As a firm owner (retired) this entire dance over Revit and all the other add-ons just chokes the task. With well over 40% of all work being principally the same as it has been for over 100 years - just get the AutoCAD out and get it done for God sake.
Software is a tool for getting the end result in an efficient manner. As a firm owner (future), it would be myopic to stick to AutoCAD. The design process has changed dramatically over the past 50 years - hand drafting > CAD > BIM. I'm at a firm that uses CAD and have been at one that used a mixed BIM/CAD drafting process. For a residential project of equal size going from SD to a permit set, it takes a few months+++ for the CAD firm while it would take a couple weeks at the BIM firm. It's like using a screwdriver vs a power drill. For small tasks the screw driver might be faster but for most projects, one would prefer to use the power drill. ArchiCAD or Revit might have their issues when trying to do something that fights their system but even with that it's hugely more efficient. ArchiCAD allows for one to fall back into CAD easier which sometimes is nice but I prefer the process of creating a "BIM model" in Revit.
Unfortunately, if you want to remain employable/current in todays market/workplace, you have to keep up with the technology. I realize this is difficult for people over a certain age/mindset and if you don't have a base computer literacy learning new software is nearly impossible.
I wonder what happened to the firms that decided that autocad "chokes the task" and decided to stick with hand drafting?
As spatial said, BIM is more efficient, and choosing not to use the best tool at any given time is just dumb and will eventually render your practice irrelevant.
My tool of choice is Revit, but I have heard that Archicad is pretty solid and cheaper. If you know one or the other, I doubt is it much of a jump to make the switch.
Chigurh, sometimes more words are necessary to keep from being misunderstood – and here they are: This “Old Dude” was all over this revolution before it ever happened. About the time Bill Gates was just figuring out BASIC in 1980 I bought one of the first portable computers by mail-order from an ad in The Wall Street Journal. Called a Sinclair ZX80, I had to hook it up to my TV and I sat on the living room floor at night trying to write a program to get it to draw something. I went back to school to take computer programming and learned FORTRAN & COBOL to figure it out. I did that because I saw it all coming and wanted to play a part. I don’t think any of us knew exactly what computers could do for drawing back then, ideas were just rumors.
My point is that the “Old Dude” does embrace computers and they can do great things, fantastic things as it has turned out. The software developments have yielded toolboxes of choices on ways to attack…choose one that fits you and is the fastest for the task - then “GO”. The task “gets choked” by the using of too many combinations in the process. Switching back and forth from a drill to a screwdriver is okay when the screw gets striped but all these tools tend to turn offices into “Computer Labs” when maybe they should stilled be called “Drafting Rooms”. “Get the drawings done” is my point - I need them to get paid, because until then I can’t pay you.
Respectfully.
Sep 1, 14 2:45 pm ·
·
My first computers were the TI-99/4A and the Commodore 64.
Yes To Carrera, I had started on a drafting board, at lindsey hopkins tech, and then they had received the autocad 3.2 program floppy disc, that same year in the 1980's or something like that. And my last job I started off was with a drafting board, and began autocad 12, and then finished up with autocad 2007.
Now I'm on my own, I'm going to be learning BIM Revit at Miami Dade Community College in Jan 2016, to keep up with the changing times, and then I'm going to be certified.
I only wish the employers would care enough about its employees to take the time to have them trained, and to get up to speed.
Carrera, if the office looks like a computer lab, maybe people should stay in school for the rest of their lives? The employers are making out like bandits by not having to train there new employees, and staff. What a great deal for most employers who really don't care about their employees futures anyway!
But unfortunately these changes in technologies are happening very quickly in all fields. So I say do what you really like to do, is how I like to think of it, but even though I really enjoyed drawing with a parralel bar and pencil I cant go back.
Greg: Bullshit. I taught myself Revit on my off time doing side-work because I worked in a practice that did only autocad work. If your employer isn't providing you with adequate training, it's your responsibility to either switch jobs or train yourself during off hours.
the job of the people running the company is to run the company. if that means they have to train you in new software, then they should train you in new software. if it means they should replace you with a kid just out of college, then should replace you with a kid just out of college, right?
Wait what was the original question? Oh, I've encountered way more firms that stuck with Autocad than are using Archicad. In the north east Revit is prevalent.
I will say that the initial phases of a project are much more time consuming in Revit. Once SD is finished and DD is under way, that's when Revit becomes efficient.
Another comment...if you teach yourself Revit and don't get proper training or use proper material you will be about 50% efficient/effective using the software. Speaking from first hand experience.
curt, I believe that you're being a bit facetious, but your statement is true up until that point. After all, that fresh-faced, render-adept youth likely doesn't know the first thing about the knowledge required to get Revit to produce anything beyond something that LOOKS like a building. Garbage in, garbage out. Even if it makes a good rendering.
Archicad was pretty advanced while Revit started crawling. It seems that till today the distance between the two is still far away.
Most of my models were built in ArchiCAD because whatever Autodesk provided for 3D (Architectural Desktop/Revit) killed typical available computer day and night. This forced me to learn ArchiCAD and Nemetschek, while ArchiCAD eventually won.
Being in US it seems to there is no other way but Revit. Even though all my friends active architects claim consistently that none of their clients want to pay for that work (unless it is strictly provided in contract - yeah it happened once). Most of them are shifting between CAD and Revit just to make sure that project will be done on time.
I am currently looking for job, all I see is Revit efficiency requirement. I cannot wait to see how "efficient" every of these are when it comes to finish the project on time.
I've worked pretty extensively in both programs. If you learn one, you'll know 80% of the other. BIM is BIM, the main differences are working out the interface and remembering keyboard shortcuts.
That said, Revit is industry dominant because they had the good fortune of being purchased by Autodesk. I think ArchiCAD has a nicer UI, but knowing Revit simple makes you more employable.
Learn Revit. If you end up working at a firm that uses ArchiCAD, the transition will take you a few weeks at most.
To the argument above. Carrerra s point is ultimately what will keep you employed. To chigurts point, as a professional in the field of architecture it is a personal duty to keep up with technology, but that alone will not keep you employed. To be really good with revit, you should know how buildings are built, how they are supported by its structure. And all necessary mep, all local and national code requirements and lets not forget aesthetic speculative notions that will comply with the clients needs on top of that. In other words being an architect. Those are the attributes that ive seen in the best revit users. And this is coming from a a person who is well versed in all things revit, cadd, or as i like to say it IPD.
Here’s another sprinkle of reality – I hired people who already had the computer skills I needed to get things done…it’s a matter of being marketable, it’s not my job to make you marketable…unless there was a paradigm shift to a new software.
This dinosaur now draws on a computer…what a relief from bending over a board all day, but when I drew by hand it was intuitive….I didn’t have to stop and watch a YouTube video before I drew a line. “These things” do get in the way at times…spreading people out over multiple software’s is too much to ask….firms should decide which ones fit their practice and hit “go”!
I don’t think how a drawing is drawn has anything to do with being an architect.
I don't know about Archicad, but in terms of usage, I sometimes find Revit a bit like an overtly complicated tool kit that needs to be relooked at to make it a bit more 'intuitive'.
However, it is of course a powerful program.
Aug 3, 16 9:51 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.
archicad or revit????
which is best revit or archicad for architecture???
do you want to work? - Revit
Do you want to work fast and be productive?-Archicad
but, I agree if you want to work in US you are forced to know Revit. Not because it is better, just because it was marketed much better than Archicad.
Archicad is much more refined and flexible in production, modeling or detailing.
Revit
Revit. But I wish I knew some Archicad, just to have something to compare Revit with.
I noticed a lot of residential work is done in archicad - that and vectorworks - but the firm downstairs that does residential work, uses Revit
http://memarchitecture.com/
If you're interested, there is a long conversation on Linkedin about ArchiCAD vs. Revit that you can read. It's very informative.
whats the link jcr?
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/ArchiCAD-vs-Revit-796267.S.60527145?view=&srchtype=discussedNews&gid=796267&item=60527145&type=member&trk=eml-anet_dig-b_pd-ttl-cn&ut=3q-UP_edPIRRk1
REVIT
We use ArchiCAD.
I have used Archicad for large-scale apartment buildings with great success.
As a firm owner (retired) this entire dance over Revit and all the other add-ons just chokes the task. With well over 40% of all work being principally the same as it has been for over 100 years - just get the AutoCAD out and get it done for God sake.
Software is a tool for getting the end result in an efficient manner. As a firm owner (future), it would be myopic to stick to AutoCAD. The design process has changed dramatically over the past 50 years - hand drafting > CAD > BIM. I'm at a firm that uses CAD and have been at one that used a mixed BIM/CAD drafting process. For a residential project of equal size going from SD to a permit set, it takes a few months+++ for the CAD firm while it would take a couple weeks at the BIM firm. It's like using a screwdriver vs a power drill. For small tasks the screw driver might be faster but for most projects, one would prefer to use the power drill. ArchiCAD or Revit might have their issues when trying to do something that fights their system but even with that it's hugely more efficient. ArchiCAD allows for one to fall back into CAD easier which sometimes is nice but I prefer the process of creating a "BIM model" in Revit.
Carrera; spoken as a true old dude....
Unfortunately, if you want to remain employable/current in todays market/workplace, you have to keep up with the technology. I realize this is difficult for people over a certain age/mindset and if you don't have a base computer literacy learning new software is nearly impossible.
I wonder what happened to the firms that decided that autocad "chokes the task" and decided to stick with hand drafting?
As spatial said, BIM is more efficient, and choosing not to use the best tool at any given time is just dumb and will eventually render your practice irrelevant.
My tool of choice is Revit, but I have heard that Archicad is pretty solid and cheaper. If you know one or the other, I doubt is it much of a jump to make the switch.
Chigurh, sometimes more words are necessary to keep from being misunderstood – and here they are: This “Old Dude” was all over this revolution before it ever happened. About the time Bill Gates was just figuring out BASIC in 1980 I bought one of the first portable computers by mail-order from an ad in The Wall Street Journal. Called a Sinclair ZX80, I had to hook it up to my TV and I sat on the living room floor at night trying to write a program to get it to draw something. I went back to school to take computer programming and learned FORTRAN & COBOL to figure it out. I did that because I saw it all coming and wanted to play a part. I don’t think any of us knew exactly what computers could do for drawing back then, ideas were just rumors.
My point is that the “Old Dude” does embrace computers and they can do great things, fantastic things as it has turned out. The software developments have yielded toolboxes of choices on ways to attack…choose one that fits you and is the fastest for the task - then “GO”. The task “gets choked” by the using of too many combinations in the process. Switching back and forth from a drill to a screwdriver is okay when the screw gets striped but all these tools tend to turn offices into “Computer Labs” when maybe they should stilled be called “Drafting Rooms”. “Get the drawings done” is my point - I need them to get paid, because until then I can’t pay you.
Respectfully.
My first computers were the TI-99/4A and the Commodore 64.
revit is best
Yes To Carrera, I had started on a drafting board, at lindsey hopkins tech, and then they had received the autocad 3.2 program floppy disc, that same year in the 1980's or something like that. And my last job I started off was with a drafting board, and began autocad 12, and then finished up with autocad 2007.
Now I'm on my own, I'm going to be learning BIM Revit at Miami Dade Community College in Jan 2016, to keep up with the changing times, and then I'm going to be certified.
I only wish the employers would care enough about its employees to take the time to have them trained, and to get up to speed.
Carrera, if the office looks like a computer lab, maybe people should stay in school for the rest of their lives? The employers are making out like bandits by not having to train there new employees, and staff. What a great deal for most employers who really don't care about their employees futures anyway!
But unfortunately these changes in technologies are happening very quickly in all fields. So I say do what you really like to do, is how I like to think of it, but even though I really enjoyed drawing with a parralel bar and pencil I cant go back.
Have a great New Year, Greg K.
Greg: Bullshit. I taught myself Revit on my off time doing side-work because I worked in a practice that did only autocad work. If your employer isn't providing you with adequate training, it's your responsibility to either switch jobs or train yourself during off hours.
Wait, what?
It's your job to train yourself on your own time after your employer makes a decision about the tools they are requiring you to use?
They've already got you trained well enough, it seems. Just not in a any tools that will help you get ahead in life.
the job of the people running the company is to run the company. if that means they have to train you in new software, then they should train you in new software. if it means they should replace you with a kid just out of college, then should replace you with a kid just out of college, right?
Wait what was the original question? Oh, I've encountered way more firms that stuck with Autocad than are using Archicad. In the north east Revit is prevalent.
I will say that the initial phases of a project are much more time consuming in Revit. Once SD is finished and DD is under way, that's when Revit becomes efficient.
Another comment...if you teach yourself Revit and don't get proper training or use proper material you will be about 50% efficient/effective using the software. Speaking from first hand experience.
curt, I believe that you're being a bit facetious, but your statement is true up until that point. After all, that fresh-faced, render-adept youth likely doesn't know the first thing about the knowledge required to get Revit to produce anything beyond something that LOOKS like a building. Garbage in, garbage out. Even if it makes a good rendering.
Archicad was pretty advanced while Revit started crawling. It seems that till today the distance between the two is still far away.
Most of my models were built in ArchiCAD because whatever Autodesk provided for 3D (Architectural Desktop/Revit) killed typical available computer day and night. This forced me to learn ArchiCAD and Nemetschek, while ArchiCAD eventually won.
Being in US it seems to there is no other way but Revit. Even though all my friends active architects claim consistently that none of their clients want to pay for that work (unless it is strictly provided in contract - yeah it happened once). Most of them are shifting between CAD and Revit just to make sure that project will be done on time.
I am currently looking for job, all I see is Revit efficiency requirement. I cannot wait to see how "efficient" every of these are when it comes to finish the project on time.
I've worked pretty extensively in both programs. If you learn one, you'll know 80% of the other. BIM is BIM, the main differences are working out the interface and remembering keyboard shortcuts.
That said, Revit is industry dominant because they had the good fortune of being purchased by Autodesk. I think ArchiCAD has a nicer UI, but knowing Revit simple makes you more employable.
Learn Revit. If you end up working at a firm that uses ArchiCAD, the transition will take you a few weeks at most.
To the argument above. Carrerra s point is ultimately what will keep you employed. To chigurts point, as a professional in the field of architecture it is a personal duty to keep up with technology, but that alone will not keep you employed. To be really good with revit, you should know how buildings are built, how they are supported by its structure. And all necessary mep, all local and national code requirements and lets not forget aesthetic speculative notions that will comply with the clients needs on top of that. In other words being an architect. Those are the attributes that ive seen in the best revit users. And this is coming from a a person who is well versed in all things revit, cadd, or as i like to say it IPD.
Here’s another sprinkle of reality – I hired people who already had the computer skills I needed to get things done…it’s a matter of being marketable, it’s not my job to make you marketable…unless there was a paradigm shift to a new software.
This dinosaur now draws on a computer…what a relief from bending over a board all day, but when I drew by hand it was intuitive….I didn’t have to stop and watch a YouTube video before I drew a line. “These things” do get in the way at times…spreading people out over multiple software’s is too much to ask….firms should decide which ones fit their practice and hit “go”!
I don’t think how a drawing is drawn has anything to do with being an architect.
Revit for work because it dominates the market.
I don't know about Archicad, but in terms of usage, I sometimes find Revit a bit like an overtly complicated tool kit that needs to be relooked at to make it a bit more 'intuitive'.
However, it is of course a powerful program.
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.