Ever tried vectorworks or archiCAD?  I've used Reivt - it just dumbs everything down that's easy anyway.  It seems like most people still have to draft out the more specific details. It might be good for estimating quantities / costs (for a GC's estimate), though I'm not sure if I've ever seen it used this way.  I think Vectorworks gives the best control of lineweight while integrating BIM.

We use ArchiCAD. Really nice drawings.

The only thing that would keep me from switching to ArchiCAD is that Autodesk is making a huge push to become industry standard.  More and more, consultant teams (structural, MEP) are switching to Revit and despite the shitty graphic quality mentioned, one of the major advantages is coordination between disciplines.  My understanding is that this is not possible with ArchiCAD, short of giving consultants 2d underlays and working it all out the old non-BIM way.  

We are the architects - shouldn't we be leading the industry in the best direction instead of toward the corporations that try to monopolize the software?  We need open-source BIM platforms - that use a standard file format which can be used by any software developer that intends to compete in that space.  That would keep costs low and quality high.

Think about why HTML succeeded and other web development file formats failed - it was because it was open source. the same should be true of BIM software.

I have a dream

I think the software is awesome, but I just cant get over how shitty the drawings look

What's wrong with this picture????

i totally get it but

let go of the graphics - design the building not the documents

do your good looking drawings in something else and then document the database (that's all revit is in the end) to get it built

proto, not sure how I feel about that comment.

When the field crew has as set of drawings that reads well and pops, I think you get a better built project and have less questions from the field.  

There definitely a certain level of architectural masturbation that goes on with overly beautiful construction drawings, but there is no way revit graphics are acceptable out of the box unless you are doing a big-box store or something of that caliber.  

^  You're absolutely right.  Documents that don't "read" are more subject to misinterpretation.  And guess who inevitably is going to get the blame and be invited to the party when the cost of change orders is allocated.  There is no excuse for Revit not to produce drawings of good quality out of the box, considering the cost of the program.

geezertct and chigurh I agree with both of you. I have been working with Autocad for 20 years now. it took the industry years to bring AutoCad into the realm of acceptable Graphics, by playing with line weights. I am so disappointed in revit and its graphics capabilities. the Sad thin is when you tell the younger designers how a real Architectural drawing shoudl look they have no clue and they think they are architects because the know how to use Revit. I wish Autodesk would work on Revit and bring its standards up to par. It is lacking in this department big time. Architectural drawings are our tool of communicating, and they need to look right.

I'm torn here. With enough tweaking of linetypes and lineweights in revit, I think you can get close to a good looking drawing. Or, as a last ditch effort, trace over with detail lines (I know, very un-BIM). I've also found myself jumping into illustrator with Revit produced CAD backgrounds when clarity is of utmost importance, but i would never do this with a SD or DD, let alone CD set. Revit is definitely becoming industry standard - the ArchiCAD jump doesnt make sense. 

Why do you care about good looking plans? at the end of the day its going to be sent around from contractor to contractor, we don't care if you spent 20 hours making it look pretty, as long as its readable and clear that should be fine.

good looking drawings = tighter bids - no joke 

I personally make a detail view use "pick line" to trace the general lines of the detail needing to be drawn. Then I make a drafting view paste those lines in and add my fills better line weights ect. Because yes tweeks to the drawings tweek detail views so you should keep your details as drafting views. if you want to use a model view there is also a tool to change line weights by just clicking them, this is all out of the box no lengthy time set up. Takes about as long as CAD to draft details but you get a base to start with from the model and you save incredible amount of time with annotation and sheet set up compared to CAD. i.e. No need creating a bunch of annotation sizes and dimensions, can easily move everything around without worrying about ruining call outs. Plus the very easy and intuitive model pieces keep interns who don't understand building components from drawing incorrectly sized components .

At least this is the solution if you are just drafting with the program if you are using it to its full potential for material takeoff a energy analysis ect. Yes model down to the detail, if not you are just burning billable time to make a pretty model with no benefit to anyone.

SA: Why paste them into a drafting view? Simply set the model to "Do Not Display" and viola, detail lines that are floating in air. Now, when the lead designer changes his/her mind, you can turn the model to halftone and move the detail instead of some convoluted cut / paste.

hmmm that does sound way better

Simply put. if you have to do those changes every time. your BIM manager sucks. You can set all this stuff up to do automatically using filters and templates

I've used Revit for well over 4years and trust me, designing - Documentation is a breeze, guess what?  It's called Template. Do it once, the second time should be an improvement not a redo. 

This software is so wonderful I love it so much I can't find how many holes in the door. 

revit is so shit. so unbelievably shit