are 0.01% of the market. They still get you from A to B, just in a much more efficient way. Maybe i am wrong and i should throw out the Mac i've been using all these years...
These new possibilities - Is your firm considering a complete switch to a new program or will this be used just for this project? Is this a 'pilot' so they may consider a complete switch in future?
If they are thinking of moving the firm, or part of it, to a new platform then this should not be dictated by a single client but what the practice believes is the right tool for this and future jobs. I assume they are not going to throw out their 500K of new software, training and experience once the job is finished. What's to say the next big client doesn't come along and say 'you must use Revit'.
monkeybrain wrote:The consultant is proposing that we use Autocad 2009 for 2D and 3D.
Sounds like AutoCAD is what he knows so understandable that is what he is going to push. I wouldn't go out and tell a client they should be using Microstation. As Ignacio suggested I would strongly recommend getting some further opinions from people experienced in the other options you have ..
monkeybrain wrote:...It sounds ok but is still nowhere as efficient as using BIM.
Well if it is less efficient then it is not really the best option then is it? If it is possible to do the work in less time using a program other than the mandated AutoCAD and still deliver to the clients requirements then that is the option to go with.
Design Technology Manager
fjmt | francis-jones morehen thorp
iMac 27" i7 2.93Ghz | 32GB RAM | OS 10.10 | Since AC5