Portia.

If you're looking at a model that needs to be on site in four weeks and it isn't — then yes, almost certainly. If you're at the phase where geometry needs to stop being approximate and start being exact — permit, fabrication, execution — then probably also yes. Scale doesn't really matter, building type is also completely free. What matters is whether there's a gap between where the design currently lives and where the model needs to be for the next phase.

Honestly, however makes sense for the project. In-house, fully remote, occasionally on-site, project-based, longer-term — we'd just figure out what fits. You stay on the project, I look at what the geometry actually needs at that point, and we set something up from there. You keep full authorship and IP throughout. The overhead of adding this kind of "capacity and capability extension" to your team is genuinely minimal. Plus it mirrors the usual, fluctuating project loads of our industry.

Not at all — it's just my own toolset running in the background. What it does is make sure every dimension and geometric relationship gets validated programmatically - wherever needed. You never have to see or touch any of it, if you don't want to. What you get is clean models and plans that have been checked.

Yes, and it comes up pretty regularly. Things like document automation, viewport logic, parametric validators, project-specific solvers — components your team can use directly without knowing what's deep inside them. I always start with a mindmap of the workflow so we're aligned before a single line of code gets written. Plus everything ships with documentation and ready-made examples - you just use the plug-n-play module.