Not sure if this can be considered good news for the BIM-minded operating in the region.
Only a couple of days ago I stated in this blog, that sticking to-and improving a wobbly-but functioning-FlatCAD system often makes more sense than jumping half-heartedly into BIM.
It felt great publishing that thought publically, BTW - I once lost my job over saying something similar.
Doggedly sticking to the theory that the only way BIM can be successfully implemented is by going ‘cold-turkey’ on CAD did not help my prospects of lasting in the said position, of the BIM-software-vendor-consultancy, but that is another story.
So, I’ve been reading with some interest the specification that CAD files provided as part of future building permits and as-built drawings will need to comply with.
All reasonably easy to follow, technically not challenging, yet, still a major step in the wrong direction, I believe.
The last 2 decades of CAD existing within the official framework, yet contractually non-binding has kept the doors open for changes to be made for the better.
For FlatCAD to be leaving these murky waters for officially endorsed ‘standards’ solidifies something that the industry should have left behind by now.
In fact, my hunch is that making these CAD standards work across the board (in one city alone) will be difficult, might as well go cold-turkey and BIM.