What I've seen is that, people expect this perfectly polished piece of software, and whey they encounter their first bump they abandon it. So I've seen a lot of "love it" or "hate it" point of views.
But if you gain a more unbiased perspective, it is a great step towards more effective communication and documentation. Whether it is Revit or some other BIM software, it is a different process so it definitely doesn't hurt to learn this. It will redefine existing workflow, which some embrace and some shy away from.
As for rendering, the 2009 versions have gone with mental ray for the rendering engine. While it creates much more realistic and impressive "out-of-the-box" renderings with little tweaking, it is definitely less flexible than I'm used to. Still, since the materials are predefined by the elements you're creating, you're not spending time arbitrarily applying materials.
Revit is to AutoCAD what AutoCAD was to the T-Square and pencil.
Soon autocad will be as relevant as the t-square. anyone not on Revit very soon is going to become irrelevant, especially as engineers and consultants begin to embrace it more and more.
I like it but Im not giving up my ACAD just yet. Our first 2 projects in Revit were fast out of the gate but we had terrible problems meeting the little deadlines - like small changes for zoning meeting the next day - we just couldnt do things fast once built. Building the model was the easy part! Also staff complained endlessly about not enjoying the workflow. People just liked drawing rather than placing things. I could go either way on REVIT. I think its good, used right a little better than 2d cad environment, but rendering drafting obsolete? Thats Hype.
I've been on Revit for six months now after toiling for about a decade with hand drafting, form z, microstation, and autocad. The learning curve has been steep and extremely frustrating, but I'm beginning to see the payoff.
I really enjoy how easy it is to generate drawings in the 1/8 to 1/4 scale level of information/detail once the model is generated. However, its been more difficult generating accurate drawings in larger scales (wall sections and/or 1-1/2 or 3" details) with "drafting views".
My other gripe would be about component based design. While this may seem like a timesaver for some things, I find it to be extremely limiting when attempting anything custom, such as a monumental stair. After a few days of trying to squeeze something presentable out of Revit, we ended up punting and drawing it Autocad, then basically importing it as a sticky back into a Revit drafting view.
I also don't like how many decisions have to be front loaded in the design process. I like abstraction and the flexibility that it allows, but it seems Revit wants to know in advance what your wall assemblies are, floor elevations, column grids, etc. Early on in the process, drawings presented may seem totally resolved due to the amount of detail already loaded into the components. Once the model is further developed, it becomes extremely difficult to make changes - everything seems to get pinned, constrained, or attached to one another.
We're just starting to get our engineers on board with Revit as well as starting to dabble with some of the add-on programs or plug-ins for Revit that will generate energy models, cost & quantity data, etc. I think the success of these programs will really help Revit gain traction beyond just a CAD program.
Slartibartfast said it best in the first post - Revit is still in many ways a work in progress. AutoCAD has pretty much progressed as far as it can go. Revit is in its infancy and the potential of this program is enormous, albeit frustrating at times. Learn it now though and you'll be in great position down the line.
peridotbritches - I'm sure they create the most beautiful ranch houses in town. But I'm sorry - you cannot honestly argue that hand drafting is still a viable way of creating a set of drawings.
Oh, hand drafting is the way to go. That has so much to do with this discussion and I am sure that zoolander appreciates that you know people that are old.
Actually, I don't think hand drafting is irrelevant to this discussion. The transition from hand drafting to Computer Aided Drafting is an important comparison with the transition from CAD to BIM. (and BTW I don't consider BIM = Revit). The transition from CAD to BIM can be said to be greater in changing the workflow, although constantly treated like going from CAD to BIM is just a new piece of software. This is a big mistake that I think is quite common.
There will be pros, and there will be cons, like any tool that is used for architectural processes whether it is done with hand drafting, AutoCAD or Revit. The important question is "Will the pros of the tools (and the impact it will make on the processes) outweigh the cons for the kind of projects that I work on?"
Note that when I say process, I'm not talking about the design process but rather the process of documentation, communication and delivery. I realize this impacts design in a way, but not completely.
VisualARQ is BIM. Grasshopper is BIM, if some can say sketchup is BIM well that sure makes the Archcut plug in a really powerful tool to extract Construction Documents from the model.
when comparing BIM methods how much really differentiates the IntelliCAD Architecturals/ADT autodesk type stuff from Revit or Archicad
and is the goal to to increase interoperability so consultants can work on the 'model' as GSA requests?
Graphisoft MEP and Revit Structurals / MEP come to mind.
you have to know where the line is when using Revit, the line i refer to is the one that defines when modeling is done and documentation finishes. if you keep tweaking the model until the end of cd phase, you will be hosed. no doubt about it, model, push the cds, and finish documents.
^ Tell that to clients LOL. "Sorry we arent going to change the layouts of e tier units because it would mean major changes to our REVIT work flow. The software just doesnt do that well. Lets get it in the field."
From the responses it sound like revit is a bit off the shelf, fine for rectilinear shaped boxes with standard details, but a handful when attempting to make changes and evolve the design as would normally happen in our office.
Maybe its a tool to be used when all design decisions are nailed down?
i tell you what, if your clients are changing floor plans during cd phase, then you have a problem outside of Revit, any software, i don't care what you use - shiite, even hand drafting - you have problems. i wouldn't even bother committing to Revit then...minor interior floor plan changes are manageable, it's core/shell date that becomes problematic, especially if you start dimensioning before a "final" design is achieved.
Revit should take you at least a year to incorporate office standards, templates, and component creation, prior to any real launch. you also need to make sure your network and hardware is sufficient enough to handle the data. another thing, figure out what "needs" to be 3d and what can stay 2d, it helps on file size - i.e. don't use 3d for toilets, unless you plan on shoot a perspective of a toilet room...
we've made a wholesale conversion to revit for the past two years. i'll share a couple of observations: the people in the studio who are more adept 3d 'thinkers' and know more about actual construction absolutely love it and will never go back. they're doing better work, more quickly, and actually have more time to design since there's not as much back end coordination to manually do (there's still quite a bit, mind you). those who are not as spatially adept or who struggle more with how buildings actually go together have had a harder transition.
with all that said, it's still just a tool in the process. we, the people, control the process, not the software. we use sketchup, rhino, hand drawings, lots of physical models... point being, it's not an either or - you have to make it part of the way you work, not let it define how you work.
Im a very 3D thinker and worked in construction as a carpenter, manager and am now licensed architect. I like Revit. I have had a very hard time integrating it because it demands like pointed out above certain things to be nailed down in design phase. It is very difficult to break the model apart to accomadate changes as mentioned to cores, exterior walls shifting or adding or gaining offsets - It can be done but it cant be done fast. Those types of changes are simply not going to be phoned in from client, worked on in the afternoon and printed in the morning for a 12 meeting. Or it's going to be a close call. I thnik the architect has got to allow for more time with REVIT. It does have some quirks especially for firms like ours where we have a very fluid system of back and forth with our team. Our clients are all construction profesionals and know what they are doing when they suggest changes - its usually a good reason, and they expect a certain amount of speed. Well they did until this year -
I've never felt that my strong suit as a designer is 2d representations of 3d objects (which is really what Revit is doing). My strength has always been in building physical models or doing highly detailed plan and section cuts. I think I've trained my brain to "pre-slice" my 3d ideas into plan and section cuts if I'm not able to construct them physically. I've always felt much less at ease working in freehand perspective or axon sketches and I feel similarly uncomfortable in computer modeling programs like Revit.
That said, I'm not resistant to computer modeling and I've gotten much better at getting my head into it with time and practice.
I don't know anyone who would say that I'm not spatially adept or that I don't know how buildings go together.
Antithenes, I've noticed numerous posts from you talking about Rhino and now Tekla, and I also think programs like Rhino and Tekla are great. BUT, they have their place and Revit has its place. I don't think they're necessarily competing against each other in the same exact market. We even have converting tools between them so we can use both for different reasons. You're just not going to be using Rhino and Tekla for SD, DD, CD and provide adequate deliverables for all those phases fully on a regular basis. Rhino and Tekla are as of now software for specialists.
First of all, it's best you consult with experience Revit users who can tell you the pros and cons. 6 months of experience or 2 projects on Revit is not enough to grasp the true works of Revit.
Then there is this myth that you can't do custom work in Revit. Also here apllies the better you are trained or have experience the easier you can customize things. Some colleges teach their students the family editor first for a whole semester before getting into to other parts or Revit.
You don't have to front load anything in the early design phase. You can easily use massing or the in place family. If you do want to use building component like wall, roofs and floors, use the generic types and give them an unconnected height.
And as for last minute changes, that is why I started using Revit in the first place. If the contractor wants a new section it takes hours if not days to get that drafted in Autocad. With Revit I just need to drag a section through the model, dimension and annotate it which takes less than an hour. But like a said before, if your team is well trained then you get the full benefits.
Since software discussed on Archinect are rated by which starhitects uses it, let play along and through a few names here; SHOP, ONL, Grimshaw. Are these firms pumping out off the shelf, rectilinear shaped boxes with standard details?
i tried to be really open minded in taking revit classes, but it only confirmed my fears and frustrations with it. excellent for schedules and simple repetitive plans, but really felt limited in what you could do creatively (like a curve perhaps...).
our professor even tried to turn us on to some more "experimental" projects done with revit in some studio at columbia. man. if that's all the supposed digital forefront of the academic world could come up with, then give me back my acad 2007 dude.
I've been on it for over 3 years now. Everyone in the office has said they would never go back to the previous program. Pacific, not sure if Revit claims to be at the "digital forefront" but man, a team can really crank out a set of CD's and resolve conflicts prior to seeing them in the field, dude.
No, TD - they design and build full scope 1.2+ mil dollar custom homes and work directly with clients and builders in an active and fluid design process that is as close to the conceptual design process as you can get with permits and insurance in place.
Revit seems like a CD-beast and NOT a design beast, much like CAD it is just a tool for using with design, but is not where the bulk of design work should be done.
Pacific - Haha, are you saying you can't do curves in Revit? That might say more about the training classes than the software itself. Even spiralling geometry (aka helix) is set up to be easy. Sometimes, I've had to create complex MASSING in a different software, bring it into Revit, apply walls/roofs to those surfaces - But thats about it. And by complex, I'm talking about the kind of geometry that would take a lot of processing to construct in real life anyway, NOT anything beyond a box or on the other end bizarre stuff no one has ever figured out constructing.
i don't know if it is good or bad...it just all IS.
i have been using bim for the last 8 years and will never go back.
it changes the workflow...so it will inherently have a very long learning curve (and i am not just talking about learning the program).
I think we'll have to continue this conversation in april when the next release is out. Revit will then be a CD and DESIGN beast with its new set of freeform modelling tools.
yeah..your right harold...it usually takes about 4 to 6 months for some one to think of starting a new thread about whether or not they like Revit..its kind of a cycle on Archinect isn;t it?
for me...
The coolest thing I have seen lately are the videos on designreform.net. Ever since I saw that i no longer expected much from Revit in teh way of better geomtery......I do it all in rhino now..and leave Revit till the end.
fwiw, i had basically the same experience as dml. great at 1/8" and 1/4", decent at 3/4", basically worthless at 1 1/2" and 3" (we went back to 2d drafting at those detail scales). customizing components was next to impossible for all but the most cad savvy in the office (and even for them it was tedious). it also put a major drag on the network working with such heavy files.
i think the concept of revit and bim are great, but i think a lot of the practical usage issues of the software are yet to be worked out. there's also a danger that it puts too much control in the hands of the few that can use the tool (i.e. cad pros) which may not always work in the best interest of design.
i didn't mean to sound like a wet blanket, but like i said, i wanted to believe.
i really wanted revit to be all that i had heard and do all that it was described to, but right from the getgo even the interface was chunky. ok, so those things will evolve, but my understanding is that a company should build and design its software from what issues it has overcome beforehand (including user interface) and then offer more. emaze, i actually meant that the gsapp (to some) might occupy a forward position in terms of digital design, not revit. i agree that revit is just a tool like autocad was and like a t-square was before that. What interests me though is how we might break the typical design then draft it protocol and be able to use our software more integrally (beyond auto update of door numbers/sizes). i just felt that in revit right now it was still pretty much a one way process.
what was weird also was that, even though revit and max are the same family, revit didn't have a simple and reliable way to merge content between the two softwares. that really bummed me out...
for detailing, i can't think of a situation where you'd need to model in 1 1/2" or 3"?? what i have always done was to use the basic section cut as an underlay, and build the detail on top of the section cut, then, depending how much of the underlay i needed, i'd typically hide the underlay section. works for just about everything, and basic detailing components work fine.
I keep coming back to this thread trying to come up with a way to explain why the BIM naysayers would do well to change their position; but, I'm having trouble because it seems so blatantly obvious that the entire building industry is so clearly already headed in that direction.
Seems to me, before long the sophisticated clients (and eventually, all clients period) are going to demand from the design team a BIM model for their own use. When that point is reached, it doesn't matter whether or not you like BIM softwares, you had still better be proficient.
brer, have you ever given a gc a bim model to build off of? and if so, what building types do you work on? and which contractors? any of the major outfits? not trying to be snarky, just really curious.
i've seen mep and structural bim models used for coordination (though never seen it in the field), and i've never seen a contractor doing, say, wall framing using a bim model for layout. the contractors i know still work primarily in a 2d world (not to say that will never change).
one of our job captain's it taking a BIM class at the local JC.
it is taught by an architect and its thrust is to use bim for construction phasing and estimating. this is the intro to bim. (prereq for learning to draw with BIM.) our JC is the ONLY one from the architecture realm.
the bim revolution has already been won by the contractors.
Does anyone find it a bit problematic that BIM is generally being defined as a single platform created by a single company? Autodesk has been very good at controlling the conversation about BIM that many can't see it as anything other than Revit.
For me BIM is more about a cross-platform, cross-discipline transfer of design intent... the reality is that different construction disciplines need other software to do their specific jobs. From what I have experienced, Revit doesn't make this as easy as they could, instead emphasizing their environment over all others.
Also, hypothetically, what if Autodesk succumbs to an auto industry-esque crisis (Doubtful, but the forecast shows a loss 68,000 jobs nationwide in a single day today). Where are we left after we have put all of our eggs in one BIM/Revit basket and the market suddenly shifts in a new/different direction?
Then we'll all have our very own wet blankets. (as Pacific stated earlier)
before I moved to acad in 1995 I was using arris cad on a Sun Solaris workstation. Arris did most of what revit does today. it was all in unix and could have been a precursor to open source.
maybe some computer genious can pick it up on e bay and develop an open source BIM application and the sell services like red hat.
hey, didn't autodesk just lay off 12 percent of its own workforce? maybe we can recruit them?
Revit: Hype or Hot??
Hello,
Im wondering if anyone here can tell me what the benefits of revit?
It sound too good to be true.
In practice how does the interaction of plans, modelling and specification really work?
Is it all hype of the next big thing?
Does it render to a high standard like VIZ?
Thanks for any information
Zooy
In my experience, a bit of both.
What I've seen is that, people expect this perfectly polished piece of software, and whey they encounter their first bump they abandon it. So I've seen a lot of "love it" or "hate it" point of views.
But if you gain a more unbiased perspective, it is a great step towards more effective communication and documentation. Whether it is Revit or some other BIM software, it is a different process so it definitely doesn't hurt to learn this. It will redefine existing workflow, which some embrace and some shy away from.
As for rendering, the 2009 versions have gone with mental ray for the rendering engine. While it creates much more realistic and impressive "out-of-the-box" renderings with little tweaking, it is definitely less flexible than I'm used to. Still, since the materials are predefined by the elements you're creating, you're not spending time arbitrarily applying materials.
it is probably the future, but i loath revit. i think it is destroying the design process
Wait, how would it destroy the design process?
There is no 'probably' about it. It is now.
If you have an issue with revit and early design process, don't use it in the beginning. Use it to document the final design. It is that simple.
I am relatively new with revit but from what I have encountered, it can pretty much do anything you want it to. You just have to know how to do it.
HOT
Autocad is a dinosaur.
Revit is to AutoCAD what AutoCAD was to the T-Square and pencil.
Soon autocad will be as relevant as the t-square. anyone not on Revit very soon is going to become irrelevant, especially as engineers and consultants begin to embrace it more and more.
I like it but Im not giving up my ACAD just yet. Our first 2 projects in Revit were fast out of the gate but we had terrible problems meeting the little deadlines - like small changes for zoning meeting the next day - we just couldnt do things fast once built. Building the model was the easy part! Also staff complained endlessly about not enjoying the workflow. People just liked drawing rather than placing things. I could go either way on REVIT. I think its good, used right a little better than 2d cad environment, but rendering drafting obsolete? Thats Hype.
TD, sugar, there are designers and contractors who still draft by hand where I live. And they make a comfortable living.
I've been on Revit for six months now after toiling for about a decade with hand drafting, form z, microstation, and autocad. The learning curve has been steep and extremely frustrating, but I'm beginning to see the payoff.
I really enjoy how easy it is to generate drawings in the 1/8 to 1/4 scale level of information/detail once the model is generated. However, its been more difficult generating accurate drawings in larger scales (wall sections and/or 1-1/2 or 3" details) with "drafting views".
My other gripe would be about component based design. While this may seem like a timesaver for some things, I find it to be extremely limiting when attempting anything custom, such as a monumental stair. After a few days of trying to squeeze something presentable out of Revit, we ended up punting and drawing it Autocad, then basically importing it as a sticky back into a Revit drafting view.
I also don't like how many decisions have to be front loaded in the design process. I like abstraction and the flexibility that it allows, but it seems Revit wants to know in advance what your wall assemblies are, floor elevations, column grids, etc. Early on in the process, drawings presented may seem totally resolved due to the amount of detail already loaded into the components. Once the model is further developed, it becomes extremely difficult to make changes - everything seems to get pinned, constrained, or attached to one another.
We're just starting to get our engineers on board with Revit as well as starting to dabble with some of the add-on programs or plug-ins for Revit that will generate energy models, cost & quantity data, etc. I think the success of these programs will really help Revit gain traction beyond just a CAD program.
Slartibartfast said it best in the first post - Revit is still in many ways a work in progress. AutoCAD has pretty much progressed as far as it can go. Revit is in its infancy and the potential of this program is enormous, albeit frustrating at times. Learn it now though and you'll be in great position down the line.
peridotbritches - I'm sure they create the most beautiful ranch houses in town. But I'm sorry - you cannot honestly argue that hand drafting is still a viable way of creating a set of drawings.
It's the same as Archicad...
Yes, it's better for certain kinds of work.
Oh, hand drafting is the way to go. That has so much to do with this discussion and I am sure that zoolander appreciates that you know people that are old.
depends on the kind of work as said
to increase complexity and simplify at the same time.
shift the way you think and yes designers loath it.
that is y Rhinoceros is so essential.
Actually, I don't think hand drafting is irrelevant to this discussion. The transition from hand drafting to Computer Aided Drafting is an important comparison with the transition from CAD to BIM. (and BTW I don't consider BIM = Revit). The transition from CAD to BIM can be said to be greater in changing the workflow, although constantly treated like going from CAD to BIM is just a new piece of software. This is a big mistake that I think is quite common.
There will be pros, and there will be cons, like any tool that is used for architectural processes whether it is done with hand drafting, AutoCAD or Revit. The important question is "Will the pros of the tools (and the impact it will make on the processes) outweigh the cons for the kind of projects that I work on?"
Note that when I say process, I'm not talking about the design process but rather the process of documentation, communication and delivery. I realize this impacts design in a way, but not completely.
Rhino is essentially acad but in some sort of gift from the gods of modeling way. It is not however parametric, and thats ok
Is it better than Archicad? I can't always do what I want in Archicad so I use another soft for complicated shapes in 3d.
"Is it better than Archicad? I can't always do what I want in Archicad so I use another soft for complicated shapes in 3d."
I am looking into that now and I don't think it is.
There's a guy in England that makes a plugin that allows you to rotate objects in 3d in Archicad.
I forget...
VisualARQ is BIM. Grasshopper is BIM, if some can say sketchup is BIM well that sure makes the Archcut plug in a really powerful tool to extract Construction Documents from the model.
when comparing BIM methods how much really differentiates the IntelliCAD Architecturals/ADT autodesk type stuff from Revit or Archicad
and is the goal to to increase interoperability so consultants can work on the 'model' as GSA requests?
Graphisoft MEP and Revit Structurals / MEP come to mind.
you have to know where the line is when using Revit, the line i refer to is the one that defines when modeling is done and documentation finishes. if you keep tweaking the model until the end of cd phase, you will be hosed. no doubt about it, model, push the cds, and finish documents.
^ Tell that to clients LOL. "Sorry we arent going to change the layouts of e tier units because it would mean major changes to our REVIT work flow. The software just doesnt do that well. Lets get it in the field."
Most architects I know change it in the field and not the drawings, they just don't tell the client that.
Not saying you should do that mind you.
"if you keep tweaking the model until the end of cd phase, you will be hosed."
god, that's awful. my boss likes to change everything every so often.
make
thanx for info
From the responses it sound like revit is a bit off the shelf, fine for rectilinear shaped boxes with standard details, but a handful when attempting to make changes and evolve the design as would normally happen in our office.
Maybe its a tool to be used when all design decisions are nailed down?
Derek
i tell you what, if your clients are changing floor plans during cd phase, then you have a problem outside of Revit, any software, i don't care what you use - shiite, even hand drafting - you have problems. i wouldn't even bother committing to Revit then...minor interior floor plan changes are manageable, it's core/shell date that becomes problematic, especially if you start dimensioning before a "final" design is achieved.
Revit should take you at least a year to incorporate office standards, templates, and component creation, prior to any real launch. you also need to make sure your network and hardware is sufficient enough to handle the data. another thing, figure out what "needs" to be 3d and what can stay 2d, it helps on file size - i.e. don't use 3d for toilets, unless you plan on shoot a perspective of a toilet room...
remember what BIM is, Information Modeling.
we've made a wholesale conversion to revit for the past two years. i'll share a couple of observations: the people in the studio who are more adept 3d 'thinkers' and know more about actual construction absolutely love it and will never go back. they're doing better work, more quickly, and actually have more time to design since there's not as much back end coordination to manually do (there's still quite a bit, mind you). those who are not as spatially adept or who struggle more with how buildings actually go together have had a harder transition.
with all that said, it's still just a tool in the process. we, the people, control the process, not the software. we use sketchup, rhino, hand drawings, lots of physical models... point being, it's not an either or - you have to make it part of the way you work, not let it define how you work.
i'm glad people see it that way outed, because it's very true, just a tool in a toolbox filled with other tools.
for big steel framed buildings and even then Tekla is better at that
Im a very 3D thinker and worked in construction as a carpenter, manager and am now licensed architect. I like Revit. I have had a very hard time integrating it because it demands like pointed out above certain things to be nailed down in design phase. It is very difficult to break the model apart to accomadate changes as mentioned to cores, exterior walls shifting or adding or gaining offsets - It can be done but it cant be done fast. Those types of changes are simply not going to be phoned in from client, worked on in the afternoon and printed in the morning for a 12 meeting. Or it's going to be a close call. I thnik the architect has got to allow for more time with REVIT. It does have some quirks especially for firms like ours where we have a very fluid system of back and forth with our team. Our clients are all construction profesionals and know what they are doing when they suggest changes - its usually a good reason, and they expect a certain amount of speed. Well they did until this year -
I've never felt that my strong suit as a designer is 2d representations of 3d objects (which is really what Revit is doing). My strength has always been in building physical models or doing highly detailed plan and section cuts. I think I've trained my brain to "pre-slice" my 3d ideas into plan and section cuts if I'm not able to construct them physically. I've always felt much less at ease working in freehand perspective or axon sketches and I feel similarly uncomfortable in computer modeling programs like Revit.
That said, I'm not resistant to computer modeling and I've gotten much better at getting my head into it with time and practice.
I don't know anyone who would say that I'm not spatially adept or that I don't know how buildings go together.
Antithenes, I've noticed numerous posts from you talking about Rhino and now Tekla, and I also think programs like Rhino and Tekla are great. BUT, they have their place and Revit has its place. I don't think they're necessarily competing against each other in the same exact market. We even have converting tools between them so we can use both for different reasons. You're just not going to be using Rhino and Tekla for SD, DD, CD and provide adequate deliverables for all those phases fully on a regular basis. Rhino and Tekla are as of now software for specialists.
they work good together infact
First of all, it's best you consult with experience Revit users who can tell you the pros and cons. 6 months of experience or 2 projects on Revit is not enough to grasp the true works of Revit.
Then there is this myth that you can't do custom work in Revit. Also here apllies the better you are trained or have experience the easier you can customize things. Some colleges teach their students the family editor first for a whole semester before getting into to other parts or Revit.
You don't have to front load anything in the early design phase. You can easily use massing or the in place family. If you do want to use building component like wall, roofs and floors, use the generic types and give them an unconnected height.
And as for last minute changes, that is why I started using Revit in the first place. If the contractor wants a new section it takes hours if not days to get that drafted in Autocad. With Revit I just need to drag a section through the model, dimension and annotate it which takes less than an hour. But like a said before, if your team is well trained then you get the full benefits.
Since software discussed on Archinect are rated by which starhitects uses it, let play along and through a few names here; SHOP, ONL, Grimshaw. Are these firms pumping out off the shelf, rectilinear shaped boxes with standard details?
Hot.
i tried to be really open minded in taking revit classes, but it only confirmed my fears and frustrations with it. excellent for schedules and simple repetitive plans, but really felt limited in what you could do creatively (like a curve perhaps...).
our professor even tried to turn us on to some more "experimental" projects done with revit in some studio at columbia. man. if that's all the supposed digital forefront of the academic world could come up with, then give me back my acad 2007 dude.
i was so bummed on it i was speechless.
I've been on it for over 3 years now. Everyone in the office has said they would never go back to the previous program. Pacific, not sure if Revit claims to be at the "digital forefront" but man, a team can really crank out a set of CD's and resolve conflicts prior to seeing them in the field, dude.
No, TD - they design and build full scope 1.2+ mil dollar custom homes and work directly with clients and builders in an active and fluid design process that is as close to the conceptual design process as you can get with permits and insurance in place.
Revit seems like a CD-beast and NOT a design beast, much like CAD it is just a tool for using with design, but is not where the bulk of design work should be done.
Pacific - Haha, are you saying you can't do curves in Revit? That might say more about the training classes than the software itself. Even spiralling geometry (aka helix) is set up to be easy. Sometimes, I've had to create complex MASSING in a different software, bring it into Revit, apply walls/roofs to those surfaces - But thats about it. And by complex, I'm talking about the kind of geometry that would take a lot of processing to construct in real life anyway, NOT anything beyond a box or on the other end bizarre stuff no one has ever figured out constructing.
i don't know if it is good or bad...it just all IS.
i have been using bim for the last 8 years and will never go back.
it changes the workflow...so it will inherently have a very long learning curve (and i am not just talking about learning the program).
by the way BIM is way more than 3d vs 2D.
I think we'll have to continue this conversation in april when the next release is out. Revit will then be a CD and DESIGN beast with its new set of freeform modelling tools.
yeah..your right harold...it usually takes about 4 to 6 months for some one to think of starting a new thread about whether or not they like Revit..its kind of a cycle on Archinect isn;t it?
for me...
The coolest thing I have seen lately are the videos on designreform.net. Ever since I saw that i no longer expected much from Revit in teh way of better geomtery......I do it all in rhino now..and leave Revit till the end.
fwiw, i had basically the same experience as dml. great at 1/8" and 1/4", decent at 3/4", basically worthless at 1 1/2" and 3" (we went back to 2d drafting at those detail scales). customizing components was next to impossible for all but the most cad savvy in the office (and even for them it was tedious). it also put a major drag on the network working with such heavy files.
i think the concept of revit and bim are great, but i think a lot of the practical usage issues of the software are yet to be worked out. there's also a danger that it puts too much control in the hands of the few that can use the tool (i.e. cad pros) which may not always work in the best interest of design.
jury's still out in my book.
sorry guys,
i didn't mean to sound like a wet blanket, but like i said, i wanted to believe.
i really wanted revit to be all that i had heard and do all that it was described to, but right from the getgo even the interface was chunky. ok, so those things will evolve, but my understanding is that a company should build and design its software from what issues it has overcome beforehand (including user interface) and then offer more. emaze, i actually meant that the gsapp (to some) might occupy a forward position in terms of digital design, not revit. i agree that revit is just a tool like autocad was and like a t-square was before that. What interests me though is how we might break the typical design then draft it protocol and be able to use our software more integrally (beyond auto update of door numbers/sizes). i just felt that in revit right now it was still pretty much a one way process.
what was weird also was that, even though revit and max are the same family, revit didn't have a simple and reliable way to merge content between the two softwares. that really bummed me out...
for detailing, i can't think of a situation where you'd need to model in 1 1/2" or 3"?? what i have always done was to use the basic section cut as an underlay, and build the detail on top of the section cut, then, depending how much of the underlay i needed, i'd typically hide the underlay section. works for just about everything, and basic detailing components work fine.
I keep coming back to this thread trying to come up with a way to explain why the BIM naysayers would do well to change their position; but, I'm having trouble because it seems so blatantly obvious that the entire building industry is so clearly already headed in that direction.
Seems to me, before long the sophisticated clients (and eventually, all clients period) are going to demand from the design team a BIM model for their own use. When that point is reached, it doesn't matter whether or not you like BIM softwares, you had still better be proficient.
brer, have you ever given a gc a bim model to build off of? and if so, what building types do you work on? and which contractors? any of the major outfits? not trying to be snarky, just really curious.
i've seen mep and structural bim models used for coordination (though never seen it in the field), and i've never seen a contractor doing, say, wall framing using a bim model for layout. the contractors i know still work primarily in a 2d world (not to say that will never change).
one of our job captain's it taking a BIM class at the local JC.
it is taught by an architect and its thrust is to use bim for construction phasing and estimating. this is the intro to bim. (prereq for learning to draw with BIM.) our JC is the ONLY one from the architecture realm.
the bim revolution has already been won by the contractors.
Does anyone find it a bit problematic that BIM is generally being defined as a single platform created by a single company? Autodesk has been very good at controlling the conversation about BIM that many can't see it as anything other than Revit.
For me BIM is more about a cross-platform, cross-discipline transfer of design intent... the reality is that different construction disciplines need other software to do their specific jobs. From what I have experienced, Revit doesn't make this as easy as they could, instead emphasizing their environment over all others.
Also, hypothetically, what if Autodesk succumbs to an auto industry-esque crisis (Doubtful, but the forecast shows a loss 68,000 jobs nationwide in a single day today). Where are we left after we have put all of our eggs in one BIM/Revit basket and the market suddenly shifts in a new/different direction?
Then we'll all have our very own wet blankets. (as Pacific stated earlier)
before I moved to acad in 1995 I was using arris cad on a Sun Solaris workstation. Arris did most of what revit does today. it was all in unix and could have been a precursor to open source.
maybe some computer genious can pick it up on e bay and develop an open source BIM application and the sell services like red hat.
hey, didn't autodesk just lay off 12 percent of its own workforce? maybe we can recruit them?
oops
http://sourceforge.net/projects/arquimedes
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.