sites the likes of Code Project etc etc) that may fit to your workflow/goals. Also the available literature/printed manuals/e-manuals/books etc etc.
3. Take into account the quality of the available editors (like VS etc etc). That said the "build-in" GH editor is a bit of a crap (but it's OK for smallish/not complex coding).
4. Most importantly: // computing is the holly grail these days (and it would become the standard in the years to come: either via trad CPU cores or via CUDA/Tesla type of stuff)... thus take into account ... well ... the obvious.
BTW: If 1 is true and there's some workflow around that involves many apps ... try to write code that is as "GH neutral" as possible.…
, HVAC, blah blah).
BIM is NOT a parametric process at least having in mind graphical editors the likes of GH (or stuff the likes of Generative Components): it's a holistic data management approach. Some concepts used in BIM apps (for instance in AECOSim etc) the likes of "walls"/"openings" etc are "parametric" in the sense that allow auto perforation of this with that. On the other hand AECOSim is feature driven (since Microstation works in that "mode" as well) ... a thing that complex things even more with regard what is actually "parametric" and what not.
BIM is as good as the meta data structure is (especially the spec related aspect - Goggle MasterFormat and the likes). BIM AEC apps are notoriously incapable to work (without a lot of lines of code) with proper RDBMS. On the other hand Bentley Systems ProjectWise ... well ... but that's another animal (by no means a topic for the inexperienced).
In descending order or importance a contemporary AEC practice should use:
1. A general information "controller" like ProjectWise (who said/did what/when/why).
2. A Specs (say CSI - not the TV soap opera) management app.
3. Several Meta data RDBMS.
4. A BIM suite of apps.
5. Optionally some parametric thingy.
PS: For AEC ... when inviting the parametric thingy to the party you have only 2 options:
ProjectWise + AECOSim + Generative Ciomponents (my choice).
?? + Revit + Dynamo.
…
s for some solution "as it is" no matter the cost? (that's an extra stupid approach, very old fashioned). Do you use EvoluteTools Pro and/or Kangaroo for "optimization" ?
2. What is the FEA/FIM stuff in use? Do you expect "from/back" interactions? (If this is not doable ... increase this or that etc etc).
3. Do you validate real-life components with FEA/FIM? By what means you design these components? - present and/or future (inside Rhino?). This makes things "interesting" in a variety of ways (we need to extensively talk about that - Skype). The problem is that Rhino IS NOT a feature driven solid modeling app and thus ... a "certain" bottleneck arrives in no time: In the CATIA world you design ("MANUALLY") a parametric history driven component that "complies" to his parent "directives" (say: the Topology) and/or "imposes" his rules to his parent. This is what we call top<>bottom design approach (would become a standard across the AEC industry pretty soon: in around 123 years give or take some). This is far and beyond from what Rhino can do - but we DO make real-life things don't we?
4. Are all these things under a BIM umbrella ? What BIM? What type of details (blue prints) you deliver? (or you just make the thing?).
5. By what means cost is restricting/encouraging the solution? By what means you get feedback from component(s) cost that is outsourced? (i.e. outside your company). Do you monitor all things via some RDBMS? (that's Data Base).
6. What are the long term plans for dealing with such solutions? Using what apps (even in theory for the moment).…