Tekla Structures 16

This review looks at enhancements in the new release of Tekla’s BIM application for structural engineering, including new role-based task interfaces for different types of users, a new Mini-toolbar that allows quick editing of element properties and position, easy access to a large amount of learning resources, a new tool to convert IFC objects imported in reference models to native Tekla objects, a  new free Model Reviewer tool for collaborative design review of Tekla models, and many additional improvements in modeling, analysis, drawing, collaboration, and interoperability.

URL: http://www.aecbytes.com/review/2010/TeklaStructures16.html

5 thoughts on “Tekla Structures 16

  1. In AECbytes Product Review on Tekla Structures 16, you very rightly raise the issue of design optimization in structural engineering. You end the review with the observation that ‘in the longer term, it would be great to see Tekla working on providing design optimization for structural engineering’.

    In fact, for past many years, structural designers have been waiting avidly and continue to wait for design optimization capabilities being available in structural software. The good thing is that RISA now provides optimization capabilities, albeit somewhat limited in its scope, in structural steel design. So I am happy to find that a beginning has been made, and we hope we will get fuller optimization capabilities in most structural software in the not too distant future.

    Design optimization has always been important simply because it saves material and results in more economic design. However, it has now become doubly important as it also reduces the carbon footprint. So the providers of structural software now have an added reason to hasten the design optimization process.

  2. As always, very insightful and comprehensive review. The only thing I find missing (and I know this has been debated before) is some indication of how this software stacks up against others in the same category. I would like to have some kind of rating, A, B, or whatever. It can be rough.

    You have the pros and cons which are good, but do not indicate or compare to other software, but I think that would add a value to the review.

    I feel it is important to have someone that has had the opportunity of trying different software quite extensively to compare them. I am aware that this is very tricky and you always tend to compare to the one that you are most familiar with.

  3. In response to John’s comment, ARCHline.XP has still to come on my radar screen, so I don’t expect to review it any time soon. In any case, the number of products available in AEC far exceeds the number I can actually review. I try my best, but there’s no way that I can cover everything.

    In response to Haraldur, I would like to say that a comparison of different applications can be easily gleaned by going through each of their individual reviews. I do occasionally mention how a feature of an application might stack up against a competitor, but it would be too time-consuming to do a side by side comparison of every product’s features with all of its competitors. Also, AECbytes does not “rate” products as different criteria are important to different users, so the ratings game becomes more of a marketing ploy than anything else. What I do attempt to do is provide as much information as possible about the products to enable users to make a more educated decision about what application would work well for them.

    Thank you to Hirak for reinforcing the importance of optimization in the future development of AEC applications.

Comments are closed.