Autodesk has issued a public statement following the publication of an open letter signed by a constellation of BIM-forward architecture firms decrying the lack of development and rising costs of using Autodesk Revit.
Earlier this week, firms that include Zaha Hadid Architects, Grimshaw, Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners, and at least a dozen others published an unprecedented open letter speaking out against the maker of the industry standard BIM software.
In their letter, the firms speak out against the increasingly difficult task of utilizing Revit to pursue design innovation in the face of advancing production and fabrication capabilities while also highlighting the fact that the software's constantly changing fee structure has forced firms that rely on the software to endure additional costs with little added benefit to their work or employees.
The statement follows in full below:
Engaging, listening to and addressing the concerns of our customers is a top priority for Autodesk, and we appreciate the feedback we received in the open letter. While there are points it raised that we disagree with, there are also issues raised that we must take to heart, which highlight areas where we’ve fallen short. Over the past several years, we increased our product development to serve engineering and construction customers, because we believe having a multi-disciplinary BIM model connected to construction enables better collaboration among all project team members. As with any business, there is the need to prioritize resources. We do recognize the need to balance and have recently increased our development on the architectural capabilities of Revit. Expect to see progress here in the future. Our current roadmap for Revit is publicly available at: www.autodesk.com/revitroadmap. We also empathize with customers that have gone through different license models in the last few years as we’ve transformed Autodesk to become a subscription-based company that can serve our customers better. We’ve done our best to balance these changes with a more valuable experience and trade-in offers that give longtime customers a path to experience these benefits at a cost consistent with what they pay today. But we must always be open to customer feedback. We’re planning to continue engaging with these customers directly, to have an open and honest dialogue, helping us further understand their needs. We have more to say, but first we will listen.
94 Comments
"Here's what our PR flacks drummed up while we continue doing what we were already doing. If you want to know more, here's a document that was written before we read your dumb letter and won't change in any important way, maybe it'll have some token updates and we might even use some of the words you wrote in your dumb letter, but otherwise? *&%^ you. Oh, and your subscription payment is due. Ass."
this isn't a social movement, just fix the shitty software.
Right? It reads like a #revitlovesyoutoo moment.
Honestly, I was super happy when they allowed you to use rectangles to draw rev clouds.
their response suggests the pricing model of revit should be changed to recognize it provides far more value to the construction team and owner than the design team. architects do enough to help contractors out - we don't need to subsidize the software they use for material take offs too.
we don't distribute our revit models. Stamped pdfs rule.
neither do we - the construction industry where i work doesn't use them despite years of tepid pressure from the local government. so 15 years into bim, who is actually using the information that's supposed to be the transformative essence of this?
About 4-5 years ago my office was talking with a few GCs to figure out if there was a way we could be modeling our projects in Revit to better allow them to utilize the model for their work. I think the idea was two-fold: 1) better figure out and define the LOD we should be stopping at, and 2) find some savings (in our efforts, or more likely the GCs efforts and eventually their bids/GMPs) that could eventually be passed onto our clients making them more likely to work with us.
It didn't take long before the contractors basically said, "thanks, but we have to remodel everything from scratch anyway. We can't work with anything you give us except the 2D plans, sections, and elevations." I don't imagine things have evolved that much in the past 5 years to change this much.
BIM nirvana where there is one perfect model that everyone is using is simply a dream at this point.
to some extent i think it will always be necessary contractors build their own models. they actually know things architects don't, and need to see/study things architects aren't involved in. recognizing no model is or can be the complete building could lead to a more productive process. each model is an iteration working out specific issues and conveying certain information.
I know a couple of people that have left architecture firms and are essentially modelers for contractors now. They do essentially the same work, but are valued and paid better all while working fewer hours and no late nights.
^helping contractors figure out how to build a building is worth more to the contractors than the designers - so of course it pays better. the value proposition that architects will use improved tools to help contractors minimize construction planning work was always undefined.
In fact, we are not able to utlize the BIM Concepts due to the inappropriate codes in the HVAC designs. Generally designed based on the heat load which is obtained based on peak conditions, equipment selection will be carried out according this. As of now , the present condition considers average load only. . it will be more appropriate if the simulation calculation is arrived at based on peak load.
In addition to the above, the policy which they have setted for Software Bundle which is really complexity. This will lead to indirectly hitting the cost impact to the company for system upgradation and configuration whether software extensively used or not.
I don't understand how Autodesk can justify their pricing structure for Revit when the entire AEC collection cost is only ~22% higher than a standalone version of Revit. It's all a scam, and they know there really isn't anything small firms can do about it, we would all have to coordinate together, not likely to happen.
They aren't too worried about losing the big guys.. there aren't that many bigs guys. It's the little guys that prop up their system.
Who is requiring that architects use Revit? Has it been added to our contracts?
You'd think Autodesk's competitors would be scrambling to promote their BIM software during this media blitz.
In some cases, especially with government and large corporate work , it is.
If government is requiring that, isn't that a conflict of interest by mandating a corporately owned file format?
I thought IFC was supposed to fix this issue?
What real options do we have? Archicad, Bentley/MicroStation??? It doesn't seem that folks are arguing the validity of Autodesk creating a superior product in Revit (for it's time). They are expressing concern over cost-to-value, advancement of product, quality of customer service. I see it as similar to a consumer purchasing a mercedes (or any automobile manufacturer equipped with a luxury price tag) and the amenities / offerings of the early 2000s - with a seemingly stagnant attitude to listen to criticism and improve their product. The question is - has the time come for change? Is the market demanding it?
Right, no one is "forcing" anyone to use Revit, but few - if any - alternatives exist that aren't just as bad or worse.
Like, no one "forces" me to drive a car but good luck getting anywhere without it...
michaelgermano said "government and large corporate work" have *.rvt requirements built into the contracts, that sounds pretty forceful.
I'll clarify that it's not always Revit that is specified. I once worked at a firm that had to train people to use Microstation as a requirement for drawings.
What determines Revit vs. Microstation contractual requirements?
Donatello: my point is that is doesn't matter if or who is "requiring" Revit, the industry is effectively locked into it. See my top comment about monopoly.
If you believe the selling point about an owner being able to use the BIM in operating their building ... ideally the owner would make that determination based on which software they want to use for the life of the building.
@tduds, If a contract requires that a project be delivered in *rvt., then it does matter (as that is a literal "lock"). You are making the assumption that no alternatives exist (see my more top comment about IFC as one example).
@Everyday, so does this mean Autodesk's greatest success is marketing Revit to owners? Would love to see that material.
No, I wouldn't say that. I think that is a selling point that they've used for architects to get us to use it from the start as more of a BIM philosophy. I.e. it's important that we use Revit so the contractors and the owners can take advantage of the information in the model. Let's face it, architects rarely take full advantage of the 'I' in BIM. We don't really use it. It's mostly there as a benefit to the contractors (who don't use it) and the owners (who also don't use it). Eventually it could be useful, but it would radically change how we approach our documentation efforts and no one is willing to pay for that.
Autodesk's greatest success is giving out free student software. They know that a firm owner isn't going to be likely to spend money on software that no one can use. By giving out the software for free to students, they ensure that nearly all future employees will have a basic understanding of the software.
Donatella - I'm not sure what your point is as you appear to be arguing both sides of it in this thread.
"If a contract requires that a project be delivered in *rvt., then it does matter (as that is a literal "lock")."
Okay sure. What I was saying is that this point is not relevant because even in cases where the contract doesn't require Revit, nearly every firm is already using Revit.
"You are making the assumption that no alternatives exist"
No I'm not. I'm saying the alternatives have such a small share of the market compared to Revit that Revit is effectively a monopoly.
At this point I'm not even making a counterpoint against you, I'm just clarifying what I said since it seems to have been misinterpreted.
@ Everday Architect, the free student software does make a lot of sense (it doesn't explain the prevalence of Rhino, although it too has a steep student discount). I do see a lot of pressure from contractors and subs for Revit, but is there something specific about Revit they can't get in other BIM formats?
@tduds, I don't have a point and I'm not really arguing? I'm looking for a history lesson and understanding on how Revit came to and continues to dominate the BIM landscape. I'm also curious why the aerospace industry has more respected software options between NX and CATIA and why a similar balance of software options doesn't exist in the AEC industry when their is a clear dissatisfaction among users.
Rhino's prevalence can be understood because it is simply good software with good development. See midlander's comment from the other thread.
Students learn it because it allows them to do what they want to do without that much of a learning curve. The learning curve was steeper than SketchUp, but ultimately more rewarding because it could handle a curve. I was willing to pay for it as a student because I also got the license for that version in perpetuity for any purpose educational or otherwise (i.e. no subscription fees, no "student version" watermark). The value was there and it paid off for me even after graduating when I was able to use it for drafting side projects without having to find a work around for the student version watermark in AutoCAD or Revit, or use my employer's software in violation of the employee handbook.
Ultimately, it's not BIM and doesn't compare to Revit though as sameolddoctor pointed out, also in the other thread:
The answer to whether there is something specific about Revit they can't get in other formats ... 1) the model if the architect did it in Revit (which most are), and 2) as tduds mentioned before, there really isn't much competition that isn't just as bad or worse.
we don't know the history and economic theory of BIM. all we know is currently there is effectively a monopoly, the software has serious issues, and people are asking for the situation to change.
i work in a large firm. i have no idea how software purchase decisions are made. our IT staff is involved in all such decisions - but they aren't architects. the firm management leads on the decision - but none of them ever get involved in modeling a project. They are mostly making their decisions based on what they think makes sense and what they observe our competitors doing.
I suspect most large firms are similar, and Autodesks substantial sales and marketing support provides their major competitive advantage in this process where software purchase decisions are being made on behalf of other people. It certainly was Autodesk who led on convincing the large contractors and institutional owners that bim had transformative potential; so their product was the default expectation.
also fwiw they didn't develop revit, they bought a small software startup which had invented early version and patched it up to provide multi-user capabilities. i think a lot of the irrational aspects of revits organization stem from being pushed to do things the original creators weren't envisioning.
as to why our firm keeps using revit: it actually does have some improvements in workflow efficiency especially regarding sheet organization and generating overall elevations / sections. product schedules are useful too. but it's not hard to imagine a much more flexible modeling process that further improves efficiency. AFIK only GSA projects make any effort to follow through with the information and I have no contact with people working on those. Has it been transformative? I don't know.
I miss Rhino. what version is out now? I was rocking 2.0 and the flamingo plugin while in grad school.
6 but i'm getting emails about a 7 beta which i'm too busy to investigate
Bryan Boyer's series of blog posts titled "Elite Modeling School" were so amazing back when I was in school and just starting with Rhino (I think it was v4.0 back then). His viewmaker script was a game changer for my diagrams and section perspectives.
I don't know if it was the first time I stumbled upon archinect, but it was definitely one of the reasons I came back to the site again and again and eventually signed up for an account.
'You'd think Autodesk's competitors would be scrambling to promote their BIM software during this media blitz.' ... they are, why aren't you all buying from the competition? Why keep buying Revit if you are not forced? You're enabling an abusive relationship!
And there are some good solutions/alternatives out there ... not mentioned above is BricsCAD BIM as yet another alternative.
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.
I have a perpetual Revit license, and they are increasingly trying to force me out of it into a more costly subscription - Imagine paying a mortgage, then all of the sudden your mortgage company makes you sign a renters lease and you lose your equity in the process. You miss a payment, you get evicted.
I have been at the same company for 24 years the CAD/BIM for 12 of them. We have been paying these subscription prices forever. Now we need to change again from network to 2 for 1 single user but all those years of paying top dollar means nothing. It's BS!
Autodesk has created the tools necessary to create the documentation necessary for Architecture. Even their LT products can produce cutting edge Architecture through standard Architecture training, especially when paired with Rhino3D. The general problem is Architects and Associates have a social rejection of the training required in Architecture. Architects need to know how to create documents in 2D.
I have been saying this for two decades: The ONLY way to get autodesk to listen is to become an autodesk shareholder - to autodesk's upper management, paying users are just cows to be milked.
Every company that buys more than 10 seats of an autodesk software product should also get in the habit of buying stock in that company.
If each of the architect signatories to the original open letter had 10,000 shares of autodesk in their corporate stock portfolio, they could join forces to threaten to vote out upper management with MUCH more authority and
effectiveness.
The bonus is that when a corporate customer owns stock in the products that they themselves use, that corporation is getting a discount on those products, in the form of stock dividends or increased share value.
Change can even be pushed by regular users, if they work together. Buying a few shares each month, 100,000 aggravated users would control a major chunk of the company after just 2 or 3 years, then they could demand real improvements. Does anyone have experience assembling GoFundMe-type efforts? Obviously such an undertaking doesn't have to be done through that outfit, but the idea would be the same ....
this is an incredibly convoluted "solution" to the problem. since when should it be necessary for users of any software to buy in to the companies that provide them? pay for play anyone? not to mention increased share-prices for autodesk?
shameful that this is even being floated around, but goes to show the perverse state of the economy in the 21st century.
also, are you sure you don't work for autodesk?
Yeah, the solution to "we give Adesk too much money and get the shaft in return" should not be to give them even more money via a different suck pipe.
Gents:
You can dislike it all you want, but this is how capitalism works: Some companies are publicly traded via stocks; this creates a stock market in which the public can invest their money. Then when those companies do well, their value/profit increases, and the investors (the public) get a share of that increased value/profit - this is why your 401k gains value.
Further, the top management of each publicly-traded company is legally obligated, to the shareholders, to do whatever they can to maximize the share prices of that company. So effectively, the first product of any company is profit - if they don't make a profit, upper management won't be employed next year. If that goes on for more than a few quarters, the company itself will not be there next year.
Investing in autodesk allows you to benefit from their efforts to make a profit, and anyone can do it, though that wasn't always the case. If you invest enough, you ALSO get to have some influence over who is elected to upper management. If a bunch of small investors get together, they can all vote the same way, and make some real changes.
Be aware, of course, that your financial gains may not be as healthy as you expect - for example, one improvement that users might like would be reducing the release cycle to every 4 years, so autodesk profits would fall, but YOUR company's profits might rise, and work life would be better and more efficient.
Or, everyone can keep filling out their wishlists, then watch as autodesk ignores them completely for dozens of years.
No, I definitely do NOT work for autodesk.
Further, the top management of each publicly-traded company is legally obligated, to the shareholders, to do whatever they can to maximize the share prices of that company.
there's a big difference between making a profit and maximizing a profit. the latter is the reason why autodesk is no longer concerned with the quality of the product, only squeezing as much money as the can out of it. and ultimately why your circular argument makes no sense.
Ironically, one of the wishlist items I voted for and commented on was added to Revit in the 20201 version's first update. Doesn't change my opinion of 'em .
There are currently 220,000,000 outstanding common shares of autodesk being traded at about $240 per share (when I first discussed this idea, the share price was MUCH lower). If 250,000 frustrated users decided they wanted to control 20% of the shares, they would each have to buy four shares per month for about 4 years. That may seem daunting, but anything worthwhile usually is. Plus, many folks are spending that much now on their 401k. If we include major corporate investors, around the world, the timeline gets much shorter - can you see that?
The sooner such an effort gets started, the sooner we can see real changes that will make work easier, faster, and more profitable - for thousands of companies that use autodesk products.
You get started, we'll be here waiting for the report of your success. With your obviously superior knowledge of how capitalism works that should be shortly, no?
alternative idea: autodesk becomes employee owned, forced to answer to it's own people that most likely care more about the quality of the product they are making than random share-holders.
Snarkypete, I have been doing just that for almost 11 years now, but I will need more folks involved - care to join me?
Square, that is another good idea, but it would require each of autodesk's ~10,000+ employees to come up with enough cash to buy 22,000 shares, or about $5,200,000 per person ....
Crowdsourcing this is part of the solution - a strong motivator for getting people involved is the anger that we users feel about autodesk's dismissive attitude towards paying customers. Now that some serious CEOs are paying attention (the folks who wrote the open letter), it is a good time to get them to commit their own corporate capital to help resolve the problem.
Complaining to each other does nothing at all, a new approach must be undertaken.
Keep up the ... work?
You are right though, complaining to each other does nothing at all, a new approach must be undertaken. That's why we have government. Just because it's been used up until now by bad actors to sell off our common resources to individuals and corporations doesn't make it impossible, and it's a damn sight more realistic than some bullshit coalition of minority shareholders.
And no, I don't want to join you. I find the system we have of selling token pieces of virtual paper -that are worth as much as a human beings ability to avoid impulsive stupidity- the worst possible metric of value there is.
Well, more government just pushes us closer to 1984, so I can't agree with you there - besides, you are talking about an act of congress, literally, and that is probably not easier than crowdsourcing.
If you have a 401k, you may already be investing in autodesk, depending on the selections you have made in the plan. if you don't have a 401k, I strongly suggest that you get into one, as soon as possible.
There are many measures of value, because there are so many value systems. The size of your 401k does not have any bearing on, say, how good a parent you are - if someone tells you otherwise, ask for proof.
ok boomer. i have a 401k, thanks.
we understand how the stock market works.
i'm just not interested in putting my money into a shitty company that already has a monopoly on how i spend 95% of my working day, continuing to artificially inflate its "value."
You're placing your faith in your ability to convince 250,000 people to spend hundreds of dollars a month for four years and then somehow to convince them as a block to... what exactly?
And you call my hope that we can convince a few hundred individuals to do the job we elected them to do a slippery slope to 1984? Yeah, fuck off boomer.
SP, you calling out the number of people needing to buy into this made me reread Shareholder's posts. First it was 100,000 users investing for 2-3 years to control a "major chunk" of the company. Then it changed to 250,000 users investing for 4 years to control 20% of the company. I mean, there are only like 116,000 licensed architects in the US so when you add all the unlicensed people working for them and others outside the US who might want to start investing in the US stock market ... I'm sure we can get there. It would only take about 500,000 users investing over 7-8 years to control enough shares to get there, right?
I think instead that Shareholder is trying to inflate the price of the stock by creating demand from all of us trying to buy in and control the company. Once it reaches a certain price, they'll sell all the shares they've been collecting these last 11 years and retire.
Snarky, you may need to work on your anger management ... if autodesk products are making you so enraged that you lash out at total strangers, maybe you would benefit by learning a different tool for your job.
Enraged? Are you projecting? Reread what I said as if I was this lady:
Autodesk's marketing machine is the best in the World.
First, they allow the programme (ACAD) to be copied and piroted.
People learn how to use it; companies accept it, governments require it, then BANG!
Huge costs either as subscriptions or purchasing it, lack of development, and mind-numbing complexity forcing people to take all kinds of courses to learn it.
EverydayA, I am not trying to deceive anyone. I am trying to come up with a creative way to influence the decisions at autodesk, so that we, the paying users, benefit more. For the past 30 years, autodesk's decisions have benefitted the company and the shareholders, but at an enormous unrecoverable cost to tens of thousands of companies that rely on autodesk software, because they have had to spend so much on training, hardware, and now subscription.
As I mentioned above, when I first started talking about this in the early 2000s, the share price was MUCH lower, so the numbers have had to shift upward.
In addition to individual shareholders, my further hope is that large AEC firms will begin to understand that if they want to have more control over their tools, they will need to get involved in the tool-maker's decisions. When large AEC firms start investing in autodesk stock, then work together to change that company's goals to be more user-oriented, those AEC firms may see the value of autodesk drop, but their own profits will improve, because they won't have to spend so much on training, hardware, and subscription.
I hope that makes sense.
nope.
I don't think you explaining your scheme any more is helping it make any more sense to anyone, but good luck. Make sure you come back and post a link to the zoom meeting where you try to organize all these 250,000 architect shareholders to vote the same about their software. I think that would be entertaining to see.
I’m back to basics for the residential work I do and feel fortunate I can do this
only one lead holder?
love the bookshelves
what, no circle template? :D
lead holder = roach clip
randomised, thank you.
SP, sometimes roll of tape.;))
Also, not a coffee stain in sight. I call shenanigans on this one, it can't be real.
What's real? I haven't started anything yet. ACAD is a hard dependency to deal with. ;)))
Autodesk has solidified its footing in the AEC industry as the ultimate villain. While its army of trigger-happy attorneys are ready to shoot on sight, any small architecture firm that violates their misuse of intellectual rights (examples abound), -George Floyd style- their development team is happy to collect our hard earned dollars and sit in their office-playgrounds to make sure the duplicate use of their software is tightly managed, period. While many simple and primitive functions, available in earlier versions of autocad, have been missing in Revit, year after year, they have been busy buying up the likes of T-Splines and dismantling them, with Rhino in their crosshairs as the next target of murder.
This company has no idea how hard Architects work, long hours into the night to hand over their hard earned money to a company that has monopolized the industry, edging anti-trust laws to make us use their sub-par product with little alternative. If you consider job postings on any major recruiting platform (indeed, dezeen, etc.) you will hardly find a demand or availability for labor skilled on a competitor's software (i.e. Archicad, etc). This does not mean that the Autodesk has proven itself to be superior product, rather a skill acquired by its public relations department, celebrity style. Needless to say, their tactics have paid off, being one of the best performing stocks in the stockmarket, even during the COVID pandemic, an event that brought many behemoth companies to their knees. https://www.investors.com/rese...
If any of you have good penmanship, please consider drafting a petition that would circulate among US firms. I only have anger to spew about this monster.
You should not be using George Floyd as an analogy in a rant about a software company.
First, Autodesk won't change. For change, we do need a competing product to Autodesk's Revit. The problem with creating a product like Revit is that it is a product with 20+ years of software development investment. Autodesk will need a competitor to threaten their throne in order to be motivated to innovate and do real changes.
A competing product that can run on a Commodore 64 would be nice.
LOL. On the serious side, such a BIM software should be running on modern PCs or maybe one of these newer Commodore 64s (THE64 and THE64 Mini or even a Commodore 64x).
I don't know much about these new 64s. Can you give me a quick rundown of the pros and cons of each?
I am thinking you are kidding a little but it might be a better discussion than wondering if Autodesk will change their ways. I'll run through some pros and cons later this evening if you like. Honestly, for BIM use, I think a nice BIM software that can run on anything from your tablet/smart phone level hardware to top of the line hardware would be nice.
With no connection to the cloud, please.
Regarding BIM:
No mandatory use of the cloud for sure would be great. Accessing a cloud can be a feature some may like but should be OPTIONAL so it isn't required. It's irritating to have to be forced to use the cloud but being able to use local network-attached storage and be able to use direct storage medium could be handy in my opinion.
I just clicked a link from a google search that took me to the autodesk forums. I didn't find what I wanted so I clicked back. Due to shenanigans with reloading and such, the bad actors at autodesk intentionally made it incredibly difficult for me to go back to my google search results. They have also gerrymandered the SEO so their bullshit suite of sites comes in ahead of more useful results regardless. This company is atrocious.
I have been using AutoCAD MEP since release 3 and Revit since it came out. My personal professional preference is AutoCAD MEP. Revit can not bring up the models I create in AutoCAD MEP because "IT IS A RESOURCE HOG" hence lock ups.. Our customers want to see the model in one product. Not multiple products that create maintenance problems down the road. What ever happened to do it with a KISS or create a sustainable Model that can be used for the life of the plant. Was this just fluff out of their mouth or are they fibbers? This is not for me to say you be the judge. Autodesk is about the money not the customers in my opinion. Otherwise they would not have dumbed down their data sets parts and started formulating parts that do not reflect real world usage. I had to rebuild the parts and data sets to match real world usage for it to be usable. Revit is no better. I remember when I supplied the data sets for SCH 10, 40, and 80 pipe in release 3 at my first university fixing all their discrepancies and giving them data sets for pipe up to 144 inches in diameter because the product only had the ability to generate 12 inch diameter pipes. I'm sorry I'm rambling. AutoDESK shame on you, no wonder everyone is starting to look at products that have consistency and are more refined with out the proxy graphics, object enablers, or having to buy a product to piece all the models together. How counter productive is that? What everyone needs is a product that covers all the Architectural, Plumbing, Mechanical , HVAC, electrical, Instrumentation, Control, Signal, and infrastructure on the plant site. Not a bunch of products that do not communicate. I guess this proves my case they are all about the money not the customers needs that is why they create islands. Have a great day.
Hey! I'm trialing Archicad, I actually kinda like the interface, new and a bit confusing, but I like it. Anyone else using it have any tips so I can maximally increase my confidence?
I am sure you will all like this blogpost then https://thinkmoult.com/why-revit-is-shit.html
Old and still true
pretty shitty blog post. Screams amateur. Revit is great if you understand revit. It's shit if you think it's sketchup+CAD. Try again.
Also, thumbing up your own post is sad too.
and it is your humble opinion!
Did you read it? It takes a good 20min to read. Trolling definitely helps the cause.
I read the first 4 points then skipped down the blog. My point stands.
Monopoly is axis of evil...
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.