Most often, partners have no complaints about the English interface
Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2024 9:18 am
How exactly do you look for partners? Are you considering any other countries now?
We looked for partners in all countries where there is some construction activity and where open sources show interest in BIM.
We looked at Italy, France, and even tried to work out a Spanish partner. We also tried the American market, but realized that it was still difficult and expensive for us. Instead, we began to consider South America and found a partner in Brazil. There was also one from Southeast Asia, but then the COVID-19 pandemic prevented cooperation.
Do you do additional interface localization for countries where English is not the main language?
Although some of them initially offer to localize the interface into the local language. In phone number in vietnamese principle, it is really more convenient for users. And even partners took on this task on their own.
But interface localization is a very complex and labor-intensive task. That's why most people end up with an English interface. Especially when they see the volume and complexity of localizing the reference manual into the local language.
The last question about the foreign market: is the design kitchen abroad different from the Russian direction you are used to?
In general, it is different. Foreign colleagues have a different approach to the levels of design detailing. Their designer makes a fairly low level of detailing, comparable to Russian conceptual design. That is, it is even lower than Stage "P".
Everything that concerns working documentation is the contractor's concern. He has his own engineers, his own approach, and he makes the detailing already with an understanding of the technology of construction and installation works. Unlike our situation, when the same designer or another specialist with a similar set of qualifications, but not knowing the technology that the construction company will use, is brought to the working documentation.
Can you say that any of these approaches is correct? Or are they just different?
Both approaches lead to the fact that the object will eventually be built. And we should not forget that foreign companies also have problems. When using 2D drawings, people also made mistakes. With the transition to models, the problems have decreased.
However, they have one peculiarity: initially, when drawing up estimates, they add a certain amount for unforeseen expenses, about 30%.
By the way, regarding Renga’s positioning, I’d like to tell you about a few more features:
Firstly, our product is the best in its class in preparing models for issuance in IFC format with various settings, including in accordance with the requirements of state examinations. We have deeply immersed ourselves in the topic of export and can do it better than anyone else: we know all the geometric representations, all the rules and settings of attribute information and category comparison.
Secondly, we have created a mechanism for real-time collaboration in one model. In most products of a similar class, work is built on the principle of a reference approach and synchronization by pressing a button. Which often led and leads to desynchronization and collisions. Yes, you can perform a collision check, collect a consolidated model once a week, etc., and fix everything. But I believe that this established approach should be changed and we should switch to modern technologies of collaboration.
The only solution for simultaneous work with an information model that I can remember is Onshape. The founder of the project is Jon Hirschtick, who is directly related to the birth of Revit. Subsequently, the project was sold to PTC and is now promoted under the Creo brand. And the whole world is simply delighted with it.
So it turns out that we were one of the first in the world to create such functionality, at least in the BIM world.
There is an opinion that this approach to working with the model negatively affects productivity. Do you agree with this?
No, of course I don't agree. We certainly need to work on improving performance. But the trick is that reference approaches can, on the contrary, lead to worse performance, because the system will need to spend a lot of effort on transactions, on extracting the model and information from references. And the more files, the more effort.
I often hear: "If only we could make a link and improve productivity!" However, if you need to solve problems, for example, in collaboration: see each other's changes, synchronize your developments, etc., then it is better to concentrate on this.
We looked for partners in all countries where there is some construction activity and where open sources show interest in BIM.
We looked at Italy, France, and even tried to work out a Spanish partner. We also tried the American market, but realized that it was still difficult and expensive for us. Instead, we began to consider South America and found a partner in Brazil. There was also one from Southeast Asia, but then the COVID-19 pandemic prevented cooperation.
Do you do additional interface localization for countries where English is not the main language?
Although some of them initially offer to localize the interface into the local language. In phone number in vietnamese principle, it is really more convenient for users. And even partners took on this task on their own.
But interface localization is a very complex and labor-intensive task. That's why most people end up with an English interface. Especially when they see the volume and complexity of localizing the reference manual into the local language.
The last question about the foreign market: is the design kitchen abroad different from the Russian direction you are used to?
In general, it is different. Foreign colleagues have a different approach to the levels of design detailing. Their designer makes a fairly low level of detailing, comparable to Russian conceptual design. That is, it is even lower than Stage "P".
Everything that concerns working documentation is the contractor's concern. He has his own engineers, his own approach, and he makes the detailing already with an understanding of the technology of construction and installation works. Unlike our situation, when the same designer or another specialist with a similar set of qualifications, but not knowing the technology that the construction company will use, is brought to the working documentation.
Can you say that any of these approaches is correct? Or are they just different?
Both approaches lead to the fact that the object will eventually be built. And we should not forget that foreign companies also have problems. When using 2D drawings, people also made mistakes. With the transition to models, the problems have decreased.
However, they have one peculiarity: initially, when drawing up estimates, they add a certain amount for unforeseen expenses, about 30%.
By the way, regarding Renga’s positioning, I’d like to tell you about a few more features:
Firstly, our product is the best in its class in preparing models for issuance in IFC format with various settings, including in accordance with the requirements of state examinations. We have deeply immersed ourselves in the topic of export and can do it better than anyone else: we know all the geometric representations, all the rules and settings of attribute information and category comparison.
Secondly, we have created a mechanism for real-time collaboration in one model. In most products of a similar class, work is built on the principle of a reference approach and synchronization by pressing a button. Which often led and leads to desynchronization and collisions. Yes, you can perform a collision check, collect a consolidated model once a week, etc., and fix everything. But I believe that this established approach should be changed and we should switch to modern technologies of collaboration.
The only solution for simultaneous work with an information model that I can remember is Onshape. The founder of the project is Jon Hirschtick, who is directly related to the birth of Revit. Subsequently, the project was sold to PTC and is now promoted under the Creo brand. And the whole world is simply delighted with it.
So it turns out that we were one of the first in the world to create such functionality, at least in the BIM world.
There is an opinion that this approach to working with the model negatively affects productivity. Do you agree with this?
No, of course I don't agree. We certainly need to work on improving performance. But the trick is that reference approaches can, on the contrary, lead to worse performance, because the system will need to spend a lot of effort on transactions, on extracting the model and information from references. And the more files, the more effort.
I often hear: "If only we could make a link and improve productivity!" However, if you need to solve problems, for example, in collaboration: see each other's changes, synchronize your developments, etc., then it is better to concentrate on this.