Over the course of a long practice, it was possible to work with almost the entire spectrum of software that is present on the market today for engineering tasks. Both from various giants approaching monopolism such as Autodesk, but often not with the most successful solutions, as well as little-known ones, based on free distribution of the open source type, but with very interesting approaches in their concept.
In professional forums, for decades, passions about which software is better have not ceased, even without looking at what the task of the group of designers consists of. It does not make sense to seriously consider these holivars; they have nothing to do with life, remaining only a discussion or even a funny meme. But here are students and specialists who are just starting their journey, this can greatly knock off the chosen course, in the direction of simply PR products. All software in its categories, plus or minus, allows you to solve professional problems, with small specific nuances: somewhere it’s easier to implement one thing, and somewhere completely different. In practice, you have to go beyond the stereotypical framework and find the most convenient methods, just for yourself. All this is just a small part of the work that begins once.
The most interesting question is in the area of contact between production areas, these are today not just trends in the development of industries, but already a necessity. When one professional sphere intersects strongly with some other, it would seem completely not close to it, but this is the reality of today. And it is very inspiring for further development.
Once upon a time, engineering was divided into different areas, such as: construction, engineering and others; but today you can observe the reverse process, when the boundaries between professions can be erased and the use of software here is very indicative.
It so happened that for some time it was necessary to change the sphere from various activities in the architectural and construction field, moving to mechanical engineering, and then back, and this allowed us to look at the design in a completely new way. Software that is used in mechanical engineering, with a margin ahead of the more conservative construction design, even despite many new products, such as the transition to BIM technology. In engineering, methods similar to this have probably been used since the 90s of the XX century, in their MCAD systems. At the same time, for many years, builders were engaged in imitating curtains at the monitor, making drawings in various "drawings" in manual mode, or with artisan programming attempts to automate routine processes, but machine builders in those days received drawings automatically from work on 3D models. Yes, today it has already come to construction and is well known to everyone, but the development of software using the example of Revita or specialized complexes for metal structures such as Tecla and Advance Steel, they went their own way, developing in many ways not in the most successful way. But where there is a borrowing from MCAD systems, the implementation turns out to be more successful and viable for everyday practice.
It is interesting that BIM, although it seems to be some kind of breakthrough novelty, actively propagandizing in the market of software systems, has not yet taken shape to a specific method, but is still something abstract. This is much inferior to MCAD systems that include both design functions and the simultaneous preparation of tasks for the manufacture of structures on CNC and robots, which significantly reduces the production chain of specialists from the project to the construction site. Not to mention when control systems over the entire project are also used, although the latter have their own problems and wooden crutches for ease of use. In this area, changes and real information revolutions are still brewing, where by the way BIM has the opportunity to bring something really new in its further development, as it is still in search and its formation. But unfortunately in the commercial realities of the market and monopolization, bold ideas are lost and manufacturers often do not dare to risk profits, continuing to push only established technical solutions from year to year, thereby continuing to stomp on the spot. And enthusiasts on Open source do not have enough strength to implement their ideas.
If we analyze the experience of some of the most complex projects in world architecture, then there are many similar examples when, from the very beginning, at the early stages of the project, preference is given to MCAD systems. To a greater extent, this is of course metal structures. But in modern construction, metal clearly prevails over all other architectural solutions. Today, modern composite materials that can replace metal, concrete and other materials are also entering the market. Such trends will only develop. Therefore, a mixture of principles and methods will proceed even faster than today.
One can say that BIM technology is only the first marker and just an attempt. There will still be a huge number of changes with the gradual accumulation of experience in the future. The immovable architectural "artillery" is still being shot, either hitting the target, or misses a lot. But it's nice to realize that we are witnessing development today. Of course, not all designers are involved in rethinking established traditions, becoming innovators, moving forward the development of engineering, but only a small part of them. And quite a few are connected to the development of the software itself, for newly emerging tasks, also in contact with the world of It.
So what's cooler: Autocad, Compass, Revit, maybe SolidWorks? Lira, Robot can Ansys? 3D max or blender? And many other comparisons of the legendary heroes of the CAx universe. The answer is obvious, not that and not that, but so far only all together, in a package of work. Great hopes for development, for example, in virtual or augmented reality, possibly artificial intelligence. The inclusion of these areas in design tools will simply cross out all the old, primitive disputes and ideas, and perhaps even send the good old drawings to the past. And the more creative variations occur in the use of various approaches, even over trivial tasks, the more unexpected solutions appear that sometimes become not just an interesting find, but a real discovery.
I wonder who will come first in these experiments: building BIM or engineering solutions based on MCAD? Or maybe dividing borders, finally merge into something in common, complementing each other.