I must say I completely agree

I can maybe see what you're talking about if you're talking about Revit/BIM/CAD/AutoCAD versus hand drafting, but.... huh? How is AutoCAD or any 2D software more stimulating? I'm very much a hands-on person, but I don't get where you're going with this. Maybe the projects are boring? I mean at the end of the day, the important thing is that the content and how it is represented should be stimulating right?

Haha, so you also created the Revit Sucks thread huh? Actually wouldn't this been appropriate in that thread?

I agree with the abstract representation part very much. I like working in 3d, and it helps organize things and make sure everything is coordinated, but line drawing is just as important. I've said it before, but I think VectorWorks is the best program I've seen in terms of creating beautiful, clear drawings as well having a very good rendering and modeling program. It's all in the same program and is intuitive, so coordination between the two is easy, and the priority between 3d and line drawings is well-balanced. Whatever program is used, I think that is the key.

vectorworks selection tool blows.

Not an expert or anything but here's my boring response based on what i've experienced:

Revit – or BIM – is more about managing and coordinating a project in 3D “parametrically” so that as design revisions occur, updates are automatically incorporated into your documents and coordinated with consultants, etc. with the hopes of minimizing errors and omissions.

It’s less about “drawing” and more about “building” and “project management” with all the tedious families, work sets, links, settings, schedules/tables, data processing, etc.. (could understand how one would find all this boring).

In addition to CD’s, the parametric model will generate 2D and 3D presentations, sections, cost estimates, specifications, area calcs, etc., if planned properly.

Knowledge of construction, sequencing, and experience in the field is beneficial for those working - or “drawing” - in Revit especially with much of the of upfront work - planning, task assignments, design/decision making, and coordination with consultants, taking place during SD/DD.

It's not perfect, though i know folks who would prefer not to go back to "drafting in CAD" after working in Revit.

Have fun.

revit sucks blah blah blah

You can always draw 2D lines in Revit if you want to think about them for a while more abstractly before you make them into 3D objects.

I find working in Revit so much more stimulating than working in AutoCad (although at this point some of it is probably that it's still relatively new to me and I have to think about what I'm doing more).

Boring or not, I think the most terrifying thing about Revit is that it requires a certain amount of architectural sophistication to use. It is designed to eliminate a lot of the labor associated with document production, but it is also eliminating the role of picking up redlines that has traditionally been the entry level position in the profession. Architecture is transitioning to a scheme that has many fewer opportunities for recent graduates.

where is that revit kid, maybe he can bring some spunk to this tired ass thead

I completely agree. Having just started working in an office that is 100% revit, I'm finding the learning curve to be really steep. With CAD, I picked up redlines until I was brought on to a project team and taught from there. Now, I'm trudging my way through two phonebook-sized manuals trying to catch up. Does anyone have advice? I'm really out of my element.

Plus, I can't seem to make sense of all the mumbo jumbo about borrowing and relinquishing worksets, no matter how many times it is explained. Its ubiquity is inevitable and I'm glad to be learning it, but it just isn't useful in school. Revit wants to know about your column grid and door hardware at the same time you are figuring out a basic scheme...

ff, that's a pretty cool building you got right there. I couldn't judge it harshly in any capacity as I haven't seen enough.

But good work. It sucks when what you might think are meaningful contributions are overlooked.

thanks hill.. ...yeah,.. this is what i hear alot of in studio.."I didn't know revit could do that?"

houseofmud,

I was concerned with this issue initially. However, recent grads and interns we've had in our office have been Revit wizards (Cal Poly Students), training our staff (for free I might add) and finding themselves in positions of responsibility out of place for someone so fresh out of school...So, my new concern is actually how the knowledge of a software program can supersede "actual" building knowledge. This was probably an issue during the transistion to CAD as well...


Revit is a complex and powerful tool - quite suited for complex projects...yet, not all projects are complicated and not all projects can afford to be so front loaded...Demand for BIM skills from new grads will inevitably change the education, change their expectations, and change the job of the architect...If the trajectory of this career is as xaia says, (and I believe it is...) a significant portion of those not interested in being computer technicians and tech junkies will seek other careers...and the result will be a less diverse and dynamic work environment...

The strength of the profession lies in it's diversity...

We need more hands/minds in the pot, not less.

ff

just noticed your link...yeah, thats some fun stuff. We can do pretty much anything we want in Revit given enough time and direction...

In an office environment, however ... with deadlines and picky-ass principals and nervous clients...the workflow and presentability in BIM can be a real challenge. These days, unless you are working on a hospital or academic facility, clients can't stomach the added up front costs for speculative work....yada, yada..

... at least I don't have to think about dim styles, text styles , and ctb's like the old days. Obviously if you spend all day in revit, your gonna go home and write a thread complaining about it. If you think about it..Revit.... is still so beta... but I can see what you old timers might not like about it....maybe you should go back to the CAD work flow?

but mostly I agree, in an office flow..revit can really suck I am sure....but with a "revit to max (or rhino, or maya) workflow"it can be pretty powerful

I think the echo of the CAD work flow is the problem in our office now...Principals still dishing out the work, setting deadlines, and overselling to the clients like the CAD days...If we really were embracing BIM it might not be so bad - might not seem so contradictory - and also not be BORING/ frustrating.

Huge potential to make the job more exciting .. but the software and the management just aren't lined up..

Well, given the power and data generation behind BIM products... it would make planning a whole hell of a lot easier.

One of the problems I face is lack of data within a specificity of a building type. Given the more data that BIM can produce seamlessly, it is easier to establish the implied use in the property. By knowing how much of what and where, it becomes easier in a planning concept to establish a peak use.

The only problem is unless you're supplied with the data upfront, people who need this data have to recreate (on guessing) the calculations that BIM supplies by relevance.

If a better more accurate picture is provided, it means GIS data could be brought to a whole new level... although there does beg a privacy questions.

I've been trying to write a paper on the necessity of a different BIM... Block Information Modeling. I've seen promising things on a citywide and neighborhood wide concept... but I feel that a block is pretty much the "metric" equivalent of a base measure. And I'm trying to address everything as a time to money to power consumption ration-- like buying a loaf of bread is equivalent to buying two kilowatt hours.

I do dread the day when GIS technologies hit that point though. It'd be great on one hand but I think it would be dehumanizing to be singled out as an "inefficiency."

ff33...just saw your link.

you're going places.

In general, with BIM software (doesn't have to be Revit) the mindset has to change on the managing level, and it has not happened for everyone. I don't think those Revit saavy recent grads and interns are "getting it" because they're more tech-saavy, but because they're less ingrained with the "standard" workflow.

A lot of the upper management folk are looking at the numbers game in terms of "Better software should produce equivolent deliverables in less time, meaning better profit." But really, its not about producing equivolent deliverables, but BETTER deliverables. And I don't think in general we know how to sell higher quality deliverables (documentation, not design necessarily, although hard to completely separate the two) for higher $$, especially with the economy the way its been.

I think there will come a point in time in the not to distant future where BIM will raise the standard of care for the industry as it relates to errors and ommissions. Anyone not using BIM to minimize the e and o impacts will be subjecting themselves to greater liability.

I think Revit is awesome, but I don't have to use it to create construction sets everyday. Creating construction sets, by any means is boring and tedious and a big part of the reason I left architecture.

The biger picture, as Surjan used to say, using the machine to create 2D construction sets is like driving the Porsche to get groceries.

It's obivous computers , cad or even BIM will never replace the pencil. It's too disconnected. people can design with computers. But, their more likely to settle with their design sooner. Without exploring the design the way. Too many incremental steps are missed when designing on the computer. Since theres so much pressure to "just get it done" has led us to this.

In response to it being easier to pick up redlines in CAD for recent grads....yes, but that's because in Revit, picking up redlines requires a knowledge of what you're actually doing, not just moving a few lines. I think that it's a good thing to have that constant awareness of what that line actually is and how it impacts how the building is built. I've had to ask people in the office questions about construction in order to model things correctly. It takes more effort, but I feel like I've learned more from it that I would from picking up CAD redlines.

"using the machine to create 2D construction sets is like driving the Porsche to get groceries."

I'll take that to work today! ha

I suppose it depends how many groceries you need --

I'd agree with that, aa11 -- a redline process is still in place, it's just more involved. A long-time drafter in our office is freaking out for just that reason... can't mindlessly draft quite so easily in BIM.

I came from a Bentley background so I found REVIT to be an easy transition.

med.

i'm working with Bentley Architecture now.
How would you weigh the pros and cons between Bentley and REVIT?

someone said in a digital fabrication seminar (transcribed at the end of "manufacturing material effects" for reference) something like that "architecture's unplanned/unstructured move into a 2d cad in the late eighties was the source one of the biggest mistakes of the profession of recent years." i'm likely to be quoting completely wrong, so apologies for that and please go look for yourselves, but the point stands:
2d cad as we more or less still use it today was not really developed as a tool for architects, the result being that the whole profession was more or less forced unprepared into a prescribed workflow/methodology etc that doesn't suit architectural creation and/or production. the point being that we need to avoid at all costs to let the same thing happen with parametric design and digital fabrication tools, including the BIM logic. these are already invented and developed by other industries - again architecture as a discipline catches up years later. and just like with 2d cad we will transition into it eventually, the earlier you get on the train the greater the chances of influencing the development to suit architecture's specific needs instead of just taking over someone else's custom made tools.
i guess this discussion merits a thread of its own but i'm convinced that 2d flatcad is inherently ill-suited for the creation and representation of architecture. the shift into parametric 3d in creation and management is not only inevitable but logical.

:D

Of course, I still fully support BIM. Regardless of whether that means Revit or otherwise. When I'm "drawing" or sketching I like to draw by hand. If its going to be digital and for documentation purposes, why the hell not in BIM. Revit is not to the standard of what BIM should be, but thats because BIM is more of an ideal. The more we support it, the better it'll get. And I don't mean support in terms of buying the software necessarily, but doing the beta testing and providing feedback.

Software companies actually listen. People have their negative opinions about Autodesk, hell so do I, but when I've e-mailed a contact about something I didn't like about the software, the guy that helps develop the software got back to me right away. At the end of the day, no matter how much architects and engineers get involved in helping create a software, the programmers are not necessarily architects/engineers. Now that it is BIM, they need more feedback from US. People might have noticed, some of Revit's functionality is actually not getting more specific, but broader to accomodate how different architects & engineers do things. This is because of a bigger pool of users.

Although that Ribbon thing is something I can't imagine getting used to right now.

BIM is definitely a concept rather than a software. It's a state of mind..:) And it is true that software developers most of the time are not architects or engineers but surprisingly willing to listen to tradespeople and adapt products accordingly.

The "mindless drafting" or redlines picking or whatever is exactly what's so counter-productive with 2d drafting; it often has little or nothing to do with the finished product. I.e. with the architectural object.

I think skecthing by hand and then translate that into a (to some degree parametric) 3d model makes perfect sense for architectural design. Hand sketch into 2d cad is kind of just a strange halfway house...it still has to be built in all three dimensions eventually.

its like trying to choose between using a table saw, a panel saw, or a cnc machine

I understand some of what danger is saying. But Revit is just a tool. Just like a T-square was a tool and Autocad is a tool. I was one of the old geezers that started with the old pencil and paper method. In fact I got into architecture more from liking drafting than any architecture as art mentality. It took me a while before I was able to "think" in Cad, but once I changed my mindset I was able to explore many more options then with trash paper overlays. It made me more productive several times over.

I am learning Revit during my forced sabatical (otherwise known as unemployment). It constantly challenges me both in figuring out program basics and with the whole thought process behind putting together a building. I see great potential for the kind of architecture 90% of the building industry requires. Shopping Centers, Warehouses, Factories and many other building types are just cookie cutter designs with a few variations. Sure in Cad you could build up a library of standard details and sections, but Revit seems to have the tools to really revolutionize this process.

At my last job at a mid size firm, people always talked about standard details, but egos and work schedules stood in the way. I ended up using my own details from project to project because I found most of the "go by's" lacking, both in graphics and content. I worked very closely with the specifications team to match my details to what was really being specced.

I could see having a set of walls that the design team could mix and match from that would coordinate much more with production. Maybe even saving design time, the place I worked was doing cookie cutter work yet reinvented the drawings each time, very wastefull and also prone to many errors. It wouldn't really stifle creativity in the types of projects I am talking about, there would still be room for some unique elements on each project.

I have been doing this stuff along time and have a better than average ability it seems of visualizing how plans, elevations, and sections relate to each other in the building design. I realize for alot of people that the 3D environment for checking errors is a main reason for BIM. I have to admit that even I really like the ease of just flipping to a 3D view to see if what I just did worked as intended. The ability to manipulate the building model rather than just individaul drawings is huge. I am finding the learning curve steep but in the end I thinks CAD and drawing will just be too limiting in the future as the processes get solidified and the programs get better.

On the creative side, there will always be things that just flow better as a drawing. But seeing how much easier it is with Sketchup or some other modeler to so mass studies (orders of magnitude more efficient than building cardboard models) I think BIM will really help clients and contractors understand what we are trying to design.
Even a well schooled architect or contractor can spend lots of time interpreting a set of drawings. Our clients probably cant visualize much of anything and are just wowed by a pretty picture. Being able to see many views of a building at the click of a button should cut way down on changes and make everyone happier.

maybe the hands on experience in the trades would be better than learning a modeling program

Been there, 80 grit. Learned a lot, AND I never want to work in the cold ever again.

This will kill that. Drawing is dead.

One of the problems with BIM is that it has come to mean several different things.

1. BIM as in the HVAC BIM or the structural BIM.
2. BIM as in that is a BIM project.
3. BIM as in that is a BIM software.

Terms such as Virtual Design and Construction, Integrated Project Delivery, Lean Construction and Collaborative Design have all surfaced to represent a more wholistic approach to the methodolgies that can be used in conjunction with BIM. It is representative of the evolution of this delivery method that is not yet fully realized and why some may refer to it as an "ideal".

I guess I have to respond to this thread given that ff33 has dropped my name... plug my site next time you drop my name ff ;) (www.therevitkid.com).

First, since it was the last post I read there is one thing that Wurdan said that got me. The comment about "Drawing is dead". I can't see how people say such a thing. I find myself drawing just as much, if not more, when using Revit in the design process. I cannot see how that argument would hold.

Secondly, to respond to the initial post by Danger:

"...The sluggish work flow, odd command sequences and wrist-kinking point-clicking...are tiresome and distracting...I often losing track of what I was doing in the first place...

As someone who "thinks with their hands" I find this interface disturbing and dull...I believe there is something inherently STIMULATING about DRAWING (even in AutoCad) ... Although It is nice to work in 3D sometimes, I think there is an advantage to the abstract thinking and simplified problem solving done in 2D...

Any comments or thoughts?"

I have some thoughts. What program DO YOU USE? Do you like CAD? I can't quite figure it out. You must not use AutoCAD if you think Revit involves "wrist kinking point-clicking".

I love the reactions you grab in your threads and I truly do enjoy reading everyones opinions on the subject. I have to fully disagree with Revit not being "stimulating" and being boring. I used CAD at my firm for six years. Going Revit is the most stimulating thing to happen in the office.

Revit forces the user to think and visualize every little command you make. Every wall and every component has an effect in every view. Forcing the user to think about every action that is made and its reaction to the building as a whole is stimulating in itself. I would like to hear your rebuddle as to HOW 2D drafting could be more stimulating...

Great conversation and I enjoy reading everyones thoughts.

Oops... the link didn't work.

www.therevitkid.com

Buy ArchiCAD - made by architects for architects. none of this engineering one-size fits all crap. I have used it for 12 years and love the interface and the way it works along architectural workflow and document creation.

not a huge fan of the AC masonry arches though :)

to play devil's advocate to DM, I used archicad at my last office and am now using revit. While revit is frustrating sometimes, its a much better program than archicad. if you like programs that let you plop in doric columns and make renderings that look like Sims 1 then AC's for you. Revit has a much stronger foundation as a program. they just need to stop f'ing around with things like the interface and wizards, and focus on stuff like annotation, sketchier form-making (ala rhino) and graphic consistency.

I obviously agree with TheVillian as far as ArchiCAD and Revit...

I also would like to add that new interface was a complete rewrite and I believe needed to be done. The old interface was ancient and very ugly. I have been on the new interface since it was released and I love it now.

Graphic consistancy, imo, is down to the user and skill level. In advanced user can produce drawings the look BETTER than CAD drawings.

The new conceptual massing environment is showing signs of freedom in forms and massing. It can be very powerful and create freeform shapes as well as driving those shaped with parameters.

sorry revitkid...have to disagree on some of those points:

-the old interface, although 'ugly', was simple, straightfoward, less-annoyingly-wizardy/microsofty. it did what it need to do. the new one seems to just rename everything, hide certain things, make things bigger, and allows people who aren't quite sure what a wall tool does to understand via the lovely wizard that pops up.

-the revit skill of our office, i believe, are quite advanced. so advanced we get to a point where we realize revit doesnt allow us to make our own annotative symbols. it also doesnt allow you to align anything (ie section markers from sheet to sheet)... except elevation markers, quite arbitrarily, which it THEN decides it wont let you change the location of from view to view.

-I only played with the conceptual massing for awhile so it could be my lack of understanding, but I immediately went back to rhino afterwards. maybe its a crutch.

A majority of the annotative symbols can be edited... Levels, section heads and tails, etc... all can be extremely customized. I do have to agree with lining up views on sheets. I have no idea why that hasn't been addressed yet. Section marks from sheet to sheet should always be aligned unless you are using drafted details?

You can turn off those wizards that pop up. Essentially the whole ribbon idea has been there before, just vertically. I have gotten used to the new names and locations and workflow is the same for me. Two or three of the icons I use on the quicktask bar... but I feel my speed has not been crippled. I spoke to the VP of Industry Relations at Autodesk and he stated that the main reason for the UI was user friendliness. I think they achieved that even if they made alot of old Revit users angry.

The conceptual massing is by no means Rhino... but it is not trying to be. The comparison can't be made given what the programs were designed and developed for. The new conceptual massing is very nice though... give a few hours of messing around and you will see where it is going.

is the ability to modify annotative stuff a 2010 feature? it seems like all we can change in 2009 is if you want things to be circle/square, diameter size, text size, etc....as in theres no way to wholistically build new families like with every other family category (why would revit keep us from doing this?)?

yeah, im sure we'll get used to the ribbon. it just seems they were focusing too much attention on 'jazzing up' revit's interface so grandma could use it instead of focusing on what, we at least, see as more relevant issues.

They can be changed in Revit 2009 as well... Quick Example..

http://therevitkid.blogspot.com/2009/03/tutorial-basic-view-titles.html

http://therevitkid.blogspot.com/2009/02/student-to-student-revit-guide-part-2.html

I will make a tutorial this week on how to wholistically change something like a Section or Level Head.

hmm, interesting, i might need to subscribe to your blog now!

Yeaahhh. RevKid and Villan -- are you guys working together? Like a snake oil pitchman and his "anonymous" assistant from the audience?

Or, maybe you're the same person...???