My experience has been frustrating because the construction documents doesn’t get the same quality level as autocad. It ends up not being much faster than using autocad at the end of the day.
Sep 27, 23 12:51 pm ·
·
MaDsg
But for interior design it works fine.
Sep 27, 23 12:51 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
My revit construction docs are of much better quality than the average cad drawing package.
Our AIA trade show always has a rep from Archicad trying to get us to switch. Maybe it's sunk-cost fallacy at work, but I just can't imagine the hours trying to get myself and my team to be efficient on an entirely different BIM software for some theoretical productivity savings down the road.
I think for most CDs it’s a great tool. For early design it can be very frustrating and other tools are much faster and more flexible.
I think PMs need to be realistic about how much time model set up takes and where their team is at in terms of production speed and skill. If the client is insisting on revit for a tiny project (no existing models, maybe a 2 or 3 sheets at most), then that extra time needs to be included in the budget and schedule. What has always frustrated me is PMs who don’t understand how to use revit and seem to think that everyone has the same skills and knowledge. If so and so had a super fast way of doing X in Revit, then they needed to train people how to do it not just PM telling staff that so and so could do X faster.
Exactly. Revit is for when you know what you want. Setting up a model correctly that will allow changes to be made easily takes time. It's one of the reasons our fee structure has more in SD as it take time to create the model.
BIM forces us to answer detailed building questions before we've necessarily made those decisions. Which is fine in early phases...as long as you actually understand building conventions. As BIM becomes more or less the de facto drawing tool for architects, does it put more pressure on schools to instruct on building systems with more depth?
Or does it still fall to architecture firms to figure out how to teach building to young professionals (ie, the drafters) enough that they aren't creating shitty BIM models out of the gate?
Been wondering what others think about that part of BIM as a standard in our industry?
Revit is a great tool for technical documentation ... IF you put the effort into setting it up correctly prior to trying to use it for a project right out of the box. We are a 100% Revit/ACC practice, and the tool has dramatically improved our quality control and delivery speed. By more than an order of magnitude. The biggest mistake most architects make with Revit is trying to used it like CAD. That's where you see most of the horror stories and bad experiences coming from.
Having said that, Revit is a terrible tool for doing design. It requires way too much precision way too early in order to use effectively.
I recently developed a revit design model for a large multi-building complex. A few input parameters tied to floor heights and a bunch of reporting fields made for a good study tool, but we've also seen what happens when revit models go one step further and start becoming DD... it takes too much time for simple tasks.
I've been at odds with firm ownership for nearly a decade on software uses and I just can't seem to convince them that there is no shame in using more than one software throughout a project as you develop into CD but some sales rep (and disillusioned
fresh grads) tend to speak louder than reason and experience. I have enough issues reminding them that some photoshop work is normal and that renderings don't come out perfect all the time (but I don't do renderings anymore).
Most days I feel like I'm trapped in this Mitch Hedberg's classic skits:
"When you're in Hollywood and you're a comedian, everybody wants you to do other things. All right, you're a stand-up comedian, can you write us a script? That's not fair. That's like if I worked hard to become a cook, and I'm a really good cook, they'd say, "OK, you're a cook. Can you farm?"
Too many ask it to do too much and few of those people have ever opened up the software... I also know of many users who swear by the software but cannot model their way out of a simple box or use anything other than stock families.
Yes. Our policy is to be tool-agnostic for design, with the focus on speed and results. But once we reach Design Approval, every project goes into Revit. That seems to be the sweet spot for avoiding Revit's weaknesses and playing to its strengths.
Edited my comment for extra flavour but that's our workflow too. Figure shit out first, discard whatever files you used, start fresh in BIM. Just don't ask to rotate the project afterwards.
At first, some of the younger, more Revit-fluent architects on my staff insisted they could do design in Revit because they knew it so well. And then the architects who were doing design by hand/SKP/whatever kept consistently beating them on speed to Design Approval. So now almost none of them use it for that anymore.
Just curious. What would your preferred software tools be for pre Design Approval?
Sep 28, 23 3:11 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Approval by whom? Internal office design stuff or more formal city authorities? If it's internal then pen/paper and sketchup works, maybe some cad but I can do SD in revit but I prefer not. Otherwise we have staff that use 3DSmax and Vray that can pop things out in a few minutes. Easy to mark up the renderings and get new ones in 30mins.
Sep 28, 23 3:38 pm ·
·
gwharton
NS: "Design Approval" is a specific milestone in our project process and schedule. Think of it as the defined end of concept/schematic design, with client sign-off on scope and intent to move forward with DD and technical documentation (which Revit is really good for).
sideMan: Different people on our team prefer to use different tools and methods for design. I use a combination of hand sketching, Sketchup, and other tools as necessary (Rhino/Grasshopper for complex stuff). One of my designers prefers 3ds max for visualization with hand sketching and autocad for schematic plans. The focus is on speed and quality with the targeted intent to get the project design approved to move forward. How they do it is kind of up to the designers so long as they are not spinning their wheels.
The most important part of being productive in design, is to use tools and a process which allows for very rapid ideation-discussion-feedback-revision as an iterative cycle. The biggest obstacle to effective design process is going too far too fast without feedback (e.g. Over-design). That's the source of most slow-downs, re-work, and problems in design. The reason I say Revit is a bad design tool is because it pretty much forces the user to over-design things simply to get something in the model. It doesn't allow for ambiguity or evolutionary development at all.
I started using Enscape before Twinmotion became integrated with Revit 2023. I tried switching to Twinmotion and couldn't stand how different it was. Gave up, went back to Enscape. Don't see a problem.
My experience using Revit to produce professional construction documents has been very positive. I have found that it is a powerful and versatile tool that can be used to create high-quality drawings and models that are accurate and coordinated.
One of the biggest benefits of using Revit is that it allows me to create a single, unified model of the building. This model can then be used to generate all of the necessary construction documents, including floor plans, elevations, sections, details, and schedules. This saves me a lot of time and effort, as I do not have to redraw the same information multiple times.
Another benefit of Revit is that it helps to ensure that my drawings are accurate and coordinated. When I make a change to the model, all of the affected drawings are automatically updated. This helps to reduce the risk of errors and inconsistencies.
Overall, I have been very happy with my experience using Revit to produce professional construction documents. I would highly recommend it to anyone who is looking for a powerful and versatile BIM tool.
Here are some specific examples of how Revit has helped me to produce professional construction documents:
Automatically generated schedules: Revit can automatically generate schedules for things like doors, windows, and fixtures. This saves me a lot of time and effort, and it also helps to ensure that my schedules are accurate and up-to-date.
Clash detection: Revit can detect clashes between different elements of the building model. This helps me to identify and resolve potential problems before they occur on the construction site.
3D visualization: Revit can be used to create 3D visualizations of the building. This can be helpful for communicating the design to the client and for identifying potential problems.
Of course, no software is perfect. Revit can be complex to learn, and it can be slow to run on large models. However, I believe that the benefits of using Revit outweigh the drawbacks.
If you are interested in learning more about Revit, there are many resources available online and in libraries. You can also find Revit training courses offered by Autodesk and other companies.
Thanks, Matt
Oct 13, 23 1:58 am ·
·
Wood Guy
Just curious, did you use AI to write this or are you in a sales position?
my biggest hope for AI is that it will be able to take a sketchup or rhino model and make it into a well-built 80% complete revit model. i'd guess we're about 10-15 years off from that.
Revit
How’s your experience been using Revit to produce professional construction documents?
fine
Tell me yours first…
My experience has been frustrating because the construction documents doesn’t get the same quality level as autocad. It ends up not being much faster than using autocad at the end of the day.
But for interior design it works fine.
My revit construction docs are of much better quality than the average cad drawing package.
MaDsg Don't blame Revit because you are just learning how to use it.
Beats autocad
excellent. Thanks for asking.
Lots of things frustrate me on a daily basis, but it's better than drafting in ACAD.
Pretty much this.
I get to use colours more efficiently in revit.
I do like how colors work in Revit... as actual colors, and not symbolic representations of different black pen weights.
Yeah, basically. Autodesk knows they have a relative monopoly and we all disliked AutoCAD so what else are we going to do?
Our AIA trade show always has a rep from Archicad trying to get us to switch. Maybe it's sunk-cost fallacy at work, but I just can't imagine the hours trying to get myself and my team to be efficient on an entirely different BIM software for some theoretical productivity savings down the road.
I think for most CDs it’s a great tool. For early design it can be very frustrating and other tools are much faster and more flexible.
I think PMs need to be realistic about how much time model set up takes and where their team is at in terms of production speed and skill. If the client is insisting on revit for a tiny project (no existing models, maybe a 2 or 3 sheets at most), then that extra time needs to be included in the budget and schedule. What has always frustrated me is PMs who don’t understand how to use revit and seem to think that everyone has the same skills and knowledge. If so and so had a super fast way of doing X in Revit, then they needed to train people how to do it not just PM telling staff that so and so could do X faster.
Exactly. Revit is for when you know what you want. Setting up a model correctly that will allow changes to be made easily takes time. It's one of the reasons our fee structure has more in SD as it take time to create the model.
Been using it to create con docs for over 10 years. Much faster than autocad.
I've been using Revit for 15 years. Way better than AutoCAD.
Ive been using it for 40 years and i'm not even 40 years old!
2006 Revit representing in da house... then a brief stint with archiCAD... then back to the sweet sweet autodesk smack. Still better than FormZ
remember the ribbon controversy? yeah, fun times.
BIM forces us to answer detailed building questions before we've necessarily made those decisions. Which is fine in early phases...as long as you actually understand building conventions. As BIM becomes more or less the de facto drawing tool for architects, does it put more pressure on schools to instruct on building systems with more depth?
Or does it still fall to architecture firms to figure out how to teach building to young professionals (ie, the drafters) enough that they aren't creating shitty BIM models out of the gate?
Been wondering what others think about that part of BIM as a standard in our industry?
Revit is a great tool for technical documentation ... IF you put the effort into setting it up correctly prior to trying to use it for a project right out of the box. We are a 100% Revit/ACC practice, and the tool has dramatically improved our quality control and delivery speed. By more than an order of magnitude. The biggest mistake most architects make with Revit is trying to used it like CAD. That's where you see most of the horror stories and bad experiences coming from.
Having said that, Revit is a terrible tool for doing design. It requires way too much precision way too early in order to use effectively.
I recently developed a revit design model for a large multi-building complex. A few input parameters tied to floor heights and a bunch of reporting fields made for a good study tool, but we've also seen what happens when revit models go one step further and start becoming DD... it takes too much time for simple tasks.
I've been at odds with firm ownership for nearly a decade on software uses and I just can't seem to convince them that there is no shame in using more than one software throughout a project as you develop into CD but some sales rep (and disillusioned fresh grads) tend to speak louder than reason and experience. I have enough issues reminding them that some photoshop work is normal and that renderings don't come out perfect all the time (but I don't do renderings anymore).
Most days I feel like I'm trapped in this Mitch Hedberg's classic skits:
"When you're in Hollywood and you're a comedian, everybody wants you to do other things. All right, you're a stand-up comedian, can you write us a script? That's not fair. That's like if I worked hard to become a cook, and I'm a really good cook, they'd say, "OK, you're a cook. Can you farm?"
Too many ask it to do too much and few of those people have ever opened up the software... I also know of many users who swear by the software but cannot model their way out of a simple box or use anything other than stock families.
Yes. Our policy is to be tool-agnostic for design, with the focus on speed and results. But once we reach Design Approval, every project goes into Revit. That seems to be the sweet spot for avoiding Revit's weaknesses and playing to its strengths.
Edited my comment for extra flavour but that's our workflow too. Figure shit out first, discard whatever files you used, start fresh in BIM. Just don't ask to rotate the project afterwards.
At first, some of the younger, more Revit-fluent architects on my staff insisted they could do design in Revit because they knew it so well. And then the architects who were doing design by hand/SKP/whatever kept consistently beating them on speed to Design Approval. So now almost none of them use it for that anymore.
I use Revit and hand drawings. Seems to work quite well.
Basswood.
As long as the project includes time and money for remodelling, use what you want.
Non Sequitur and gwharton: or anybody else.
Just curious. What would your preferred software tools be for pre Design Approval?
Approval by whom? Internal office design stuff or more formal city authorities? If it's internal then pen/paper and sketchup works, maybe some cad but I can do SD in revit but I prefer not. Otherwise we have staff that use 3DSmax and Vray that can pop things out in a few minutes. Easy to mark up the renderings and get new ones in 30mins.
NS: "Design Approval" is a specific milestone in our project process and schedule. Think of it as the defined end of concept/schematic design, with client sign-off on scope and intent to move forward with DD and technical documentation (which Revit is really good for).
sideMan: Different people on our team prefer to use different tools and methods for design. I use a combination of hand sketching, Sketchup, and other tools as necessary (Rhino/Grasshopper for complex stuff). One of my designers prefers 3ds max for visualization with hand sketching and autocad for schematic plans. The focus is on speed and quality with the targeted intent to get the project design approved to move forward. How they do it is kind of up to the designers so long as they are not spinning their wheels.
The most important part of being productive in design, is to use tools and a process which allows for very rapid ideation-discussion-feedback-revision as an iterative cycle. The biggest obstacle to effective design process is going too far too fast without feedback (e.g. Over-design). That's the source of most slow-downs, re-work, and problems in design. The reason I say Revit is a bad design tool is because it pretty much forces the user to over-design things simply to get something in the model. It doesn't allow for ambiguity or evolutionary development at all.
Anybody use(d) Twinmotion?
I started using Enscape before Twinmotion became integrated with Revit 2023. I tried switching to Twinmotion and couldn't stand how different it was. Gave up, went back to Enscape. Don't see a problem.
My experience using Revit to produce professional construction documents has been very positive. I have found that it is a powerful and versatile tool that can be used to create high-quality drawings and models that are accurate and coordinated.
One of the biggest benefits of using Revit is that it allows me to create a single, unified model of the building. This model can then be used to generate all of the necessary construction documents, including floor plans, elevations, sections, details, and schedules. This saves me a lot of time and effort, as I do not have to redraw the same information multiple times.
Another benefit of Revit is that it helps to ensure that my drawings are accurate and coordinated. When I make a change to the model, all of the affected drawings are automatically updated. This helps to reduce the risk of errors and inconsistencies.
Overall, I have been very happy with my experience using Revit to produce professional construction documents. I would highly recommend it to anyone who is looking for a powerful and versatile BIM tool.
Here are some specific examples of how Revit has helped me to produce professional construction documents:
Of course, no software is perfect. Revit can be complex to learn, and it can be slow to run on large models. However, I believe that the benefits of using Revit outweigh the drawbacks.
If you are interested in learning more about Revit, there are many resources available online and in libraries. You can also find Revit training courses offered by Autodesk and other companies.
Thanks,
Matt
Just curious, did you use AI to write this or are you in a sales position?
^yes
my biggest hope for AI is that it will be able to take a sketchup or rhino model and make it into a well-built 80% complete revit model. i'd guess we're about 10-15 years off from that.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?