Archinect
anchor

revit graphic quality

Apr 14 '14 10 Last Comment
chigurh
Apr 14, 14 11:45 am

sucks.

The software is marketed to have appropriate graphic quality right out of the box with very few tweaks.  I have gone through the line weights and fills made a bunch of modifications and the drawings still lack any real pop or graphic quality.  

I find that in detailing specifically and even enlarged wall sections, I have to trace over the entire detail, override line styles, use a ton of fill regions to make them look half way decent. This totally defeats the purpose of BIM, since any change in the model at the detail would mean having to manually change all of the graphics.  

How have other revit users dealt with these issues?  

I realize this is a fairly new software, and when you look at CAD drawings from the first releases, they were just a flat and shitty. Maybe it will just be built into the software over time or architects will learn to adapt to make the drawings look better?  

I think the software is awesome, but I just cant get over how shitty the drawings look.  

 

grneggandsam
Apr 14, 14 12:09 pm

Ever tried vectorworks or archiCAD?  I've used Reivt - it just dumbs everything down that's easy anyway.  It seems like most people still have to draft out the more specific details. It might be good for estimating quantities / costs (for a GC's estimate), though I'm not sure if I've ever seen it used this way.  I think Vectorworks gives the best control of lineweight while integrating BIM.

spqr
Apr 14, 14 12:18 pm

We use ArchiCAD. Really nice drawings.

chigurh
Apr 14, 14 12:26 pm

The only thing that would keep me from switching to ArchiCAD is that Autodesk is making a huge push to become industry standard.  More and more, consultant teams (structural, MEP) are switching to Revit and despite the shitty graphic quality mentioned, one of the major advantages is coordination between disciplines.  My understanding is that this is not possible with ArchiCAD, short of giving consultants 2d underlays and working it all out the old non-BIM way.  

grneggandsam
Apr 14, 14 4:14 pm

We are the architects - shouldn't we be leading the industry in the best direction instead of toward the corporations that try to monopolize the software?  We need open-source BIM platforms - that use a standard file format which can be used by any software developer that intends to compete in that space.  That would keep costs low and quality high.

grneggandsam
Apr 14, 14 4:16 pm

Think about why HTML succeeded and other web development file formats failed - it was because it was open source. the same should be true of BIM software.

Quan Nyen Tran
Apr 14, 14 10:10 pm

I have a dream

geezertect
Apr 15, 14 12:04 pm

I think the software is awesome, but I just cant get over how shitty the drawings look

What's wrong with this picture????

proto
Apr 15, 14 12:15 pm

i totally get it but

let go of the graphics - design the building not the documents

 

do your good looking drawings in something else and then document the database (that's all revit is in the end) to get it built

chigurh
Apr 15, 14 1:15 pm

proto, not sure how I feel about that comment.

When the field crew has as set of drawings that reads well and pops, I think you get a better built project and have less questions from the field.  

There definitely a certain level of architectural masturbation that goes on with overly beautiful construction drawings, but there is no way revit graphics are acceptable out of the box unless you are doing a big-box store or something of that caliber.  

geezertect
Apr 15, 14 5:34 pm

^  You're absolutely right.  Documents that don't "read" are more subject to misinterpretation.  And guess who inevitably is going to get the blame and be invited to the party when the cost of change orders is allocated.  There is no excuse for Revit not to produce drawings of good quality out of the box, considering the cost of the program.

  • ×Search in:


Please wait... loading
Please wait... loading