Since all powerful Autodesk entered the Virtual Building scene, about 6 years ago, with the acquisition and subsequent publicity of Revit, we have seen, especially in the EUA, an enormous mediatization of the BIM (Building Information Modeling) concept.
It should be pointed out that, long before Autocad owner joined in this adventure, others have been working hard on the Virtual Building.
Bentley and Graphisoft , to name but two, have been defining the rules for three-dimensional data base handling, as applied to design and construction.
When these software manufacturers saw the American colossus enter their market, with the subtleness of a elephant in heat inside a porcelain store, they had no other choice than to go along, claiming loudly that Revit was not the wheel invention, but only another version of Bentley Architecture and ArchiCAD .
With all this buzz about the integrated information model, with it's embedded data base, which can be used for testing (acoustic, thermal, illumination), for construction (automated quantity billing), and for the building management, they apparently forgot one thing: Drawing automation.
Software developers and BIM gurus apparently try to undervalue automatic drawing production, putting the emphasis on numeric data.
But, honestly, what made most of us BIManiacs adopt parametric design software? My bet is on drawing automation.
I realize that full automation of all the drawings (floor plans, sections and details), with no 2D fiddlings, is still a chimera. Even the 95% automation we can squeeze out of any BIM software requires a huge effort in method, discipline and modeling.
But that should not be a reason for software developers to give up!
My guess is, 100% drawing automation is really a bugger, on the code level, so they are throwing all kinds of things to distract us.
Barring very big construction projects, priority goes for drawing automation, without errors and constant updating.
Otherwise, sooner or later, I will be forced to hire a drafter (or a architect trainee, which is always cheaper...).