i think revit is great for certain things. if you are producing a building using only the typical conditions that come with the program it is good, and efficient.
i took a class last week through autodesk to learning the program, and found that the instructors couldn't even help me with some of the stuff i was tying to do. and i think it makes people think to detailed to quickly, so in studio, it is a step in the wrong direction if you work with it to early.
so i have mixed feelings. it might be like all programs, good for some things, but when you try to adapt them to new situations that stumble a bit.
I kind of had a same thread like this about photorealism vs quality vs representational art. It's what your customers want, what the style or cultural demand is and technological and fiscal limitations.
I'm learning rhino right now.
One thing I think it would be worthy of pointing out is what will happen to 3d rendering programs if 3d printers become a whole lot cheaper and easier to use?
We adopted it - used it - then went back to acad for documents / 3ds for renderings. Just faster that way. I liked revit - but it was too cumbersome, staff absolutely hated it. I think its ok, personally I could go either way - but definately not the acad killer people claim it is.
Kurt, you can either just make a drafting view and use detail components and drafting lines or just use the edit cut profile button along with the detail components.
you COULD also import cad details from a library and explode if necessary but people tend to stay away from this, as all the layers will turn into individual line styles.
I would have to say that revit is probably a lot better for cds than people think. Being able to format drawings, dimensioning, notation, and coordination is so much easier than in cad.
I run into trouble with file size and some detailing related to elevations. Doing fascias in revit makes my face hurt.
With that said anything I can do in acad I can do in revit. Even if that means turning something off and drafting over. My vote is definitely for revit. I think its just going to take some time before the middle and older generations can wrap their heads around a new technology.
BIM is a great tool (my experience is with Revit).
The image below is an example of the type of thing that makes my job easier using BIM. I was tasked with checking to make sure all of the walls in a project were the correct type and either went up to the underside of the roof deck or were braced depending on their type (and therefore also showed up correctly in section). So I set up a couple filters and made a 3d view with some color-coded types and voila - not only is my task now easier to do its also a bit more fun and I have a better understanding of the building than I would doing the same task in CAD.
"I think its just going to take some time before the middle and older generations can wrap their heads around a new technology"
I dont know - the older folks had no prob with Revit in my office ( well to a point. They could drag around walls and think they were done.) It was the young that split 50 /50. A couple older folks cant use either but they didnt count.
I could go either way. I like Revit, I like Cad. I like 3ds and Rhino.
The one thing I dont like about Revit is scale - We ended up drawing things we knew were wrong because they wouldnt be seen at the scale they were intended but we needed to just make the building section look right. It bugged me knowing things were more wrong than if I used acad.
i am not sure why u would have to draw something wrong in revit. could you not use a different linetype? why would it drawn in cad look right but not in revit?
brer, that project is largely orthogonal with punched windows, i.e. absolutely perfect for revit. projects with curves, non-standard wall assemblies, complex curtain walls, i.e. most of the stuff that makes architecture fun, is not so easy with revit.
you may as well use a good 3d model (rhino because of its acad compatibility seems like the best option these days) and adapt plans, sections, elevations, and details to documents in 2d.
and in regards to who is using the program, i found its greatest proponents to be students and firm principals, both of whom have had little to no real world, hands-on project experience with the technology.
not to say that revit will not become the industry standard. if clients and contractors begin to demand it, it goes without saying that it will be the future, but it will also have major implications for the way we design. (similar to the way acad changed design in the nineties.)
The biggest proponents of Revit in my office are those who have actually used it for an entire project. And we don't do orthangonal boxes with punched windows - not even close. The difference is amazing. To me, doing anything in AutoCAD is now a cumbersome chore and I'm not even very good at Revit yet!
You're right jaf, the picture I showed is for a simple no-frills project. A project with curves, non-standard wall assemblies, etc is going to be harder to document no matter what software you use and consequently is also going to be harder to build for the contractor.
I, for one, don't think its necessarily bad that with BIM there is a stronger correlation between the difficulty in representation and the difficulty in manufacturing/building; in the past i've worked on projects in which the architect left much of the design unconsidered because they were only working in 2d and hadn't thought of all the consequences of a certain design (I understand that a good architect wouldn't have done this regardless of the tool, nonetheless).
I've done projects that have doubly curved surfaces and the like using Revit in which I had a lot of skepticism going in that the tool would be useful and was pleasantly suprised.
"that's how i've done it, use sections as an underlay, draw 2d overtop, and then hide the section."
I thought this thing was supposed to draw sections and elevations that were usable from a model? sounds like the only thing it is really good for is various plans in large projects and coordination.
it does knock, but until processing speeds catch up to the ability of the software and the software gets 20 years in the business, no one will pay for the time it takes to model every single component that is contained within a wall section/detail etc. the majority of the pieces are there, but you still need to 2d draft and provide notations. the "dream" is to have a information model that has every model component be a specifiable, schedualable, "smart" object.
it does more than you think and far less than you imagine or have been told. it is useful, if you know how to manipulate the tool.
I haven't personally used Revit yet, but right now the Revit project team in my office is sitting idle because the master file apparently got too big and crashed the server.
Revit may or may not be the best thing since sliced bread, but I get nervous when a software company -- especially a thug like Autodesk -- does their hard-press sales pitch and promises to "re-invent" the way our firm delivers a project, and practically bullies us into purchasing Revit when we merely try to upgrade our existing AutoCAD seats.
"I, for one, don't think its necessarily bad that with BIM there is a stronger correlation between the difficulty in representation and the difficulty in manufacturing/building"
From the beginning of this thread, I've been meaning to post this same exact thing. I completely agree.
I've been the interim BIM Manager for about half a year now, and I get calls/e-mails like "what, Revit can't do this and this in half an hour?" And in my head, I'm thinking "Well, that would be difficult to do in any software. And even if it was easy, it would be very diffciult to document for construction."
LIG - As for the issue at your office, that is more of a BIM model management issue than a software issue. Possibly hardware. I've seen some architects' models that just unnecessarily model everything.
I'm a fan of all sorts of BIM software and the idea of BIM, not necessarily the realization of it so far. Still, we gotta take first steps some time. I don't want to be Autodesk or Revit dependant, but there are concepts to learn from their software, even if it is how NOT to do something.
Anti, I'm on the structural end, so VisualARQ is not on our radar quite yet. If they had developed it more on the structural side, I'd probably take a look.
building with components in normal type buildings should be second nature to every architect...how ever you choose to draw it. I hope revit will turn out another vauable tool!
Once we become masters of the conventional and tested building language, we can start inventing and developing more new forms and new ways to build buildings that are truly innovative. an evolution in experience form and space.. I don't even have a clue to what the construction documents for some of the new blob type building would be so far.
maybe like in the fountainhead, every architect only has 1 chance if your lucky in your entire life to create an architecture.
So until then the more you can do to master every component, the more tools you'll have when and if you're lucky enough to get to your dream.
if revit can allow you to do alot more in a much shorter amount of time then that would just add faster to your pool of knowledge.
So many new programs that I need to learn!
yeah, i can't understand the aversion to "building with components" isn't that what buildings are made of, components? w-sections, curtain walls, cmu, door frames, doors, etc...all components. this components ARE "dumbed" down in AutoCAD, they are represented as lines and lineweights...
2d detailing will remain in the picture until i have a computer that can handle 3d flashings, window gaskets, and sealant beads. right now it can't.
why would you ever want to model all that? the beauty of conventional 2d documents is an almost complete elimination of redundancy. that in itself is an art that bim lacks.
if revit can allow you to do alot more in a much shorter amount of time then that would just add faster to your pool of knowledge.
is that statement even compatible with architecture (and i'm not talking your typical m.o.b. here)? efficiencies in production do not necessarily translate to efficiencies in design; in fact, they are likely opposed.
Revit 2010 BETA version looks like its going to be amazing. I use Revit evryday and think that it is superb. Once you have got your mind around the way that REvit works its all pretty simple..but of course it is not perfect. After using Revit and becoming relatively competent at it, Acad feels ancient and very slow. I'm all for BIM now.
Could you explain to the world why you hate Autodesk and ALL it’s products so much. This anti-Autodesk Pro Rhino attitude on every single thread is really getting old and annoying.
Maybe then we can try to understand your anti-Autodesk crusade.
Many of the new operations in Revit (parametric associations, paneling) are done out of the box, where you would normally need Rhinoscript or Grasshopper for.
"is that statement even compatible with architecture (and i'm not talking your typical m.o.b. here)? efficiencies in production do not necessarily translate to efficiencies in design; in fact, they are likely opposed"
True, but why would you spend most of your time (which is not always billable) manually coordinating drawings, manually updating schedules, manually updating elevations plans and sections when a door moves an inch, manually doing clash detections, manually calcualting areas peremiters and volumes, rebuilding countless seperate 3d models for rendering purposes sustainable analysis design review and client presentation.
I would then argue, why use time saving tools like a calculator or email if this also doens't translate into better architecture.
i just wanted to voice my opinion in regards to cd's w revit.
it does take some time to adjust from cad but with proper modeling and a job can be fully detailed without having to cover up anything.
personally ive done over ten 100,000sqft+ jobs in revit, most of them large scale residential but many of them different designs and different structure.
it took our office almost a full year before we were very confident in our abilities.
-Crizzler
"build with components....perfect.... how much more can we dumb down architecture....."
That could not be further from the truth about Revit. Those who know how to use it and who have used it do not restrict themselves to premade components. Also, Revit does not dumb down the design process. If anything, it makes the design process better. Forcing the designer to think in ways that many don't when drafting 2D on CAD. Revit and BIM does not take away from the design or the building at all.
It is pretty obvious by my name and blog (www.therevitkid.com) that I am a firm beleiver in Revit. I work at an all Revit firm (converted from CAD about a year ago). I used CAD for 6 years prior to Revit. There are many advantages of Revit over CAD.
The fact of the matter is those who are "anti-revit" are not worth converting and fighting. Even if they do end up switching one day (either because they are forced too or have to comply with there consultants program usage), they will only use it as a "drafting tool" and not utilize its vast array of benefits to all parties.
There is not one viable reason in this entire thread as too why those who are against it are against it. Even the creator of thread has not backed up why he thinks Revit sucks.
Revit Kid - Heres what I see the problem is with Revit in my office.
The program isnt utilised to its potential - integrating design schematics, presentation sections and CDs properly. Your right, we used it as a 2-d drafting program. Partially because the design principles are too old to learn it. They just cant grasp it. They can barely use acad ( although they think they are cad gods)
As a 2-d drafting program its horrible. And if thats how most firms are going to use it, then its not the right software for them.
I love it, dont get me wrong. I use it at home all the time. However, theres a certain threshold for computer program complexity that 3/4 of people, both young and old, simply dont have the skills or mindset for. They may be great spatial thinkers and designers - just not computer jocks. Until the program gets easier to use people are going to struggle with it.
this thread is maybe just evidence that revit is getting to be the norm - just like how we've always loved to hate each successive version of autocad. we don't hate the new tools until they become part of the landscape.
Revit Sucks!
In general, I think Revit sucks. What do you think?
eh. i think you are wrong, but whateva.
as a schematic generator and scheduling, it's great.
i'm not to keen on it for C.D.s
I tend to agree...but its the way of the future...
i think revit is great for certain things. if you are producing a building using only the typical conditions that come with the program it is good, and efficient.
i took a class last week through autodesk to learning the program, and found that the instructors couldn't even help me with some of the stuff i was tying to do. and i think it makes people think to detailed to quickly, so in studio, it is a step in the wrong direction if you work with it to early.
so i have mixed feelings. it might be like all programs, good for some things, but when you try to adapt them to new situations that stumble a bit.
but it doesn't suck
I kind of had a same thread like this about photorealism vs quality vs representational art. It's what your customers want, what the style or cultural demand is and technological and fiscal limitations.
I'm learning rhino right now.
One thing I think it would be worthy of pointing out is what will happen to 3d rendering programs if 3d printers become a whole lot cheaper and easier to use?
awesome. glad to see you like it.
next!
revit is awesome. the office i work at only uses it.
the MEP portion needs lots of work though
How are most using it to do details? Wall sections, for example -- our office is masking in 2d stuff over a section cut. Is that the best way?
We adopted it - used it - then went back to acad for documents / 3ds for renderings. Just faster that way. I liked revit - but it was too cumbersome, staff absolutely hated it. I think its ok, personally I could go either way - but definately not the acad killer people claim it is.
I cannot wait for a 3d-printed section detail. The contractors can, I suspect.
Archicad is more flexible and was the innovator...
I predict more "blobs" and "big boxes" and details that look like default tools.
Kurt, you can either just make a drafting view and use detail components and drafting lines or just use the edit cut profile button along with the detail components.
you COULD also import cad details from a library and explode if necessary but people tend to stay away from this, as all the layers will turn into individual line styles.
kurt, that's how i've done it, use sections as an underlay, draw 2d overtop, and then hide the section.
Anyone knows a good source to learn Revit fast? Any online tutorials?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks G-nads and b3ta -- just wanted to make sure I wasn't missin' any "magic".
EvilP, I don't work in your office, do I? Sounds exactly like what our office is doing.
would be perfect if it was command based
My two cents
I would have to say that revit is probably a lot better for cds than people think. Being able to format drawings, dimensioning, notation, and coordination is so much easier than in cad.
I run into trouble with file size and some detailing related to elevations. Doing fascias in revit makes my face hurt.
With that said anything I can do in acad I can do in revit. Even if that means turning something off and drafting over. My vote is definitely for revit. I think its just going to take some time before the middle and older generations can wrap their heads around a new technology.
BIM is a great tool (my experience is with Revit).
The image below is an example of the type of thing that makes my job easier using BIM. I was tasked with checking to make sure all of the walls in a project were the correct type and either went up to the underside of the roof deck or were braced depending on their type (and therefore also showed up correctly in section). So I set up a couple filters and made a 3d view with some color-coded types and voila - not only is my task now easier to do its also a bit more fun and I have a better understanding of the building than I would doing the same task in CAD.
"I think its just going to take some time before the middle and older generations can wrap their heads around a new technology"
I dont know - the older folks had no prob with Revit in my office ( well to a point. They could drag around walls and think they were done.) It was the young that split 50 /50. A couple older folks cant use either but they didnt count.
I could go either way. I like Revit, I like Cad. I like 3ds and Rhino.
The one thing I dont like about Revit is scale - We ended up drawing things we knew were wrong because they wouldnt be seen at the scale they were intended but we needed to just make the building section look right. It bugged me knowing things were more wrong than if I used acad.
evil,
i am not sure why u would have to draw something wrong in revit. could you not use a different linetype? why would it drawn in cad look right but not in revit?
brer, that project is largely orthogonal with punched windows, i.e. absolutely perfect for revit. projects with curves, non-standard wall assemblies, complex curtain walls, i.e. most of the stuff that makes architecture fun, is not so easy with revit.
you may as well use a good 3d model (rhino because of its acad compatibility seems like the best option these days) and adapt plans, sections, elevations, and details to documents in 2d.
and in regards to who is using the program, i found its greatest proponents to be students and firm principals, both of whom have had little to no real world, hands-on project experience with the technology.
not to say that revit will not become the industry standard. if clients and contractors begin to demand it, it goes without saying that it will be the future, but it will also have major implications for the way we design. (similar to the way acad changed design in the nineties.)
using massing makes curves easy. it will even make blobby easy....
The biggest proponents of Revit in my office are those who have actually used it for an entire project. And we don't do orthangonal boxes with punched windows - not even close. The difference is amazing. To me, doing anything in AutoCAD is now a cumbersome chore and I'm not even very good at Revit yet!
You're right jaf, the picture I showed is for a simple no-frills project. A project with curves, non-standard wall assemblies, etc is going to be harder to document no matter what software you use and consequently is also going to be harder to build for the contractor.
I, for one, don't think its necessarily bad that with BIM there is a stronger correlation between the difficulty in representation and the difficulty in manufacturing/building; in the past i've worked on projects in which the architect left much of the design unconsidered because they were only working in 2d and hadn't thought of all the consequences of a certain design (I understand that a good architect wouldn't have done this regardless of the tool, nonetheless).
I've done projects that have doubly curved surfaces and the like using Revit in which I had a lot of skepticism going in that the tool would be useful and was pleasantly suprised.
I'm not really a 'designer' though.
"that's how i've done it, use sections as an underlay, draw 2d overtop, and then hide the section."
I thought this thing was supposed to draw sections and elevations that were usable from a model? sounds like the only thing it is really good for is various plans in large projects and coordination.
it does knock, but until processing speeds catch up to the ability of the software and the software gets 20 years in the business, no one will pay for the time it takes to model every single component that is contained within a wall section/detail etc. the majority of the pieces are there, but you still need to 2d draft and provide notations. the "dream" is to have a information model that has every model component be a specifiable, schedualable, "smart" object.
it does more than you think and far less than you imagine or have been told. it is useful, if you know how to manipulate the tool.
I haven't personally used Revit yet, but right now the Revit project team in my office is sitting idle because the master file apparently got too big and crashed the server.
Revit may or may not be the best thing since sliced bread, but I get nervous when a software company -- especially a thug like Autodesk -- does their hard-press sales pitch and promises to "re-invent" the way our firm delivers a project, and practically bullies us into purchasing Revit when we merely try to upgrade our existing AutoCAD seats.
hahaha
you are just now figuring this out?
"I, for one, don't think its necessarily bad that with BIM there is a stronger correlation between the difficulty in representation and the difficulty in manufacturing/building"
From the beginning of this thread, I've been meaning to post this same exact thing. I completely agree.
I've been the interim BIM Manager for about half a year now, and I get calls/e-mails like "what, Revit can't do this and this in half an hour?" And in my head, I'm thinking "Well, that would be difficult to do in any software. And even if it was easy, it would be very diffciult to document for construction."
LIG - As for the issue at your office, that is more of a BIM model management issue than a software issue. Possibly hardware. I've seen some architects' models that just unnecessarily model everything.
I'm a fan of all sorts of BIM software and the idea of BIM, not necessarily the realization of it so far. Still, we gotta take first steps some time. I don't want to be Autodesk or Revit dependant, but there are concepts to learn from their software, even if it is how NOT to do something.
Slartibartfast do you like the latest VisualARQ work in progress build?
Anti, I'm on the structural end, so VisualARQ is not on our radar quite yet. If they had developed it more on the structural side, I'd probably take a look.
tekla then?
build with components....perfect.... how much more can we dumb down architecture.....
its bad enough when folks copy/paste specs/dwgs and have no clue whats really going on.....
building with components in normal type buildings should be second nature to every architect...how ever you choose to draw it. I hope revit will turn out another vauable tool!
Once we become masters of the conventional and tested building language, we can start inventing and developing more new forms and new ways to build buildings that are truly innovative. an evolution in experience form and space.. I don't even have a clue to what the construction documents for some of the new blob type building would be so far.
maybe like in the fountainhead, every architect only has 1 chance if your lucky in your entire life to create an architecture.
So until then the more you can do to master every component, the more tools you'll have when and if you're lucky enough to get to your dream.
if revit can allow you to do alot more in a much shorter amount of time then that would just add faster to your pool of knowledge.
So many new programs that I need to learn!
yeah, i can't understand the aversion to "building with components" isn't that what buildings are made of, components? w-sections, curtain walls, cmu, door frames, doors, etc...all components. this components ARE "dumbed" down in AutoCAD, they are represented as lines and lineweights...
why would you ever want to model all that? the beauty of conventional 2d documents is an almost complete elimination of redundancy. that in itself is an art that bim lacks.
if revit can allow you to do alot more in a much shorter amount of time then that would just add faster to your pool of knowledge.
is that statement even compatible with architecture (and i'm not talking your typical m.o.b. here)? efficiencies in production do not necessarily translate to efficiencies in design; in fact, they are likely opposed.
Revit 2010 BETA version looks like its going to be amazing. I use Revit evryday and think that it is superb. Once you have got your mind around the way that REvit works its all pretty simple..but of course it is not perfect. After using Revit and becoming relatively competent at it, Acad feels ancient and very slow. I'm all for BIM now.
By BETA i mean I have seen the BETA version and if the real version is as good as that looks then it is going to be very cool.
very cool = still sucks
Anti,
Could you explain to the world why you hate Autodesk and ALL it’s products so much. This anti-Autodesk Pro Rhino attitude on every single thread is really getting old and annoying.
Maybe then we can try to understand your anti-Autodesk crusade.
Who said that Revit couldn't do curvy buildings?
Check out these clips. http://designreform.net/
Many of the new operations in Revit (parametric associations, paneling) are done out of the box, where you would normally need Rhinoscript or Grasshopper for.
"is that statement even compatible with architecture (and i'm not talking your typical m.o.b. here)? efficiencies in production do not necessarily translate to efficiencies in design; in fact, they are likely opposed"
True, but why would you spend most of your time (which is not always billable) manually coordinating drawings, manually updating schedules, manually updating elevations plans and sections when a door moves an inch, manually doing clash detections, manually calcualting areas peremiters and volumes, rebuilding countless seperate 3d models for rendering purposes sustainable analysis design review and client presentation.
I would then argue, why use time saving tools like a calculator or email if this also doens't translate into better architecture.
i just wanted to voice my opinion in regards to cd's w revit.
it does take some time to adjust from cad but with proper modeling and a job can be fully detailed without having to cover up anything.
personally ive done over ten 100,000sqft+ jobs in revit, most of them large scale residential but many of them different designs and different structure.
it took our office almost a full year before we were very confident in our abilities.
and example detail fully modeled in revit
Hello everyone!!!:)
Can you do blob like structures in revit? how? I'm using 2009. Thanks.
-Crizzler
"build with components....perfect.... how much more can we dumb down architecture....."
That could not be further from the truth about Revit. Those who know how to use it and who have used it do not restrict themselves to premade components. Also, Revit does not dumb down the design process. If anything, it makes the design process better. Forcing the designer to think in ways that many don't when drafting 2D on CAD. Revit and BIM does not take away from the design or the building at all.
It is pretty obvious by my name and blog (www.therevitkid.com) that I am a firm beleiver in Revit. I work at an all Revit firm (converted from CAD about a year ago). I used CAD for 6 years prior to Revit. There are many advantages of Revit over CAD.
The fact of the matter is those who are "anti-revit" are not worth converting and fighting. Even if they do end up switching one day (either because they are forced too or have to comply with there consultants program usage), they will only use it as a "drafting tool" and not utilize its vast array of benefits to all parties.
There is not one viable reason in this entire thread as too why those who are against it are against it. Even the creator of thread has not backed up why he thinks Revit sucks.
Sorry... that link didn't work:
http://www.therevitkid.com
Revit Kid - Heres what I see the problem is with Revit in my office.
The program isnt utilised to its potential - integrating design schematics, presentation sections and CDs properly. Your right, we used it as a 2-d drafting program. Partially because the design principles are too old to learn it. They just cant grasp it. They can barely use acad ( although they think they are cad gods)
As a 2-d drafting program its horrible. And if thats how most firms are going to use it, then its not the right software for them.
I love it, dont get me wrong. I use it at home all the time. However, theres a certain threshold for computer program complexity that 3/4 of people, both young and old, simply dont have the skills or mindset for. They may be great spatial thinkers and designers - just not computer jocks. Until the program gets easier to use people are going to struggle with it.
this thread is maybe just evidence that revit is getting to be the norm - just like how we've always loved to hate each successive version of autocad. we don't hate the new tools until they become part of the landscape.
I agree Steven but in Revit's case from what Ive wittnessed it's just too hard for some people.
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.