Toni, both don't even play the same sport. Sketchup is dirt-simple to learn but too many students never leave it to learn other softwares. Revit/BIM is getting some decent traction in many markets but remember that knowing software does not make one an architect or designer... it makes one a cad monkey. Learn all the software available while you can.
I'll second Non Sequitur these aren't used for the production of the same product.
Sketchup is for quick early models, you can get some decent renderings using other software or kick out sketchup quality images.
Revit is for CDs. I'm not a Revit user but in my use of it in the past it was way to technical to do sd level models. others that use it regularly may disagree
You can use Sketchup and Layout as a quasi-BIM platform and do an entire set of construction docs with it, but you have to be very systematic about how you set up and build the model. Sketchup is actually a very powerful modeling tool, but the quality of your output is highly dependent on the quality of the user's input. Most of the poor results you see from Sketchup are a result of poor modeling skills and lack of discipline. That's more common with SKP because it's so much easier to just pick up and use, so you get lots of neophytes using it to make crap.
Revit, on the other hand, does most of the cleanup work for you behind the scenes, so you can be sloppy and it matters less. But it also has a much steeper learning curve. Where Revit really shines is in coordination and data extraction. You can approximate that in Sketchup by extensive use of component logic and the outliner, as well as the use of attribute assignment, but it will never be as fluid as Revit's built-in database.
Both of them require tons of work in 2D drawing space to get any decent 2D drawings out of them. There is not yet a program that can generate quality 2D drawings from a model without lots of additional work.
Two totally different program with two completely different uses.
Sep 4, 14 1:19 pm ·
·
SneakyPete,
What you said is not entirely true. You can use it the same manner you use AutoCad to an extent. When you do floor over floor even in the days of paper & pencil/ink drafting, it wasn't a problem because you were trained to be attentive to detail to the point that it was second nature. When it comes to houses, it is not really an issue. If you can't be coordinated and attentive to detail enough for a house, you don't belong practicing as an architect, designer or even a draftsman / CAD Technician.
Remember, we used to do overlay drafting. Especially with clear mylar acetate film. Highly translucent vellum was chosen for a reason. So what's excuse? There are strategies to get what we want. What do you think light tables are for (or a nice big pane of smooth glass).
One other thing to account for is that Revit's export work flow can be a pain due to the encryption on it's materials library, though this is often more of an issue outside of architecture.
"Most of the poor results you see from Sketchup are a result of poor modeling skills and lack of discipline."
Not in my experience. Most of the poor results from the use of SU result from using it long after it should be abandoned during a project resulting in a fractured project team working parallel in two separate packages. This results in a lot of double modelling and missing design changes in whichever package wasn't updated.
Richard, I made no claim to have a universal opinion. Everything you said is true. Revit has helped ME understand the complexity of coordination that buildings require. I have also seen people who use Revit as glorified SU resulting in, as gwharton said, sloppy work.
A competent architect can get a building designed on a cocktail napkin (or 100). My beef with SU is when firms decide to go with Revit yet teams stick with SU due to a perceived benefit or simply due to an unwillingness to use new tools. It's CAD all over again, IMO.
Ideally I think you should be comfortable with both. I just finished school, which never forced us to go with any particular software. In fact we didn't have a revit specific class until my last year of grad school, so I never learned the program all that well. On the flip side, people who got comfortable with revit used it at every level of the process, which made for very bland final projects because they never really pushed the program because it's pretty difficult to do if you don't have too. I got pretty good with sketchup and autocad, leading to some good results, but I think if you get good with revit, push the program to make it do what you want it to do (it's hard...) you'll get great results at the end. However, I still think starting the design process in a medium that is simple, and allows more freedom is the best way to go.
At first it gave the impression of a claim of a universal opinion but thanks for clarifying that you didn't intend it as such. Fair enough, we're good.
I think BIM is a tool that requires its own approach just as it was for CAD when hand drafting. There are similarities and differences but ultimately to achieve the same basic end goal. SketchUp and Revit are different tools requiring different purposes.
Before architectural drawings on paper, we made drawings in sand or dirt and made architectural models of some sort and verbal communications on the site. After all, using papyrus was not a simple process and therefore was not likely used.
BIM is its own kind of computer aided design tool distinct from conventional CAD tools like Autocad and therefore requires a different approach to designing with computers.... that is what CAD basically means. It can be even Microsoft Paint but some tools are better for our design purposes than others.
SketchUp as it implies was designed to give quick and simply architectural designing so people can rapidly see the design visualized quickly.
Sketchup + a conventional CAD program is a suitable arrangement while Revit.... not so sure unless you want a rapid rendering and connecting into Google Earth. I used SketchUp for exactly that basis, before so as to visualize the design in place of context that Google Earth provides us a sense of.
i guess you cannot compare sketchup with revit in any manner..because sketchup is still new when it comes to BIM environment...and cannot compete with revit with that...
i am a sketchup user and used it a lot of times to create construction documents... and it is really easy to learn with its direct approach to everything... but you can not fasten your pace without downloading accompanied plugins to boost your work...
it is like a tiny tool box that you have to fill in with additional tools for your everyday task...
sketchup cannot compete with revit but it can compete with autocad... it you want to compare revit try tekla structures.. well it like autodesk vs trimble ^^
^But it's not even a vector based software. I can't see CDs being possible with anything beyond small residential projects, and then you might as well step up to archicad.
Is it just me, or do most of the new buildings in any given city look like Sketchup renderings? It's like how when 10-15 years ago every architecture student learned Maya and suddenly every school project was a blob. To what extent should the tools shape the project, and are too many architects using Sketchup as a crutch to mask mediocre design?
^kinda like when the triangle and parallel bar resulted in a million tartan grid designs...
Although I will agree... alot of new multifamily in Denver looks like a sketchup model :p Could be the emergence of cheap planar materials that aren't completely terrible... like lp smartside.
I don't think it's a problem with the software per se (there are plenty of excellent projects out there that have been documented in Revit), but I've seen a number of offices where people get placed into lead design roles based on what software they know rather than how well they can actually design.
Oh it's 100% the fault of the designer... but when a designer lacks the talent to put their own signature on a building, the obvious signature of the software is there for all to see.
There's so much "default" developer crap sprouting up in Portland right now. It's maddening.
david nailed it - the easiest tools shaping the design. you gotta push software limits if you don't want your project to just look like a giant turd as illustrated above.
both defaults are equally as bad. shitty uninspired garbage... what the general public wants.
The relevance of many of my colleagues to learn anything but sketch up has significantly reduced their roles in the larger and more important projects available in the office.
Some good discussion here. This thread should be called "Apples vs Oranges".
As an Architect, accuracy is key. Even though I'm younger and came up through the digital age, I believe design should start with freehand sketch (or crumpled paper) then move into the digital once a concept is discernable.
I've used sketchup a ton. While great for viz, NEVER use it to document. Been on Revit for about 7 years or so now and ... think it's great. There is a steeper learning curve. Revit has same capabilities and then some over Sketchup. With the intro of FormIt, a sketchup like modeling program compatible with Revit there's no need for sketchup.
I've seen companies so entrenched in sketchup they develop entire buildings and floor plans in sketchup, once schematics were approved, then threw it out and rebuilt it in Revit. Scary thing was, the designer kept fiddling around in sketchup, and having others scrambling to add last minute design changes to the docs (in revit), usually day before permit or major presentation.
Mar 19, 18 12:51 am ·
·
joseffischer
I know you resurrected the thread, but the comment about designing in another program or even sketching out renderings to send to the client days (1 day) before the bid set is due really hit home. I'm tired of that. How can I even have a QC period (supposedly the two weeks between 90% CDs used for the permit set and the bid set) if you're still designing like it's DDs. Never you mind the part where I think doing QC on a 90% set (which is more often somewhere between 70-85%) is inherently flawed. Anytime during QC where my redline is akin to "where are the roofing details" means there needs to be another round of QC after the team ACTUALLY finishes the drawings.... sorry, end rant.
Mar 20, 18 9:30 am ·
·
SneakyPete
That's software independent, isn't it? If your design isn't complete it doesn't matter what method you use to document it of you're going to change it the day before delivery.
Mar 20, 18 12:03 pm ·
·
joseffischer
In a sense, it is software independent, but the correlation from redlines and drawing sketches to Autocad seemed to be less of a leap for senior members of the firm than these days. I get a lot of kids telling their seniors "that's not how revit works" or "that's not possible in revit" and I have too many project architects who haven't demanded the juniors print out a set and redline the drawings. I've worked at other firms that were more vertically integrated, here, we typically do a lot more "handing off" than I've previously dealt with, and given my skillset, I often show up somewhere during CDs and remain through CA.
Mar 20, 18 12:54 pm ·
·
joseffischer
My typical experience these days goes like: "So here's the xx% set (whatever number you use, it's not like that's ever where the drawings actually are) we have bid drawings do X (never more than a month, most typically in a week or two weeks) Please coordinate with PA so-and-so. The QC/CA work will be done by so-and-so (sometimes me). He'll need a 90% set to QC ASAP. Then when I get with the PA and the juniors about the project to get up to speed, it's like they haven't talked to each other for the last 2 months, and the PA is still in SDs. I've been handed a printed set (50%) once. Most of the set were revit placeholder details and/or blank viewports thrown on sheets.
Mar 20, 18 12:58 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
There needs to be a road map up front. Revit placeholders are awesome until they never get completed. I despise percentage deadlines; not only are they bullshit, they get put on contracts and contract documents which can bite you in the ass when someone asks why your 100% set is missing something.
Mar 20, 18 1:03 pm ·
·
joseffischer
Agreed. I definitely have my preference of PAs to work with based on how detailed their SD/DD narratives are. Some of them even keep a running tab of products/materials used on the job and sorted by spec number. Then I have other PAs who don't know the difference between roofing products. If it's not TPO, they don't know what to do with it. Their responses to half my questions are "it's TBD, we'll choose it during shops" or "whatever gets us the 30-year warranty".
In Revit the workflow start with in place massing or mass family creation. The massing creation is as intuitive and fast to create, and with many more form creation possibilities than SketchUp, but the biggest advantage is that you may be able to convert that mass in just a few clicks in a model ready to show in cad drawings.
Jun 13, 19 2:32 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Sketchup vs Revit
Which one is better Revit or SketchUp?
have you considered open office?
Toni, both don't even play the same sport. Sketchup is dirt-simple to learn but too many students never leave it to learn other softwares. Revit/BIM is getting some decent traction in many markets but remember that knowing software does not make one an architect or designer... it makes one a cad monkey. Learn all the software available while you can.
I'll second Non Sequitur these aren't used for the production of the same product.
Sketchup is for quick early models, you can get some decent renderings using other software or kick out sketchup quality images.
Revit is for CDs. I'm not a Revit user but in my use of it in the past it was way to technical to do sd level models. others that use it regularly may disagree
SketchUp is being used for residential construction docs. SketchUp for CDs might be a good alternative for the small practitioner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhAe8-Em2yc
Sketchup is a great way to get trapped with a 3d model that doesn't match the current floor plans with no fee left to make the necessary changes.
At least that's my experience.
You can use Sketchup and Layout as a quasi-BIM platform and do an entire set of construction docs with it, but you have to be very systematic about how you set up and build the model. Sketchup is actually a very powerful modeling tool, but the quality of your output is highly dependent on the quality of the user's input. Most of the poor results you see from Sketchup are a result of poor modeling skills and lack of discipline. That's more common with SKP because it's so much easier to just pick up and use, so you get lots of neophytes using it to make crap.
Revit, on the other hand, does most of the cleanup work for you behind the scenes, so you can be sloppy and it matters less. But it also has a much steeper learning curve. Where Revit really shines is in coordination and data extraction. You can approximate that in Sketchup by extensive use of component logic and the outliner, as well as the use of attribute assignment, but it will never be as fluid as Revit's built-in database.
Both of them require tons of work in 2D drawing space to get any decent 2D drawings out of them. There is not yet a program that can generate quality 2D drawings from a model without lots of additional work.
Two totally different program with two completely different uses.
SneakyPete,
What you said is not entirely true. You can use it the same manner you use AutoCad to an extent. When you do floor over floor even in the days of paper & pencil/ink drafting, it wasn't a problem because you were trained to be attentive to detail to the point that it was second nature. When it comes to houses, it is not really an issue. If you can't be coordinated and attentive to detail enough for a house, you don't belong practicing as an architect, designer or even a draftsman / CAD Technician.
Remember, we used to do overlay drafting. Especially with clear mylar acetate film. Highly translucent vellum was chosen for a reason. So what's excuse? There are strategies to get what we want. What do you think light tables are for (or a nice big pane of smooth glass).
One other thing to account for is that Revit's export work flow can be a pain due to the encryption on it's materials library, though this is often more of an issue outside of architecture.
"Most of the poor results you see from Sketchup are a result of poor modeling skills and lack of discipline."
Not in my experience. Most of the poor results from the use of SU result from using it long after it should be abandoned during a project resulting in a fractured project team working parallel in two separate packages. This results in a lot of double modelling and missing design changes in whichever package wasn't updated.
Richard, I made no claim to have a universal opinion. Everything you said is true. Revit has helped ME understand the complexity of coordination that buildings require. I have also seen people who use Revit as glorified SU resulting in, as gwharton said, sloppy work.
A competent architect can get a building designed on a cocktail napkin (or 100). My beef with SU is when firms decide to go with Revit yet teams stick with SU due to a perceived benefit or simply due to an unwillingness to use new tools. It's CAD all over again, IMO.
Ideally I think you should be comfortable with both. I just finished school, which never forced us to go with any particular software. In fact we didn't have a revit specific class until my last year of grad school, so I never learned the program all that well. On the flip side, people who got comfortable with revit used it at every level of the process, which made for very bland final projects because they never really pushed the program because it's pretty difficult to do if you don't have too. I got pretty good with sketchup and autocad, leading to some good results, but I think if you get good with revit, push the program to make it do what you want it to do (it's hard...) you'll get great results at the end. However, I still think starting the design process in a medium that is simple, and allows more freedom is the best way to go.
"I think you should be comfortable with both."
Absolutely true.
SneakyPete,
At first it gave the impression of a claim of a universal opinion but thanks for clarifying that you didn't intend it as such. Fair enough, we're good.
I think BIM is a tool that requires its own approach just as it was for CAD when hand drafting. There are similarities and differences but ultimately to achieve the same basic end goal. SketchUp and Revit are different tools requiring different purposes.
Before architectural drawings on paper, we made drawings in sand or dirt and made architectural models of some sort and verbal communications on the site. After all, using papyrus was not a simple process and therefore was not likely used.
BIM is its own kind of computer aided design tool distinct from conventional CAD tools like Autocad and therefore requires a different approach to designing with computers.... that is what CAD basically means. It can be even Microsoft Paint but some tools are better for our design purposes than others.
SketchUp as it implies was designed to give quick and simply architectural designing so people can rapidly see the design visualized quickly.
Sketchup + a conventional CAD program is a suitable arrangement while Revit.... not so sure unless you want a rapid rendering and connecting into Google Earth. I used SketchUp for exactly that basis, before so as to visualize the design in place of context that Google Earth provides us a sense of.
i guess you cannot compare sketchup with revit in any manner..because sketchup is still new when it comes to BIM environment...and cannot compete with revit with that...
i am a sketchup user and used it a lot of times to create construction documents... and it is really easy to learn with its direct approach to everything... but you can not fasten your pace without downloading accompanied plugins to boost your work...
it is like a tiny tool box that you have to fill in with additional tools for your everyday task...
sketchup cannot compete with revit but it can compete with autocad... it you want to compare revit try tekla structures.. well it like autodesk vs trimble ^^
^But it's not even a vector based software. I can't see CDs being possible with anything beyond small residential projects, and then you might as well step up to archicad.
I'm really interested in seeing what a set of Sketchup CD's looks like.
which ones better? A Camel Cart or a Toyota Camry?
Is it just me, or do most of the new buildings in any given city look like Sketchup renderings? It's like how when 10-15 years ago every architecture student learned Maya and suddenly every school project was a blob. To what extent should the tools shape the project, and are too many architects using Sketchup as a crutch to mask mediocre design?
^kinda like when the triangle and parallel bar resulted in a million tartan grid designs... Although I will agree... alot of new multifamily in Denver looks like a sketchup model :p Could be the emergence of cheap planar materials that aren't completely terrible... like lp smartside.
Hahaa David, this is so true. Even the colors (the typical sketchup gray, yellow, off-white etc) seem like Sketchup.
Im waiting for the day when someone will intersect the building edges like the typical crappy sketchup edge mode meant to represent hand drawing...
Spot on David. So much "default" architecture out there.
Although which is worse: Sketchup default or Revit default?
That's a grab bag of mashed ass, right there.
I don't think it's a problem with the software per se (there are plenty of excellent projects out there that have been documented in Revit), but I've seen a number of offices where people get placed into lead design roles based on what software they know rather than how well they can actually design.
Oh it's 100% the fault of the designer... but when a designer lacks the talent to put their own signature on a building, the obvious signature of the software is there for all to see.
There's so much "default" developer crap sprouting up in Portland right now. It's maddening.
david nailed it - the easiest tools shaping the design. you gotta push software limits if you don't want your project to just look like a giant turd as illustrated above.
both defaults are equally as bad. shitty uninspired garbage... what the general public wants.
sketchup is for kids and housewives.
If you wanna be relevant you gotta put on your big boy pants and get down with real 3d.
Some good discussion here. This thread should be called "Apples vs Oranges".
As an Architect, accuracy is key. Even though I'm younger and came up through the digital age, I believe design should start with freehand sketch (or crumpled paper) then move into the digital once a concept is discernable.
I've used sketchup a ton. While great for viz, NEVER use it to document. Been on Revit for about 7 years or so now and ... think it's great. There is a steeper learning curve. Revit has same capabilities and then some over Sketchup. With the intro of FormIt, a sketchup like modeling program compatible with Revit there's no need for sketchup.
I've seen companies so entrenched in sketchup they develop entire buildings and floor plans in sketchup, once schematics were approved, then threw it out and rebuilt it in Revit. Scary thing was, the designer kept fiddling around in sketchup, and having others scrambling to add last minute design changes to the docs (in revit), usually day before permit or major presentation.
I know you resurrected the thread, but the comment about designing in another program or even sketching out renderings to send to the client days (1 day) before the bid set is due really hit home. I'm tired of that. How can I even have a QC period (supposedly the two weeks between 90% CDs used for the permit set and the bid set) if you're still designing like it's DDs. Never you mind the part where I think doing QC on a 90% set (which is more often somewhere between 70-85%) is inherently flawed. Anytime during QC where my redline is akin to "where are the roofing details" means there needs to be another round of QC after the team ACTUALLY finishes the drawings.... sorry, end rant.
That's software independent, isn't it? If your design isn't complete it doesn't matter what method you use to document it of you're going to change it the day before delivery.
In a sense, it is software independent, but the correlation from redlines and drawing sketches to Autocad seemed to be less of a leap for senior members of the firm than these days. I get a lot of kids telling their seniors "that's not how revit works" or "that's not possible in revit" and I have too many project architects who haven't demanded the juniors print out a set and redline the drawings. I've worked at other firms that were more vertically integrated, here, we typically do a lot more "handing off" than I've previously dealt with, and given my skillset, I often show up somewhere during CDs and remain through CA.
My typical experience these days goes like: "So here's the xx% set (whatever number you use, it's not like that's ever where the drawings actually are) we have bid drawings do X (never more than a month, most typically in a week or two weeks) Please coordinate with PA so-and-so. The QC/CA work will be done by so-and-so (sometimes me). He'll need a 90% set to QC ASAP. Then when I get with the PA and the juniors about the project to get up to speed, it's like they haven't talked to each other for the last 2 months, and the PA is still in SDs. I've been handed a printed set (50%) once. Most of the set were revit placeholder details and/or blank viewports thrown on sheets.
There needs to be a road map up front. Revit placeholders are awesome until they never get completed. I despise percentage deadlines; not only are they bullshit, they get put on contracts and contract documents which can bite you in the ass when someone asks why your 100% set is missing something.
Agreed. I definitely have my preference of PAs to work with based on how detailed their SD/DD narratives are. Some of them even keep a running tab of products/materials used on the job and sorted by spec number. Then I have other PAs who don't know the difference between roofing products. If it's not TPO, they don't know what to do with it. Their responses to half my questions are "it's TBD, we'll choose it during shops" or "whatever gets us the 30-year warranty".
In Revit the workflow start with in place massing or mass family creation. The massing creation is as intuitive and fast to create, and with many more form creation possibilities than SketchUp, but the biggest advantage is that you may be able to convert that mass in just a few clicks in a model ready to show in cad drawings.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.