topic Re: Archicad vs. Revit?? in Collaboration with other software

Archicad vs. Revit??

rob2218 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:56:22 GMT

this is not a match up fight here folks. I just wanted some constructive comparison on who here has used both and what they can see the pro's and con's are of one vs. another.

Again, no need to take off the gloves. i'm simply doing a bit of research for someone.

Much appreciated.

Re: Archicad vs. Revit??

David Larrew — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:24:57 GMT

Try doing a search for "Revit" on this forum. I think this has been discussed on other threads like:

http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?p=154634&highlight=revit

http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=28196&highlight=revit

Re: Archicad vs. Revit??

Chazz — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:35:13 GMT

Discussed, debated and agonized over endlessly in the past here. TW2 may change the calculus for some potential adopters. However, the discussions here always seem to focus on features and capabilities of ArchiCAD and Revit at version X.

The much more important consideration for anyone considering making such a huge investment (and the investment is primarily in TIME; cash outlay is a distant, secondary consideration) is the trajectory of the tool. Who has the momentum? Which player is going to be viable in 5 years? In 10 years? (I've been using ArchiCAD for 17 years and have such an investment in time that switching to something else is daunting). When you look at it with this criteria, it is hard to make a reasonable argument for ArchiCAD. Revit is dominating by every metric that can be measured.

But looking into the future, what about SketchUp on Chrome?

Re: Archicad vs. Revit??

Anonymous — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:55:55 GMT

It all depends on what type of projects you do. It's that simple. If you're doing boxy traditional, not to complex buildings, that aren't too large, then both Revit and Archicad will do. Anything else, I would advice you to go with a combination of Rhino/ Maya and Autocad. Pretty much all firms that do interesting work and occasionally make the magazines will never touch software like Revit or Archicad, for the obvious reasons.

However, if you want to use a BIM tool, regardless of the type of projects or architectural style, then Bentley is the perfect tool.

Re: Archicad vs. Revit??

David Larrew — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:07:10 GMT

blobmeister wrote:
It all depends on what type of projects you do. It's that simple. If you're doing boxy traditional, not to complex buildings, that aren't too large, then both Revit and Archicad will do. Anything else, I would advice you to go with a combination of Rhino/ Maya and Autocad. Pretty much all firms that do interesting work and occasionally make the magazines will never touch software like Revit or Archicad, for the obvious reasons.

I have to strongly disagree with your comment... I have worked for and with firms using ArchiCAD (6.0-13) that have accomplished design awards and magazine spreads with very complex designs. I have been working with ArchiCAD for the last 12+ years (before the BIM marketing avalanche from Autodesk) and never once was unable to accomplish a design (no matter how big or complex) in my tool of choice.

Re: Archicad vs. Revit??

Anonymous — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:29:03 GMT

David wrote:
blobmeister wrote:
It all depends on what type of projects you do. It's that simple. If you're doing boxy traditional, not to complex buildings, that aren't too large, then both Revit and Archicad will do. Anything else, I would advice you to go with a combination of Rhino/ Maya and Autocad. Pretty much all firms that do interesting work and occasionally make the magazines will never touch software like Revit or Archicad, for the obvious reasons.
I have to strongly disagree with your comment... I have worked for and with firms using ArchiCAD (6.0-13) that have accomplished design awards and magazine spreads with very complex designs. I have been working with ArchiCAD for the last 12+ years (before the BIM marketing avalanche from Autodesk) and never once was unable to accomplish a design (no matter how big or complex) in my tool of choice.

Well, there is a reason why software packages like Rhino, Grasshopper, Maya are dominating this segment of the industry and not Archicad.

Re: Archicad vs. Revit??

Eduardo Rolon — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:31:17 GMT

That is not true.

Neither Rhino nor the Grasshopper plug-in or Maya do construction documents and they are not market leaders in AEC, though they dominate Columbia.

Neither Le Corbusier, Gaudi, Saarinen, FLlW had any use for any software to create great architecture.

The best tool is the one you are comfortable with, try both see which one clicks with your design and production style.

As you might be able to infer most users in this forum like AC.

Re: Archicad vs. Revit??

Anonymous — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:30:48 GMT

blobmeister wrote:
It all depends on what type of projects you do. It's that simple. If you're doing boxy traditional, not to complex buildings, that aren't too large, then both Revit and Archicad will do. Anything else, I would advice you to go with a combination of Rhino/ Maya and Autocad. Pretty much all firms that do interesting work and occasionally make the magazines will never touch software like Revit or Archicad, for the obvious reasons.

However, if you want to use a BIM tool, regardless of the type of projects or architectural style, then Bentley is the perfect tool.

WOW. Where to start.

1. Nobody is using Rhino or other tools in CD phase. It is used in very early DD phase and that is it. After that point you just go into the proper architectural tool.
2. Both (all three?) packages are capable of producing CD's no matter how complex a structure. However ...
3. On some very complex structure there is mutual agreement to actually use model for construction. It is just to complex to document all dimensions. Models are used directly to fabricate structure.
4. All those magazines stuff is overblown in importance in design/construction phase because this is the phase where involvement of the big fish ends. It is most medial information. No one is interested that army of CAD technicians is using Archicad/Revit/pickone to produce actual construction docs. All they care is that this complex design/sculpture evolved inside the belly of Maya/Rhino/Catia. It just look cool in magazine.
I suppose I'm done.

Re: Archicad vs. Revit??

Anonymous — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:49:38 GMT

The firms who use Rhino or Maya use Autocad for documentation as it's still the most flexible and customizable tool available. As a matter of fact , rhino models are used for direct fabrication.

Even Autodesk can't hide the fact that their clients (zaha Hadid, Cage/Clemenceau etc.) all use Maya and Autocad and not there flagship BIM tool. http://download.autodesk.com/us/design_viz/zaha_video/zaha_620x398.html

Now, the term "magazine" architecture is purely to illustrate the type of architecture, not "necessarily the starchitect itself. We can all agree or disagree if this style or the way it is practice is good for the profession. What is odd though is that we all want Graphisoft (and Autodesk, for the those who use Revit) to be on the cutting egde of technology. We expect them to deliver us with the best they can, to us to keep us ahead of the competition. We are pioneers in BIM & IPD compared the 2d firms, yet we use it to "design"and document un-inspiring, un-innovative, traditional architecture that has been here for over a century. And we seem to critize the few that try to bring architecture to another level. And apparantly those working at Graphisoft think the same way too.

Would we be using an Iphone if Apple think the same we do in Architecture?

Re: Archicad vs. Revit??

Bricklyne Clarence — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:30:53 GMT

blobmeister wrote:
The firms who use Rhino or Maya use Autocad for documentation as it's still the most flexible and customizable tool available...........

Now, the term "magazine" architecture is purely to illustrate the type of architecture, not "necessarily the starchitect itself. We can all agree or disagree if this style or the way it is practice is good for the profession. What is odd though is that we all want Graphisoft (and Autodesk, for the those who use Revit) to be on the cutting egde of technology. We expect them to deliver us with the best they can, to us to keep us ahead of the competition. We are pioneers in BIM & IPD compared the 2d firms, yet we use it to "design"and document un-inspiring, un-innovative, traditional architecture that has been here for over a century. And we seem to critize the few that try to bring architecture to another level. And apparantly those working at Graphisoft think the same way too.

Would we be using an Iphone if Apple think the same we do in Architecture?

I don't really care if ArchiCAD ever develops the capability to design or model blobitecture and organic/freeform designs and forms ala the Hadid's and Gehry's. In fact I think that Graphisoft have already made the calculation that this was never their intended purpose for AC and thus will likely never invest their resources in this direction. The untimely death of Maxonform at the hands of Graphisoft, - especially after all the hoopla they raised when they unveiled it, and especially when they said they were doing so to replace it with new integrated tools within the next few versions (Maxonform was killed at around AC10, 3 versions ago; still no tools to be seen) - should be more than enough proof of this.

I do however, think that this whole 'ArchiCAD-is-not-a-tool-for-blobitecture' argument and meme has ultimately become a big glaring Red Herring for GS and a rallying call for their apologists, - essentially an excuse and pretext to abscond their obligation to develop and improve the modeling tool-set of ArchiCAD - even for the most basic functions in the program for design and modeling of forms that are still very commonplace and conventional architectural components. How else to explain the fact that you can design and build a Custom spiral staircase with panelized handrails and customized risers in Rhino3d ( a traditionally non-architectural program) yet you can't pull the same feat with any logical sense of ease (read: no convoluted work-arounds and no GDLing) in ArchiCAD.

Anytime this topic comes up, someone is bound to pop up claiming ".....but I don't need those tools, so I don't think that GS should spend any precious time of resources developing them? Use Rhino or C4D for that!!", and thus ends the conversation and argument as GS then resort to taking the path of least resistance and develops for the least demanding customers. Instead we end up with Curtain Wall Tool, for example, which is so inflexible for design purposes and counter-intuitive for workflow considerations, and end up having to use it instead, to patch up holes in other parts of the program (railings, Ceiling panelings etc) that it's not even originally intended for.

All because of a red herring of 'Organic/Freeform design and model tools' argument trumping the legitimate need to improve sorely lacking areas of the program.

But at the end of the day I think it's a moot point and argument because I don't believe there's that much further that GS can take this software on the back of a seriously aging 3D kernel and engine driven by GDL - which, for all its flexibility is a considerably inefficient, clunky and resource-greedy Graphical coding language. You really think it's by accident or negligence that we still have no intuitive graphical user interface and/or module to facilitate the creation of custom objects and to replace GDL coding? It's just natural progression, and at this stage of game, there's not that much room for them to navigate with regards to improving the interface, the workflow nor the program in general.

ArchiCAD is never going to have the modeling robustness of a Rhino or a Maya or a CATIA. Which is all well and good, since none of those are architecture programs to begin with. But does that have to mean that we also can't get or have a decent fully functioning program devoid of all the work-arounds, the GDL coding, or having to rely on the third-party developers?

Re: Archicad vs. Revit??

owen — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:05:37 GMT

Bricklyne wrote:
But at the end of the day I think it's a moot point and argument because I don't believe there's that much further that GS can take this software on the back of a seriously aging 3D kernel and engine driven by GDL - which, for all its flexibility is a considerably inefficient, clunky and resource-greedy Graphical coding language. You really think it's by accident or negligence that we still have no intuitive graphical user interface and/or module to facilitate the creation of custom objects and to replace GDL coding? It's just natural progression, and at this stage of game, there's not that much room for them to navigate with regards to improving the interface, the workflow nor the program in general.

Grasshopper ....

take a long, hard look at it and tell me ArchiCAD wouldn't benefit immensely from such a simple yet powerful parametric scripting interface like that. Just copy the damn thing if you must - it is basically a graphical, drag 'n drop means of putting together a GDL script.

This simple video should be very relevant to mainstream architecture and explains in only a few minutes how good it is. Note at the beginning how you can draw objects in the normal 3D space and capture them to add parametrics ..

http://www.vimeo.com/3152539

can anyone seriously say this would not be one of the most important developments in ArchiCAD's history?

(gotta have something to aim for after TW2)

cheers,

os

Re: Archicad vs. Revit??

Anonymous — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:06:20 GMT

Do you people think that Digital project is maybe a way to go? I'm an architecture student, and wanna get most out of the bim (when I say the most, I think about modeling)

Re: Archicad vs. Revit??

Anonymous — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 20:45:35 GMT

@WhiteMan I've used a lot of software the years and I find myself (only very recently) with ArchiCAD as my core tool - why? - whether I am entering a competition or designing a kitchen extension I need to have intelligent data that I can push in different directions - to visualisation, to construction drawings, to consultants etc. By intelligent I mean, for example a door that knows it is a door and can respond dynamically to what it is touching like wall, in 3 dimensions and with all the BIM implications.
For me the focus is on workflow - so I also use other software packages

Cinema 4D (recently) for modeling and rendering that ArchiCAD could not achieve (their connection isn't perfect but I live in hope)
SolidThinking - which is a very powerful NURBS modeler, more like Alias Studio than Rhino (which owen mentions above)
and ArchiCAD add-ons like Cadmimage design suite and landscape suite,

... but at the end of the day most of my work is done in 'core' ArchiCAD

You raised the issue of Digital Project, which is built on CATIA, which was developed for the automotive and aeronautics industries. It is no accident that as architecture becomes more like 'double curvature' industrial design that ID tools are being adopted. This is relevant if industrial-like processes are the main focus - like a Bilbao. Where architecture has BIM, industrial design has PLM - and I see them getting closer and closer in the future.

Stepping back a bit, just remember that when you leave architecture school you need to get a job - where most firms will not be whizz bang NURBS modelers; and if you work on your own sooner rather than later you will probably start with modest projects that will have no use for digital project and the like - but will benefit greatly by the use of intelligent BIM like ArchiCAD - as I have found

Good luck and keep exploring
You can also have a look at an old blog post of mine New directions for young architects: TECHNOLOGY

Re: Archicad vs. Revit??

Nando Mogollon — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 22:26:53 GMT

owen wrote:
Grasshopper ....

take a long, hard look at it and tell me ArchiCAD wouldn't benefit immensely from such a simple yet powerful parametric scripting interface like that. Just copy the <b>[censored]</b> thing if you must - it is basically a graphical, drag 'n drop means of putting together a GDL script.

This simple video should be very relevant to mainstream architecture and explains in only a few minutes how good it is. Note at the beginning how you can draw objects in the normal 3D space and capture them to add parametrics ..

http://www.vimeo.com/3152539

can anyone seriously say this would not be one of the most important developments in ArchiCAD's history?

(gotta have something to aim for after TW2)

cheers,

os

Simply great.

But I have some questions there:
1. Is Graphisoft aware of this kind of technology?
2. Being aware of it, Would they consider it something important to achieve?
3. If it's so, Can they Actually do it? or Hire someone to do it?
4. Is it too hard?
5. Is it better to hope for an Architectural version of Rhino? than a Grasshopper for ArchiCAD?

thanks to that video, every time I have to edit/create a GDL Object with ArchiCAD, I feel like driving a Ford T.

Thanks for sharing Owen.

Re: Archicad vs. Revit??

Nando Mogollon — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 03:53:49 GMT

Ups
Posted a couple of opinions in the AUGI forum (same thread)... Still civilized but a bit aggressive.
Some gentlemen just don't accept critical thinking.

Re: Archicad vs. Revit??

Anonymous — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 07:42:03 GMT

owen wrote:
Bricklyne wrote:
But at the end of the day I think it's a moot point and argument because I don't believe there's that much further that GS can take this software on the back of a seriously aging 3D kernel and engine driven by GDL - which, for all its flexibility is a considerably inefficient, clunky and resource-greedy Graphical coding language. You really think it's by accident or negligence that we still have no intuitive graphical user interface and/or module to facilitate the creation of custom objects and to replace GDL coding? It's just natural progression, and at this stage of game, there's not that much room for them to navigate with regards to improving the interface, the workflow nor the program in general.
Grasshopper ....

take a long, hard look at it and tell me ArchiCAD wouldn't benefit immensely from such a simple yet powerful parametric scripting interface like that. Just copy the <b>[censored]</b> thing if you must - it is basically a graphical, drag 'n drop means of putting together a GDL script.

This simple video should be very relevant to mainstream architecture and explains in only a few minutes how good it is. Note at the beginning how you can draw objects in the normal 3D space and capture them to add parametrics ..

http://www.vimeo.com/3152539

can anyone seriously say this would not be one of the most important developments in ArchiCAD's history?

(gotta have something to aim for after TW2)

cheers,

os

I want to study the Archicad,may be it's the best