Anyone who spends time working in Revit has surely experienced the common frustration of not being able to accomplish seemingly basic tasks without the need for some type of convoluted "workaround." Well, some of the leading BIM-forward architectural practices in the world, including Zaha Hadid Architects, Grimshaw, Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners, and others have finally had enough.
An open letter published by the trade publication AEC Magazine highlights these firms speaking out against a variety of issues, both with Revit software itself as well as with Autodesk's business and licensing practices. The letter, according to the magazine, represents an unprecedented effort, with AEC's editors writing "In the thirty years we have been following the AEC technology market and the 18 years in which AEC Magazine has been dedicated to the BIM process, we have never seen the likes of this — an open letter from a community of national and international design practices venting their angst at a technology supplier."
The letter protests the "increasing cost of ownership and the operation of Autodesk’s Revit software" as well as its fundamental "lack of development," among many other issues, and highlights the program's ubiquity as well as its casual dysfunction as intertwined issues that impact and ultimately limit the work of architecture firms.
One of the major issues involves how firms access the software via an ever changing set of licencing agreements with Autodesk. The letter's authors explain that "In the period between 2015 and 2019 most practices who participated in the survey have had at least 5 different licence models in play, moving from individual product licences, to suites, through to collections and now, in 2020 to individual user licences. Overall, those surveyed have seen costs increase up to 70% and beyond to the end of 2019."
The letter adds that "Practices would be less worried by these cost increases if they were mirrored by productivity improvements and a progressive software development program."
"Where once Autodesk Revit was the industry enabler to smarter working, it increasingly finds itself a constraint and bottleneck. Practices find that they are paying more but using Revit less because of its constraints," the letter continues.
Autodesk has yet to issue a response to the letter.
78 Comments
This is the inevitable result of monopoly.
Well, Revit alternatives exists, maybe is the time to try them. A practice should use the software as a tool, not be the tool for the software.
autodesk's Architectural Desktop is probably their best CAD product.......if you want to actually get drawings done.
Maybe I am dense but family parameters are.way too complicated for what it is. And the need for an external keynote file?
We need a software that can draft like cad, model like Revit, and move like Navis.
Always had high hopes Rhinoceros would be that software...
autodesk's architectural desktop does this......it's their best cad program
good. it's uncommon to wake up and smile like this reading industry news :)
Hallelujah! Love the software, but calm down with the licensing methods and add some new features already...
“Slave to the [Revit]!”
Good for these firms to take the lead against a spectacularly flawed software. They were all doing highly creative and successful built work way before Revit showed up.
Sad for you! It's never affected me! We should talk...
Whatever. Carry on, no one's interested in your dismissive tone.
I get it, licenses and interop are necessary improvements. But stop whinging because you can't be bothered to learn a new way of thinking. I'm sorry you can't figure out how to do complex geometry in Revit. I've never ever had a problem. There is no other tool that foregrounds iteration and, most critically, collaboration. I guess if you still are living under the mythology that architecture is the magical imprint of a singular genius it must be hard to adjust. Given we're responsible for more GHGs than any other industry, maybe swoopy incredibly highly intensive carbon emitting ego manifestations aren't what we need rn? Oh, and pay your interns guys.
you're conflating many issues that have nothing to do with each other. revit has many flaws no matter what kind of geometry you're doing, and both "normal" and "swoopy" architecture both existed before revit. whether you like using the software or not, it is indisputable that it is long over due for a major restructuring, prone to crashes and ridiculous fixes, and offered through an incredibly flawed subscription system.
Sorry that's your experience, completely not mine. Are you sure you know how to use it properly?
are you sure you don't work for autodesk?
one of the most exasperating parts of autodesk culture (which they promulgate through their excess of conferences and workshops) is that people who criticize the software are using it wrong, or don't truly believe the potential. many of us have been using it for 10+ years. but it's not the core of my job responsibilities; it's like 15% of what i do. software that needs 100% commitment to a way of working is a limitation and obstacle to serving my clients. autodesk writes software like boeing makes the 737-max - it's full of complex inexplicable hacks and when the planes crash they blame the pilots for not appreciating the nuances of the system.
Hey! I don’t work for autodesk, but I do care deeply about architecture, design, technics, and beautiful real constructed buildings. If it makes it easier for you to get through the day, by all means, throw all of your projections my way. The fact of the matter is, if you want to construct complex buildings that meet and exceed the necessary requirements to help bring us in line with meeting climate goals, you’re going to have to work in a collaborative environment. I love collaboration. I love instant feedback from my engineers, I love complex geometry, I love building buildings that work and I love details and well coordinated design from concept to construction. If you have a platform that can do all these things, I want to hear about it!! But I’m seriously not interested in sniping from folks who clearly have no care or understanding of contemporary technics. Everyone I know who knows how to use Revit can see the advantages. All the people I know who don’t know how to use Revit, hate it. And can’t be bothered to understand how it works. Rock and roll to you! I look forward to reviewing your CD set!
You are making the assumption that whoever is criticizing Revit doesn't know the software, which is not always the case. You like it? Does it works for you? Fine. Other people see the topic differently and see a flawed software, or something that doesn't work for them, or something that does not keep the promises that was supposed to hold.
both a porsche and a ford pinto (bim) are more powerful vehicles than a bicycle (cad). i'd like revit's developers to either price it like the pinto it is or strive to develop a porsche. right now we're paying premium for something that's hacked together clumsy and fussy. i'm not a professional driver but i can tell the difference between the two and would tire of having my driving skills questioned when i criticize the pinto.
as a user-oriented product rhino is my ideal. despite enormous complexity it's intuitive, easy to become functional with minimal training, and works smoothly with external products. and over ten year's time it costs me a tiny fraction of what revit would, requires no expertise to set up, and is extremely stable on various computers i use.
Excellent analogy with the cars, midlander.
what are technics?
Rhino is awesome, but I believe comparing it to revit is like apples and oranges.
Perfect analogy, mid
Title blocks with Revit are a nightmare - and they take up way too much sheet space.....it's flunking the fundamentals that make Revit such a bummer
The reason you are feeling you didn't ever experience any problem with Revit is because your design does not have any issue.
Seriously, who cares. Take Revit and use it as an enema if you love it so much.
You must be really good at design. LOL. You sound like those Excel type of dudes.
Revit is not the only BIM in the world. Archicad, Vectorworks, Allplan are just few of the alternatives. Software is like a car, it doesn't exists the best one, but for sure, exists the best for YOU, how you are using it and where you want to go. Stop considering Revit the best and only software in the world. It is not, it is just marketed in that way.
Those alternatives are all owned by the same company, Nemetschek, by the way...
True, but when an Architecture firm and it's consultants invest in the time, training, and embedded software tools, switching to a new platform is like starting over for everyone. Revit is great software to be sure, but there are a host of issues that should have been fixed a decade ago, especially when a firm is paying 4 grand a year for a single seat.
Those other platforms are really not that difficult to pick up...anyone willing to pay 4K a year per seat will find excellent customer service, training opportunities and troubleshooting at Revit’s more affordable and more user oriented competitors...
Most clients want only Revit nowadays. Some government projects require it, only Revit. Talk about feeding onto this monopoly.
Ok, but the Software are very different, Archicad and Vectorworks are two software completely different from each other.
I hear you, but the problem is that just like social media or any kind of product that depends on network use, I (we) don't really have the freedom to just switch over as the entire industry is heavily invested. If you want to get a job for example mostly Revit is required. The industry as a whole like we have here would need to create some kind of petition.
Curious to see Autodesk's response...
Also curious to know how much of their $2.5+ billion revenue is from architects, versus general contractors...
so sick of revit's shit. i spend all this "productivity" i supposedly gain back trouble shooting ridiculous problems and crashes, and after reading this article i understand why. the cons are now far outpacing the pros.
I for one resisted using Revit for many years and I regret that. About two years ago I decided to give it a real go, and I have since fallen in love and my productivity has gone up tremendously. That said, I don't see Revit as an all-round tool, especially in parametric and generative design. I have thus adopted the viewpoint that it's merely another tool in my toolkit and have discovered efficient methods of working between Rhino + GH <------> Revit + Dynamo. This will especially increase even more with the new GH Rhino 7 plugin coming out. Revit excels in what I think their niche is: a documentation and collaboration tool. That said, it's way overpriced and even if it was less so, the development for it I think is just too slow. We for example still don't have multi-core capabilities in the areas where I think it matters most and no real every-day kind of innovation. The construction industry in general unfortunately is very slow in terms of innovation. I think most of the smart smart people go into fintech, biotech etc.
autodesk has over 10,000 employees and they can't implement the standard windows open dialog box.
microsoft has given up on this too with newer products which default to a small list of folders which are almost certainly not the one you're looking for unless you have the kind of job that involves putting all your files in one fat folder...
Motherfuckers should stay in their lanes. Assholes like Lumion think they can design both a rendering program AND a UI and fuck up both so hard it hurts.
Using Revit for 14+ years now. And i must agree on this. It seems more and more that revit is adding more features to cover up the bugs in the program. Maybe they should just take a step back, and fix the current performance and basic modeling tools that is not working. And I gave a big red face to a Autodesk expert when i told him of a few functions that work all good when drawing up small homes, but when you start to create multi story buildings with complex geometry and detail. The software can't keep up. You have to wait 35% of your time for the programme to respond. So to get to my point. Why add new "functions" to Revit, if if can't even keep up with the current functions?
Autodesk, you should see this feedback and get to work on the next big thing... Maybe approach BIM like Siemens NX; same file type but modularized for each specific task... Have the ability to swap modules in and out based on the task to keep the resources light... idk, while at the same time I agree that Revit has many things to improve, architects, engineers, & drafters need to learn more Computer Science and try to contribute solutions that are grounded in coding reality. There may not be limitations as to what can be done with software, however there are limitations as to how it must be done, based on the interplay between software and hardware. The hardware is always a moving target, with major architecture overhauls every 3-5 years; constant updates of drivers, firmware, & chipsets; CPU power & # of cores increasing; PCIE & DDR iterations... and we are not even addressing the constant revision of the .net framework from Microsoft... all the while, under constant attack from hackers, forcing security software to constantly become more complicated. Point being, those of you who only use the software and don't really understand coding should maybe ease up on trashing the software and Autodesk; pick up your keyboard and Visual Studio, dive into the API and SDK; maybe find out why Revit does it that way? Maybe create a 3rd party add-in that solves the problem and makes it function exactly how you envision that process should function? That is not a work-around technically, it is just like a LISP routine, albeit a little more advanced (but not much). The learning curve is steep, no doubt... but don't give up and blame them... when you get to a certain level of understanding in Revit, you realize why it works the way it does, you learn the rules to follow religiously, and then you realize that you really can make Revit do anything you want, you just have to follow the rules.
Do agree with the 1st bit of your comment. But just think of it this way. You pay Autodesk for Revit so you can use the software to create documentation for construction. That is the reason you bought the very expensive software. But if you have to tell your manager we are going to miss a deadline because you 1st have to write some script to make the software you bought work. I don't think that is going to go down well. Autodesk just have to fix the bugs in the functions it already have, and stop adding more, before the software is sorted.
I think what I was trying to get at, is that the software engineers can only go so far in producing a platform that is both versatile and uniform. Those traits are kind of mutually exclusive. So it is up to us, the people who use it on a regular basis, to develop some tools that utilize the stable platform in a unique way... and then market them to other Architects and create a new revenue stream, accelerate the industry with more efficient tools, etc... and if it is good enough, Autodesk will buy you out and incorporate that new tool in a new release. Look, I am extremely dissatisfied with the amount of money I am paying for my AEC suite... but I understand that much of that money goes to making the software able to function in a world of constantly changing factors... you push here and it pops out over there kind of thing... troubleshooting code at the complexity of a software like Revit is a daunting task and all of those factors should be accounted for when calculating the cost of the software... Siemens NX is $10k per seat for comparison to the manufacturing industry.
honestly i'd rather build the buildings myself than write the software to design them. this is literally the job of software creators to do - revit charges as a premium product not a DIY platform. End users have no more business modding business software than pilots do running maintenance and mechanical upgrades on their aircraft.
Agree, Autodesk will never realy satisfy everyone. That's a given. Just I have worked with other software. Some are ok some is beter. But if autodesk just get back to basic with Revit. It will be a great program. And as you say, if you want to use it past it capability. Get a add on, or creat a add on if you are capable. I use dynamo for some functions, and it works great. But if a program can't even do a basic function as a steel connection. And then freeze for 20min every time you try to edit. Then there is a problem with the software. ( Sorry - That just happen to me. Basic end plate detail freezes my computer for 20 min.)
There are so many factors that go into why a program freezes, and usually it has to do with the project file itself, not so much the application. I have been a BIM Manager for different clients, Archs, Engs, & Contr; I have seen the errors that Revit is prone to... but almost all can be avoided by following certain rules of thumb. Every firm has a different level of understanding and therefore comfortability with Revit functions, education in Revit does not remain uniform. With everyone approaching functions in Revit with a different level of understanding of the program and then we link all these different companies' files together, even use them to pilfer content and datums from, yet we don't know the process they started with. DWGs, IFCs, and images, linked or imported, depending on format, can totally hose a project's performance... but if you find the offender, it resolves the issue.
No, This is Revit just acting up. Nothing else. Did the same connection on 2 other column and beam connection. And for some unknown reason on the 3rd one it freezed. Same connection family same beam and column element. And the 4th connection no problem again. File didn't save in the back ground. No other software where running. And that is a common thing in Revit. Basic functions not working. And this file is still small. The building is only 15% modeled. So much more fun to come. But we may bitch and moan as much as we like. We still love to use Revit.
@jordanehrig:
"pick up your keyboard and Visual Studio, dive into the API and SDK"
Have you tried creating a Ceiling Element Type or FaceWall with a non-planar surface using Revit's API? I'm assuming not, because you would know that Revit's API literally does not have access to these methods, and last time I checked, most buildings have ceilings.
i realize i'm piling on the criticism here. To be clear, I like using revit in my team's workflow compared to not. In documentation it absolutely saves time and avoids dumb work.
But there are many areas where it falls far short of potential, and a redesigned product that was more open ended and oriented around a 3d-space modeling interface could vastly improve usability. The hard-coded family system is inexplicable and unnecessary.
Better interoperability with other software would be key too - it's never going to be the case that one product does everything we need and i really wish autodesk would accept that and let revit be simply an excellent documentation tool.
And something targeted towards larger projects where grouping of repeating elements like floors worked smoother could be a huge timesaver. We still spend an awful lot of time doing repetitive modeling work in revit that other software doesn't require - it could be much better.
Personally too I find the parametric linkages of building elements in a model nearly useless. I wish I could turn it off. It's pretty rare that revisions are a matter of mere dimensional adjustments rather than complete reorganization of the parts and their arrangements.
architects are now expected to know scripting, programming, etc, to cover for the deficient software and UI. I have to cobble together scripts for basic things like duplicating layouts or renaming multiple details or importing geometry from other industry standard applications.
I am not saying it is a DIY platform, I am saying software engineers don't design buildings so they don't know everything we want to do with them. Also, I understand that designing buildings is what some people like to do, and you don't have to write the software... but I recommend that someone on staff in the office as a whole, does understand some of the API, SDK, Dynamo, PyRevit, C# or something along those lines, so they can help you develop the tools that you envision. And then turn around and capitalize on the R&D investment by putting together an add-in package and market to other firms... there is an opportunity here to make more money if you look at it right, that is all I am trying to point out... as well as the fact that Revit being as stable as it is while still allowing that level of user customization and an interface under the hood of the program to add more things without breaking is pretty astounding and worth the money to me... despite my hating to pay $375 a month as an operating cost. I get where you guys are coming from, I really do. If you spend any time developing a solution, market it and make some money off it! Or find a coder to work with, explain the dysfunction or new capability and try to find a way around it with the framework provided... because it is a pretty good framework when you get into it.
I'm looking for a Revit API coder Guru to work with, can you show me how to do a Ceiling.Create() and FaceWall.Create() (*non-planar)? We could totally market it and make some $$$. Feel free to share your git repo with me when you have a working plugin.
Hey, Midlander and Revit M,
Please find me on LinkedIn or FB, would really like to connect... maybe we could hammer out the next big thing in BIM and compete with Bentley and AutoD.
too scared to compete with Dassault Systèmes?
Solidworks is actually my favorite modeling software, didn't know Dassault had a BIM offering... I was actually thinking more along the lines of the way SiemensNX does it, but hey its just ideas throwing out there, you never know what might actually take hold. You know, i may have been a bit snarky with my comment about picking up a keyboard and diving into the API... I didn't mean for it to come off that way, but I see how it could be taken that way... I just was hoping to motivate some more people who understand a lot about building and construction to dip their toe into the computer science part of it, because coders need people to come up with the idea before they can code it... and the coders won't have the idea because they don't necessarily think like Architects or MEP Engineers. Having a little coding background can help ground your expectations for what the software is capable of, so not coming up with "pie-in-the-sky" ideas that are not achievable.
still convinced blixflup-whatever is a disgruntled developer at autodesk..
He's just a corporate cookie-cutter architect who thinks he can design. Probably he thinks his CD's are wow, and (as most CD sets from Revit I have seen throught the years) the drawing quality is nonexistent, like engineers drawing elevations & sections. He has stockholm syndrome and doesn't know it yet.
For a tank analogy, it sounds like autocad is a T-34 (Russian) and Revit is a Tiger tank (German). As good as the Tiger is, it required a lot of sophisticated parts and training that could easily fail. The T-34 was a work horse that out performed the German tank because it was reliable even if inferior technically. At the end of the day, I want to draw good architecture, not fuss over what tools I'm using. We are currently on autocad and thinking about Revit, so this conversation is very helpful. Thanks
if you feel good about CAD, and it's working for your office, subs, and clients, no need to switch. people will preach the productivity gospel because you don't have to update a few tags, but that productivity comes at a huge cost (in terms of money and time), as you can see by this thread. (e.g. the amount of other shit you need to manage because of the flawed software keeps piling on). if your projects aren't massive, then i think you are wise to keep using CAD. i also miss drawing.
not a bad analogy. If you are on CAD and it works, stick with it.
Fussing over the tools has been a part of architecture since before stickybacks. The process changes, the tools change, building technology changes, and not always for the better. The idea that there's one right answer is always wrong .
I agree. Does anyone know about the estimating advantages? That’s the driver for us. Or else we’s stick to sketchup and autocad. Also, how often Are you forced to get a new version. You can treatch autocad for 5-7 years
You're not forced to get the newest anymore except via your teammates who you're collaborating with, as you pay for the subscription and have access to all versions available. Revit is not backwards compatible in any appreciable way, which is a major downside.
Estimating would benefit provided your teams model correctly with the understanding that the model is intended for takeoffs and such. I'd caution about using your model for estimates outside of your office, though, but you're probably much more familiar with that sort of decision than I am.
As Simone Catania has pointed out, there are other BIM softwares available, are there any good references for why Revit has a monopoly on the BIM space? Are there other industries facing this kind of software monopoly? I thought IFC was supposed to liberate us from all this?
From strictly a business standpoint - they are showing their vulnerabilities... and although they currently obtain a stronghold of the marketplace - they must realize that their software is becoming in-proportionately more costly while the interface shortcomings are becoming more apparent and clearly burdensome. Their true colors are starting to show and in the world of tech advancement + disruption - I have a suspicion that someone will create a platform that will be strong competition in the foreseeable future. If Autodesk does not take a long, hard, humble look in the mirror - they will become their own worst enemy in terms of their reach + relativity + permanence in the marketplace.
From a small business owner in the design sector... Software has become our #1 expense and time suck. I too think its time for a change - or at the very least, options.
I am proud that some of the 'leaders' in our profession have decided to voice concern - albeit a more of a professionally internal issue.
This is the inherent problem with software as a service.
Professionals whom use tools in production should be the deciders of what is needed rather than some idiot MBA who's never produced a drawing model or document. Adobe is similar to Autodesk - a couple of corporations who've hoovered up others and failed/and/or discontinued our tools whilst taking the fucking piss out of the reason they are in business.
Fuck all has been delivered since moving to a rental model as was promised to the tenants whom will commandeer our tools of production.
https://www.samsharpe.co.uk/article/local-regional-global
my main gripe is that the interface is about the same speed as it was 30 years ago. it can still take up 4-5 seconds of waiting every time you do anything.
https://youtu.be/2PPuGtQmwRc
Because both Adobe and Autodesk are run by marketeers rather than designers whom are "looking after" quality design tools purely through acquisition. Whilst go on any user forum since the software rental model became a thing and there's plenty of folk asking where is the money going as its sure as shit not on software development. Scumbags.
whoooops!
My mistake, all pologies.
You pay these idiot marketeers at Autodesk and Adobe rent every month for being shit landlords ?
Subscription based licensing was already a win for Autodesk. Increases to subscription fee is more like a slap in the face. There are so many improvements on the wishlist that go unanswered to benefit what, generative design and fabrication? Revit’s roots are in architecture and we are starting to feel forgotten.
This is the point, if you buy software as a tool you'll need to have a reason to upgrade, if you pay these scumbags rent they will treat the relationship like that.
I just have to laugh - so glad this open letter finally emerged. Anyone got a good Revit title-block editing nightmare story???? I'm glad I'm one of the few sole remaining 'permanent license' holders who didn't give up that for a subscription. However, I do have the Premium Building Suite from Autodesk which includes Revit, yet for all my projects, I use Architectural Desktop (AD) from Autodesk (which has now been absorbed into regular ol' autocad for some reason in the 2020/21 release). Anyway, I've been in the BIM world for quite a long time (anyone remember Bentley's Triforma and how they used their customers as unwitting beta testers for their unfinished program?), and have to say, the promise never really lived up to the hype. Only reason I'm not on Archicad (the best architectural BIM software), is that converting layers to autocad/revit is still a PITA. I've tried beginning projects with Revit, but it always turns into a fiddle-fest, where you're shackled by the limitations of title block info, schedules, etc - great ideas, but the implementation truly suxx. Invariably, I go back to AD, where I get all the 'stuff' that makes Revit great, with the quickness of regular ol' autocad - where you just wanna get sh*t done, printed and out the door. Face it folks, you can't polish a turd......but you can do it with Revit.
You're just a DELIGHTFUL bundle of unintended and oblivious contradictions.
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.