Report comment

Without trying to sound like a fanboy, I would never go back to Autocad or similar 2D drafting. I've used both ArchiCAD and Revit in different jobs for nearly seven years and I really depend upon their technologies in almost every aspect of daily practice.

One problem with the interpretation of BIM is that many think that BIM is architectural modelling; it's not. For those who are confused, imagine a bicycle wheel - the rim would be the project, the hub would be the 3D model and the spokes are the consultants (I'm including architects in this instance). Therefore the whole wheel is BIM - an interrelated and collaborative method of producing Building Information within the context of a project. The 3D model is passed back and forth between the consultants where each can make their additions as necessary without information conflict. A far more streamlined and intelligent process than straight 2D documentation.

But, Caroline Turner is right; the uptake of BIM with engineers is woefully behind those of architects. In my experience only larger engineering consultants tend to have the software - which is fine for large commissions, but for the small residential project or school project say, the engineers that you would approach would not have the necessary software, (I can't count the number of times a smaller engineering firm has asked me to save out my drawings in AutoCad LT 2000)...
My advice in this instance is to encourage the software manufacturers to buy up the existing 2D software licenses as discounts to the 3D package and reduce the gross price of the software in the first place. The world will be a better place to practice in...