Appeal: get involved & support a unique free BIM

This is a personal appeal from me (Sabu Francis), the main developer of TAD (The Architect's Desktop). TAD's designing component is a unique space based, object-oriented way of doing BIM (Building Information Modeling) that does not work like conventional BIM.

TAD arose from a small office (Sabu Francis & Associates) in a small town (Navi Mumbai) at India long time back. Since 1989.

It was kept alive because there was a dream that architects ought to leave behind cogent knowledge, and not just information, whenever architecture was created. TAD is now easily available free.

Today getting TAD is as easy as getting a free registration at a chatting system for TAD here https://goo.gl/rRspC8 and then follow the instructions here: https://goo.gl/UgW0Ub , to download and install your free copy. Then get quite a lot of documentation here https://goo.gl/9V6Rcm 

Currently, the freeware (non-open source) version of TAD is the 6.x series. Simultaneously, the 7.x versions of TAD is also being started using new code that works inside browsers, using the open-source development route. And of course, that too would be free. The feedback obtained from the 6.x series would be used to develop the 7.x series.

At the very least, I request you to give more than a shout to fellow architects who want to know about this project

The fact, unfortunately, remains: This idealism needs a lot of money to sustain

I therefore would welcome any donation for this project. You can donate any amount you feel like at https://imojo.in/tad

I hope you read this article here https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/appeal-get-involved-support-unique-free-bim-sabu-francis in its entirety. It has the reasons why such a project is important in any architect's life. This has a win-win proposition that can surely help you too

Currently architects leave only half the information in the form of drawings: What is present in drawings is known as poché in French. They are the dark marks we leave to delineate solid matter. Clear information on the spaces are largely absent. To “extract” spaces, a visual interpretation of the drawings is needed on the part of the collaborators of the project.

When people tell me that drawings are the “language” of architecture, I try to convince them that one of the fundamental alphabets in that language itself is controversial. At best drawings are a form of pictograms – rudimentary languages where alphabets had visual analogues. Any empirical, especially visual analogue for an alphabet invites controversy. For example; what exactly does the figure of a bull mean in Harappa seals? (https://www.harappa.com/indus/27.html)

No written language today would have controversies at the alphabet level – which is the smallest structure in a language. All semiotic interpretation issues in any written languages starts at the “word” and “sentence” and so on … even in specialized languages such as that of music notation, for example. There are no interpretation issues at the alphabet level in any written language. You will never see two poets who write in English, interpreting an alphabet which does not belong to any alphabet from A to Z

But architects have not yet agreed upon any fundamental language for themselves, especially what ought to be the alphabets there?

Current conventional BIM does not address this fundamental language requirements. As they all trace their ancestry to mechanical engineering software, they never really addressed the need to have spaces as fundamental alphabets. How I wish they had! I would have been able to get back to my own architectural projects.

My motivation for this different approach of BIM was simply this: Architects can no longer remain in silos. The knowledge that we produce MUST be left behind for objective analysis and understanding by anyone concerned or affected

Enough theory. Let me not make this a theoretical discussion. I have spoken about this elsewhere in detail.

A lot of energy, personal efforts and lots of money were spent to keep this project alive.

It has an unbroken history of being in continuous development and use – practically every day was spent in coding and/or checking the underlying theoretical aspects of this project. I have only adopted the Renaissance architect way of working: Making and honing the tools needed for supporting my muse before I design for my muse simply because such tools are absent

This is much the same way a Renaissance architect would have had to first make a pen, grind the ink and so on before the design is expressed – those days, the expression was done in a drawing.

But sadly, the “software writing” part of my life made others feel that I was more into software than into architecture – that is how stereotypes work, I guess.

Till around 2006, it was also used extensively in my projects – over three million square feet of built works, and scores of unbuilt ones. All along, especially after 2006, these “alphabets” were placed in front of peers with similar interests– and that checking and refining would continue. The first theoretical paper on TAD won me the special award for architectural research from the Journal of Indian Institute of Architects in 1991.

TAD was free all the while all these years. Architects simply had to ask me politely. Unfortunately not many did because exposure of this project itself did not happen very well. Also, architects using a fundamental tool would want a proper ecology around it (Support, documentation, tutorial, etc) which was very difficult for me to setup.

Today, the ecology is growing. I have already mentioned how easy it is to get TAD into your office. The extensive docs for TAD for example, were made by the technical documentation writing team of Persistent Systems Ltd along with some of my architects. It is in a Wiki form, and you and others can easily contribute into it. The chatting system would also help support. I am available on the TAD chat system practically everyday.

Much of the “objections” to TAD by architects were done with reference to other software (e.g. “Why don't you do it like Sketchup?”) – as if a 70 year old nascent field such as computer science had many things to say to a 100,000+ year of architectural theories. I am quite sure the interface of TAD has gone through a lot more iterations and refinement than many of the other software – but let me not sound defensive or digress.

How I wish architects would first get their skin bruised in the questions that TAD was asking and then suggest alternative answers to those. That unfortunately has not happened thus far. Nobody has found any formal objections to these questions. I have given enough lectures, talks, seminars, submitted papers on this at international conferences on this but in the end, invariably, the most vocal suggestion would be to make the interface like some other software. The subject of user interface is often fraught with lots of misunderstandings. I have a different take on Where is the real interface? Read more here https://goo.gl/VKb5im

These very same people would easily understand when I say: a villager who used only a bicycle – how absurd would it be if he expected the pedals in the car with to have similarities to the pedals of his bicycle.

Anyway, I have no objections to all feedback. I just wish there was a lot more depth in the feedback – one that arises of real, true use of TAD.

I am possibly not very good at social media marketing and other forms of publicity. Also, not many seem to look suspiciously at the main person who developed the system who is also exhorting the theoretical benefits of it, and also wanting to support people using it this.

To be honest, I did sell a few copies to some friends (and I am eternally grateful for their support) quite early. One of the very first use of checking of architectural projects for compliance was done by CIDCO at Navi Mumbai long time back (around 1990) using TAD. But it fell into disuse after some foreign software pushed with their marketing might into India.

I soon realized that such a route is not going to help the mass of architects out there.

Last few years, I was closely examining how the software industry works. Some business tactics and strategies in this industry are not very salubrious to put it mildly. For example; the coteries that are formed by software industries often attempt to manipulate (often succeeding) data standards in any particular specialist area. This is semantically equivalent to people who own iron mines, controlling the property of the iron – it sets into motion all kinds of effects further down the line when the ore is used.

After several failed attempts to bridge the gap between the commercial and the ideal, I decided to take this following route: I want rest the case in front of frustrated architects all over who have been sold down the river when it comes to BIM – both in terms of underlying theories as well the commercial aspects.

I definitely do not want to do what other BIM companies do, in terms of commercial exposure, rather, desperate push of such a work. Though I do have plans to release few of the modules commercially, the main ones that protect the objectives of this project, will never be sold for money. Why, if there are good ideas on how this entire project can sustain itself, I will not sell anything at all.

But this is not just and appeal for giving me money. Not at all:

The software architecture of TAD in done in such a way that all users of TAD can also make money. The following is the incomplete list on how you can do that

• TAD model files made by you can be sold through one of our several servers
• You can write addons (also known as probes) written in ARDELA (ARchitectural DEsign LAnguage, the built-in language of TAD) and sell those
• You can make special tutorials and documentation and sell those
• TAD model files will soon be used in another kind of software developed on the HuddleDen Platform which is being promoted by another software company of mine. You can charge a rental for using your TAD model – much like the way a landlord would charge a rental for using their premises
• … any other ideas? I will surely listen!

And just so that the ideal is not forgotten, you can still do all of the above free of cost to others if you feel the need to share your efforts without restrictions