New to this forum but have read here for a long while. I'm currently in school for interior architecture, and in a few weeks I have to make the decision whether to take a AutoCAD I and II or Revit I and II, and I'm stumped as to which path to go. I do know some CAD just from playing on my own over the years, but I'm not that proficient.
I've researched this topic, and have come up with mixed answers it seems. Some say definitely go the CAD route since everyone needs to know it as a base in the industry, while others seem to think Revit will be the thing of the future, and CAD will no longer be needed.
So, if you were in my position, which would you choose? Is there any advantage to one over the other in terms of me being employed within the industry in the next 2 years?
Most offices are shifting to Revit. Either way it will be very important for you to get into 3d at some point, but that can be in a variety of different software packages, even CAD although it is clunky. It is easy for somebody to learn Revit if they have tinkered in 3d before...If they haven't, the learning curve is steep and slow.
My personal choice would be Revit, if you have a base knowledge in CAD already, move on up. I doubt knowing the more in-depth CAD functionality; x-refs, blocks, filters, etc is going to be all that important in the future, as long as you can open a CAD file, move things around a bit, draw, you should be good to go...
As a new intern it has become clear that Revit is where things are going. Most jobs around here had that as a requirement (although not mandatory mind you) I ended up at a firm that does their work exclusively in Revit which was a shock to me. Frankly Revit is incredibly easy to work with once you get some bearings in the program. Of course it gets more complicated the further you push it. CAD is a good skill to have as well, but if my first foray into professional practice is any indication, the times are a changing...
Revit, as a parametric building modeling software, lies at the core of the BIM paradigm; it is as different from Autocad as Autocad is different from freehand sketching, if not more.
Virtually all engineering companies involved in construction and CE (at least the big ones) are using parametric software of some sort - Revit Structure, Advance Steel / Advance Concrete, Tekla, STAAD, etc. Then there are the new Autodesk Design suites, bundled software.... for instance, Revit is seamlessly integrated with Navisworks, which is crucial to the process dealing with model integration, data mining, etc.
Project collaboration between various disciplines (at the BIM level) is already happening big time; when it comes tothis, architects are but one discipline among many, and Revit is THE software to use in a collaborative environment (as opposed to Autocad).
You need to know both at initial level. Sometimes cad is good at small workout and sometimes for BIM projects and large projects u need REVIT. If u have initial knowledge, u can further improve on any whichever is the industry need.
REVIT if you want a job, All firms almost look for it and often have trouble finding people. I actually disagree with it even at my firm they wont touch you unless you know REVIT like it is the great white unicorn and it is so hard to learn. I have tried to tell them that REVIT is really easy to pick up and hire the best person regardless if they know REVIT or not but it seems to e that they always look for REVIT so you can produce on the first day, it seems all creativity is now gone. in this field.
Beep beep is right. Any job at least in LA wants revit or people who do know it so you can introduce their office to it. If you want a job learn as much
revit as possible. I know that sucks in terms of being such a market based decision but it's true.
^^ this is not my experience. My office hired a number of people, including myself, with very limited REVIT experience. However, it's a larger office and is willing to put a little time and effort into training.
I actually think more people in the industry are starting to realize most of the recent grads can pick these programs up relatively quickly.
Efficient use of BIM takes into account more "dimensions", such as 4D, 5D, 6D... I suspect Revit is used as a simple 3D modeling / pretty renderings tool within many architectural practices, especially small ones.
Having said that, you will have to learn Autocad for your immediate needs, as many jobs, especially with small practices, still involve Autocad, and a lot of legacy data is saved as dwg format. Again, in my opinion, this is the short-term view.
some BIM metrics: "BIM dimensions" and "Levels of BIM maturity"
Re dimensions:
4D=time; 5D=cost; 6D=sustainability; 7D=facilities management / project lifecycle management (sometimes 6D & 7D are considered as one dimension). A more detailed explanation here:
4 levels of BIM maturity ranging from 0 to 3. I would guess the vast majority of architectural companies are somewehere at levels 0 & 1. This article explains quite well what the 4 levels are all about:
One may notice that Level 2 involves the use of enterprise resource planning software (ERP), which is, I believe, rather rare among architectural practices, as the cost of buying / implementing an ERP system (training included) can start from 1 million and up.
Re "12D is all the rage these days", well, we are not quite there yet. We are currently at 6D/7D; however, new BIM dimensions will probably be added in the near future.
Cost, sustainability, and facilities management are not spatial. There are some math/physics ideas that go beyond 3D, but AdrianFGA's definitions are not valid. Let's all agree not to use them because they sound just awful - one more way for the profession to look like a bunch of dummies
^My thoughts exactly with my 12D comment earlier. Cost, time management, life cycle, etc are all linked into a project and any half-decent practice performs these with, or without, BIM software.
Pillaging spatial terms and using them out of context is intellectually dishonest and just plain dumb. What's next, Quantum tectonics and multi-verse parametrics? If I wanted bullshit terms I'll talk to my "sustainable" product reps.
Take both AutoCad and Revit courses if you can. It will widen the pool of jobs you can apply for. Interiors firms are currently all over the map in terms of which of the two they are using, and I suspect that's going to be the case for at least the next few years.
CAD "Computer Aided Drafting" and Revit "Building Intelligence Modeling" are DIFFERENT kinds of software with different types of tasks to perform in mind when they were designed.
So, YouTube or a good forum (tech leaning) will teach you more than any school unless some genius teaches there. And if you do go the school route do Revit, because AutoCAD is much easier to learn just by even using it. For hiring AutoCAD is like obligatory, you will NEED that, but Revit is making its BIM place on the arch map too.
Keep in mind they have not taught architecture schools software basics, so use Google and YouTube to learn from those who know NOW, and are telling the world about these things because architecture is a bit behind the tech curve. All the freelance geniuses are on YouTube, no joke, in both architecture technology and programming.
Then hire a programmer when you get you firm running, intelligent technology application is now the most common denominator in many industries.
I think Revit is easier to learn if you have someone that knows the ropes and is there to guide you through it especially since it is an intrinsically 3D program whereas Autocad is more of a 2D software thus more straightforward.
I think Autocad is more intuitive than Revit, so I don't think you would be missing an opportunity if you didn't take the CAD classes as you'd probably be able to learn the program on your own...I'd take Revit.
Do the Revit class for sure. There is a lot to Revit that a student may not fully understand without real world experience, and as some have mentioned it really helps to have some teach who knows the ropes.
I'm currently taking a Post Bac Revit class to refresh the skills in preparation for a potential job change and I can tell ya it makes a difference to have someone guide you.
AutoCAD is a lot simpler, if you can give yourself a small project you'll end up learning it well through the process. I highly recommend the book: "Digital Drawing for Designers: A Visual Guide to AutoCAD" (yearly version so choose the newest) I've used this book to teach CAD it uses the method I recommended. Good luck on your future endeavors and don't get frustrated, learn that these softwares are part of the profession but they are also powerful tools at your disposal.
Mar 6, 19 1:56 pm ·
·
RCIXM24
Also as an addendum, you really do need to know enough about both, AutoCAD knowledge is treated like knowing Microsoft Word, its expected. Revit is highly desired and sought after, and at some firms it is required.
You need to become comfortable with a CAD solution - DWG format is a baseline. In terms of longer term - there are options. Autodesk, as a big marketing machine, has pushed Revit as the BIM solution, but there are other very very interesting options starting to emerge that might not involve such a steep learning curve. One BIM software solution all on one DWG platform that is starting to look interesting is BricsCAD BIM.
Mar 26, 19 9:05 am ·
·
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.
Taking a college course for Revit or AutoCAD?
Hi all,
New to this forum but have read here for a long while. I'm currently in school for interior architecture, and in a few weeks I have to make the decision whether to take a AutoCAD I and II or Revit I and II, and I'm stumped as to which path to go. I do know some CAD just from playing on my own over the years, but I'm not that proficient.
I've researched this topic, and have come up with mixed answers it seems. Some say definitely go the CAD route since everyone needs to know it as a base in the industry, while others seem to think Revit will be the thing of the future, and CAD will no longer be needed.
So, if you were in my position, which would you choose? Is there any advantage to one over the other in terms of me being employed within the industry in the next 2 years?
You will need to master both eventually. Not every office uses Revit, especially for interior design, but everyone touches AutoCAD.
agree with non seq.
Most offices are shifting to Revit. Either way it will be very important for you to get into 3d at some point, but that can be in a variety of different software packages, even CAD although it is clunky. It is easy for somebody to learn Revit if they have tinkered in 3d before...If they haven't, the learning curve is steep and slow.
My personal choice would be Revit, if you have a base knowledge in CAD already, move on up. I doubt knowing the more in-depth CAD functionality; x-refs, blocks, filters, etc is going to be all that important in the future, as long as you can open a CAD file, move things around a bit, draw, you should be good to go...
As a new intern it has become clear that Revit is where things are going. Most jobs around here had that as a requirement (although not mandatory mind you) I ended up at a firm that does their work exclusively in Revit which was a shock to me. Frankly Revit is incredibly easy to work with once you get some bearings in the program. Of course it gets more complicated the further you push it. CAD is a good skill to have as well, but if my first foray into professional practice is any indication, the times are a changing...
(Extremely) Short-term = Autocad.
Long-term = Revit, ABSOLUTELY !
Revit, as a parametric building modeling software, lies at the core of the BIM paradigm; it is as different from Autocad as Autocad is different from freehand sketching, if not more.
Virtually all engineering companies involved in construction and CE (at least the big ones) are using parametric software of some sort - Revit Structure, Advance Steel / Advance Concrete, Tekla, STAAD, etc. Then there are the new Autodesk Design suites, bundled software.... for instance, Revit is seamlessly integrated with Navisworks, which is crucial to the process dealing with model integration, data mining, etc.
Project collaboration between various disciplines (at the BIM level) is already happening big time; when it comes tothis, architects are but one discipline among many, and Revit is THE software to use in a collaborative environment (as opposed to Autocad).
Revit.
no contest. You should know cad, but it's much easier to learn on your own, and frankly you're not as likely to use it.
Don't force Revit on school projects though, it's not great there most of the time.
You need to know both at initial level. Sometimes cad is good at small workout and sometimes for BIM projects and large projects u need REVIT. If u have initial knowledge, u can further improve on any whichever is the industry need.
REVIT if you want a job, All firms almost look for it and often have trouble finding people. I actually disagree with it even at my firm they wont touch you unless you know REVIT like it is the great white unicorn and it is so hard to learn. I have tried to tell them that REVIT is really easy to pick up and hire the best person regardless if they know REVIT or not but it seems to e that they always look for REVIT so you can produce on the first day, it seems all creativity is now gone. in this field.
revit as possible. I know that sucks in terms of being such a market based decision but it's true.
^^ this is not my experience. My office hired a number of people, including myself, with very limited REVIT experience. However, it's a larger office and is willing to put a little time and effort into training.
I actually think more people in the industry are starting to realize most of the recent grads can pick these programs up relatively quickly.
h_arch
To get an idea about how complex the BIM field is, take a look at this course
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/courses/postgraduate/building-information-modelling-management
Efficient use of BIM takes into account more "dimensions", such as 4D, 5D, 6D... I suspect Revit is used as a simple 3D modeling / pretty renderings tool within many architectural practices, especially small ones.
Having said that, you will have to learn Autocad for your immediate needs, as many jobs, especially with small practices, still involve Autocad, and a lot of legacy data is saved as dwg format. Again, in my opinion, this is the short-term view.
6D?
why stop there, I hear 12D is all the rage these days.
rob_c
same up here in SF, you got to hit the ground running - the firms give you tests to evaluate proficiency and speed. It's what you gotta do ya know -
@Non Sequitur:
some BIM metrics: "BIM dimensions" and "Levels of BIM maturity"
Re dimensions:
4D=time; 5D=cost; 6D=sustainability; 7D=facilities management / project lifecycle management (sometimes 6D & 7D are considered as one dimension). A more detailed explanation here:
http://bimtalk.co.uk/bim_glossary:bim_dimensions
4 levels of BIM maturity ranging from 0 to 3. I would guess the vast majority of architectural companies are somewehere at levels 0 & 1. This article explains quite well what the 4 levels are all about:
http://bimtalk.co.uk/bim_glossary:level_of_maturity
One may notice that Level 2 involves the use of enterprise resource planning software (ERP), which is, I believe, rather rare among architectural practices, as the cost of buying / implementing an ERP system (training included) can start from 1 million and up.
Re "12D is all the rage these days", well, we are not quite there yet. We are currently at 6D/7D; however, new BIM dimensions will probably be added in the near future.
Cost, sustainability, and facilities management are not spatial. There are some math/physics ideas that go beyond 3D, but AdrianFGA's definitions are not valid. Let's all agree not to use them because they sound just awful - one more way for the profession to look like a bunch of dummies
.
^My thoughts exactly with my 12D comment earlier. Cost, time management, life cycle, etc are all linked into a project and any half-decent practice performs these with, or without, BIM software.
Pillaging spatial terms and using them out of context is intellectually dishonest and just plain dumb. What's next, Quantum tectonics and multi-verse parametrics? If I wanted bullshit terms I'll talk to my "sustainable" product reps.
Take both AutoCad and Revit courses if you can. It will widen the pool of jobs you can apply for. Interiors firms are currently all over the map in terms of which of the two they are using, and I suspect that's going to be the case for at least the next few years.
YouTube.
CAD "Computer Aided Drafting" and Revit "Building Intelligence Modeling" are DIFFERENT kinds of software with different types of tasks to perform in mind when they were designed.
So, YouTube or a good forum (tech leaning) will teach you more than any school unless some genius teaches there. And if you do go the school route do Revit, because AutoCAD is much easier to learn just by even using it. For hiring AutoCAD is like obligatory, you will NEED that, but Revit is making its BIM place on the arch map too.
Keep in mind they have not taught architecture schools software basics, so use Google and YouTube to learn from those who know NOW, and are telling the world about these things because architecture is a bit behind the tech curve. All the freelance geniuses are on YouTube, no joke, in both architecture technology and programming.
Then hire a programmer when you get you firm running, intelligent technology application is now the most common denominator in many industries.
I think Revit is easier to learn if you have someone that knows the ropes and is there to guide you through it especially since it is an intrinsically 3D program whereas Autocad is more of a 2D software thus more straightforward.
I think Autocad is more intuitive than Revit, so I don't think you would be missing an opportunity if you didn't take the CAD classes as you'd probably be able to learn the program on your own...I'd take Revit.
Do the Revit class for sure. There is a lot to Revit that a student may not fully understand without real world experience, and as some have mentioned it really helps to have some teach who knows the ropes.
I'm currently taking a Post Bac Revit class to refresh the skills in preparation for a potential job change and I can tell ya it makes a difference to have someone guide you.
AutoCAD is a lot simpler, if you can give yourself a small project you'll end up learning it well through the process. I highly recommend the book: "Digital Drawing for Designers: A Visual Guide to AutoCAD" (yearly version so choose the newest) I've used this book to teach CAD it uses the method I recommended. Good luck on your future endeavors and don't get frustrated, learn that these softwares are part of the profession but they are also powerful tools at your disposal.
Also as an addendum, you really do need to know enough about both, AutoCAD knowledge is treated like knowing Microsoft Word, its expected. Revit is highly desired and sought after, and at some firms it is required.
You need to become comfortable with a CAD solution - DWG format is a baseline. In terms of longer term - there are options. Autodesk, as a big marketing machine, has pushed Revit as the BIM solution, but there are other very very interesting options starting to emerge that might not involve such a steep learning curve. One BIM software solution all on one DWG platform that is starting to look interesting is BricsCAD BIM.
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.