topic Re: Revit Structural, is it gaining ground? Read the article in Collaboration with other software

Revit Structural, is it gaining ground? Read the article

Anonymous — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:27:48 GMT

Hi,
GS please read this article, are we lost in the structural front?

http://redigitaleditions.com/ActiveMagazine/getBook.asp?Path=BDC/2009/01/03&BookCollection=BDC&ReaderStyle=WithPDF

Click on BIM Software

I think a translator from IFC to CIS/2 would gain us some ground.
Thanks,
Joseph

Re: Revit Structural, is it gaining ground? Read the article

Anonymous — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:53:05 GMT

Can I assume there is not much interest in ArchiCad Structural?

May be that is why GS does not create one, like MEP.

Re: Revit Structural, is it gaining ground? Read the article

Karl Ottenstein — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:32:27 GMT

Looking at the Tekla web page, it seems that they accept CIS/2 and link with ArchiCAD... I believe some have posted experiences elsewhere here? If not, chime in.

I believe that strategic partnerships and open standards are the Graphisoft philosophy, as opposed to acquisition and integration (Autodesk). At least that's what I've seen so far.

Cheers,
Karl

Re: Revit Structural, is it gaining ground? Read the article

Bricklyne Clarence — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:20:33 GMT

Karl wrote:
......

I believe that strategic partnerships and open standards are the Graphisoft philosophy, as opposed to acquisition and integration (Autodesk). At least that's what I've seen so far.

Cheers,
Karl

.....Frankly speaking, that's a strategy that's doomed to failure. Especially when the strategic partnerships you have to rely on are with parties who have been, or are arguably soon to be bought out by your main competitor - Autodesk (see Ecotect, Navisworks and maybe even throw in Tekla,.... in the soon-to-be category), - and the 'open' standards are more or less, defined and set by the same said main competitor; thanks to their market dominance and your own poor development strategies and lack of vision ( see: .Dwg format, Revit North American dominance and ubiquity vs. GS North American piss-poor marketing, and of course, IFC format impotence and sterility).

Granted, Graphisoft, (and by extension Nemetschek) don't posses the same degree of raw purchasing and buy-out power, which Autodesk currently wields like an iron fist, but there have been a lot of avoidable mis-steps, lost opportunities, and just plain, dumb business decisions on their own part, in recent years, that would have, more than bridged the gap, had they taken a more innovative approach to ArchiCAD's development and marketing.

Needless to say, that that's a whole other thread discussion, but the point here being that, the primary error with this market strategy ( of relying on 'strategic partnerships' and even third party developers) is that, how long do you suppose it will be before the third-party software, that you have to rely on to fill in the gaps for your own software's shortcomings, but which might be owned by your rival ( or soon-to-be-owned), begin to exhibit deliberate 'strategic' compatibility issues with your own software? Especially when it's in said rival's best interest; and it is.

In other words, how long, or rather how many more versions do you think there are, before Ecotect, for example, becomes an Autodesk-exclusive software reading only Autodesk format models ; - bearing in mind that Ecotect used to have such a great, or at least decent, interoperability and compatibility with ArchiCAD prior to their buy-out . Or the fact that Graphisoft ( or Nemetschek) could easily have bought out Ecotect prior to the Autodesk sale ( like they did with Ductworks, which is now ArchiCAD's MEP modeler), short of developing those kinds of environmental analysis- suite of tools for ArchiCAD, rather than sitting on their thumbs ( or their 'strategic partnerships' if you will,) and waiting until Autodesk bought them out.
Ditto Navisworks.

One would ask why would Autodesk do such a thing (locking out non-Autodesk users from their propriety software like Ecotect and Navisworks) when the more pertinent question should be; what would be the interest or benefit for them in NOT doing so, and hence forcing undecided users to have to use Autodesk software anyway or to begin with?

Eventually, GS (and consequently their users) may find themselves having to rely on their main competitors (who owe them nothing) for features and tools that they refuse, are unwilling or unable to provide for their own customers - and which they risk having completely no access to depending on their rival's marketing decisions. Not a very good place to be.

That's why I think it's a terminally doomed strategy.

Re: Revit Structural, is it gaining ground? Read the article

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:57:46 GMT

Wow thats too much

Well for now an IFC to CIS/2 translation would take care of Structural Analysis & Modeling side. Any hopes?

Thanks,
Joseph

Re: Revit Structural, is it gaining ground? Read the article

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:03:58 GMT

Sorry just had to share this talk I had with an architect friend of mine (a firm of about 5 designers). I have been trying to convince them to move from Autocad flat land to Archicad.

Now he tells me the structural engineer he is working with has sent him a Revit Structural model to coordinate with so he is also starting to work with his Revit copy Autodesk has provided. That makes me mad, that a structural package could do this.

What ever GS is up to better be good, time is ticking......

I am making a wish for a CIS translator.

Joseph

Re: Revit Structural, is it gaining ground? Read the article

Erich — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:06:51 GMT

Joseph,

Of course that is the way everyone ended up with Autocad originally...We have to use Autocad as that is what the engineers are using.

It starts all over

Re: Revit Structural, is it gaining ground? Read the article

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:48:03 GMT

Our New York Studio is now fully BIM with Revit, not because it is 'better' than AC but because of their engineers also use Revit/Struct/MEP. Our management wants a roll out of Revit across all studio's - 1000 seats- not least because of the Autodesk pricing incentives (a modest charge over current Autocad licences).

However there is some resistance- see my post in AC/Revit Competition. Would like to know how well AC can work with Revit/S/MEP using IFC etc - so far have heard it works ok but our IT team currently assessing.

It would be a huge blow to Graphisoft if we went down the Revit path as in Australia we have a very large user/knowledge base

Re: Revit Structural, is it gaining ground? Read the article

Laszlo Nagy — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:12:20 GMT

Check out this recent post.
Its author says the ArchiCAD Revit exchange through IFC has been pretty good:

http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?p=134684

Re: Revit Structural, is it gaining ground? Read the article

Aaron Bourgoin — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:27:00 GMT

I just read the BIM article in Modern Steel Construction magazine cited earlier in this thread. Did I skim it too fast or was there not a single reference in it to interoperability or sharing the structural model with the rest of the team. Whatever happened to 'integrated design'?

I get the part where engineers consider analysis first and the drawings a distant second. Integration is a big issue, but what about collaboration? ArchiCAD users currently model the structure, but the structural engineer gets the piece of the fee meant to cover off the drafting.

Second point - a question really. I note that Revit MEP has some calculation capabilities. Does Revit Structure?

Re: Revit Structural, is it gaining ground? Read the article

Erika Epstein — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:21:15 GMT

I've had a number of successful exchanges with both Revit MEP and Revit Structural. This has been with several different firms and projects. I typically give and receive both IFC and 3D DWGs as the latter are much smaller files.
Navisworks uses the 3D DWG format.
Solibri uses IFC.

Re: Revit Structural, is it gaining ground? Read the article

Anonymous — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:44:08 GMT

In Sweden we have something like LOU (I think we have it in the rest of EU too). It's about when a government or similiar want to build or buy something, than you can't say no to a contractor, consultant, product because of for in this example, his software. Because of this, you can't said that a project must use .dwg as fileformat if not all consultant could use this. You must use a fileformat that everyone could use if you need the consultant to cooperate in digital way.
I'm not exactly sure about how this law works, but similiar to above. And because of this, if Autodesk want to have their products competing, they can't live their own life, they must work together with all other software in one way or another. And if Autodesk want to lockout all other, I guess USA government will have a chat with Autodesk too, like they have with Microsoft.

English words in a Swedish way too talk, I hope you understand though. Or else, Mats Knutsson @ Graphisoft Sweden could explain to you.

Re: Revit Structural, is it gaining ground? Read the article

Djordje — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 09:19:40 GMT

Harry,

Harry wrote:
Our New York Studio is now fully BIM with Revit, not because it is 'better' than AC but because of their engineers also use Revit/Struct/MEP. Our management wants a roll out of Revit across all studio's - 1000 seats- not least because of the Autodesk pricing incentives (a modest charge over current Autocad licences).

However there is some resistance- see my post in AC/Revit Competition. Would like to know how well AC can work with Revit/S/MEP using IFC etc - so far have heard it works ok but our IT team currently assessing.

It would be a huge blow to Graphisoft if we went down the Revit path as in Australia we have a very large user/knowledge base

Just by chance, I know that your company is very cautious. I knew a few people in your deceased Dubai office who were rather unhappy about being safely on 11, when 12 is months old etc.

If I were your IT, I would look at interoperability rather than the labels and marketing talk. Do the structural guys do the calculations and the dimensioning of the structural members in Revit? I don't think so.

As long as your IFCs match all is well. Being on the same software does NOT guarantee interoperability. Funnily enough, being on different software and having to think about the interoperability issues creates a much easier transfer of data.

Bottom line, which software it is does not matter. How you exchange data does. Having the same brand does not mean that the files will fly.

Re: Revit Structural, is it gaining ground? Read the article

Anonymous — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 04:24:49 GMT

Hi Djordje-

good to hear from you and that you have survived the recent melt down in Dubai. Our Dubai office is not deceased but has been downsized because of projects put on hold but we still have a sizable presence there and ongoing work.

I think the engineers would not do the calculations in Revit but would do dims etc. Yes it is frustrating being on v11 when v12 has been out for some time. Ironically this caution is based on bad experiences with Autocad upgrades in the past. Sadly the firm I was with before in Abu Dhabi (also Aussie based HQ) has chosen Revit as it's BIM platform (they had a number of AC seats up to then). I think our 'cautious' IT guys will resist a roll out of Revit at least until they have had a good look at ACv13 and sees what it has to offer. Our NY Studio does have some concerns with Revit in very large projects - major upgrade to hardware required etc. As you know, no project in ME is small with an average size being 150,000 sqm built up area

Re: Revit Structural, is it gaining ground? Read the article

Mats_Knutsson — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:00:33 GMT

Harry wrote:
Our New York Studio is now fully BIM with Revit, not because it is 'better' than AC but because of their engineers also use Revit/Struct/MEP. Our management wants a roll out of Revit across all studio's - 1000 seats- not least because of the Autodesk pricing incentives (a modest charge over current Autocad licences).

Harry,
Is it so!? How do they count? The long term maintenance cost makes the initial cost for entering BIM pretty uninteresting in my opinion.
/Mats

Re: Revit Structural, is it gaining ground? Read the article

Djordje — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:52:54 GMT

Harry wrote:
Hi Djordje-

good to hear from you and that you have survived the recent melt down in Dubai. Our Dubai office is not deceased but has been downsized because of projects put on hold but we still have a sizable presence there and ongoing work.

I am not in the business of fake ... oops, artificial islands and so on, that's why it is easier to survive. Yes, the meltdown is palpable. No further comments ... except that I did not know that there are so many words for losing your job in English, whichever version of it you speak. You learn something new here every day! The other day I have learned that 80 percent is 20 percent ... yes, you have guessed it, depends on the base value 😉

Harry wrote:
I think the engineers would not do the calculations in Revit but would do dims etc. Yes it is frustrating being on v11 when v12 has been out for some time. Ironically this caution is based on bad experiences with Autocad upgrades in the past. Sadly the firm I was with before in Abu Dhabi (also Aussie based HQ) has chosen Revit as it's BIM platform (they had a number of AC seats up to then). I think our 'cautious' IT guys will resist a roll out of Revit at least until they have had a good look at ACv13 and sees what it has to offer. Our NY Studio does have some concerns with Revit in very large projects - major upgrade to hardware required etc. As you know, no project in ME is small with an average size being 150,000 sqm built up area

Your firm is in dangerous waters, as your IT guys are deciding the professional softwar rollouts. It's like Lance Armstrong advising Ferrari. Racing, yes, but what kind? All the arguments that you have put here prove that your IT guys don't have the vaguest idea of the design software or the differences between one and the other. Horror ...

And you want to do Revit Structural for dimensioning ?!??!?! Have you guys heard of Teamwork and ArchiCAD? Core only display? Hm?

Let me give you a good advice: there is an Australian, goes by the name of Link. Hire him to teach your IT guys, and the management BTW, and sort your worldwide software problems.

Enjoy the sunshine, and belated congrats on the National Day!

Re: Revit Structural, is it gaining ground? Read the article

Anonymous — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:43:29 GMT

Your firm is in dangerous waters, as your IT guys are deciding the professional softwar rollouts. It's like Lance Armstrong advising Ferrari. Racing, yes, but what kind? All the arguments that you have put here prove that your IT guys don't have the vaguest idea of the design software or the differences between one and the other. Horror ...

Well said Djordje
Totally Agree
Been There
Said That
Didn't Stop it Happening
All About $$$$$$$$

Re: Revit Structural, is it gaining ground? Read the article

Anonymous — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 02:55:18 GMT

Our IT guys, in Australia anyway, are qualified architects and use the software as it should be used. The Archicad templates thet set up are excellent and as said some large projects have been designed and documented using it. But part of their job is to assess ALL software and so have been looking at Revit, Generative Components, Digital Project etc. NY is Revit because the team are familiar with it and have used it for a number of large projects when with a Very Large Firm. Ultimately it will be a management decision based on what IT recommends and so far IT Aus still have a preference for AC. Only NY is 100% BIM so far and I suspect most other studio's will introduce BIM (AC or Revit) slowly on a project by project base but still keep a large % AutoCad user base - hence the tempting Autodesk financial carrot.

I have started a project in Revit and am impressed- I am nowhere near as quick as in AC but as a designer it has a good modelling set- if I am pushed into a corner I will use it but otherwise I will stick with AC as I still prefer the controll I have on the output

Re: Revit Structural, is it gaining ground? Read the article

Anonymous — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 03:08:50 GMT

I don't know if any of you are aware of the fact that Autodesk just aquired Robobat, the company that markets Robot Millennium (Autodesk Robot Structural 2009 now) which is an excellent structural analysis package that has excellent integration with Revit. This is not good news for Archicad.

Re: Revit Structural, is it gaining ground? Read the article

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:46:48 GMT

Mark wrote:
I don't know if any of you are aware of the fact that Autodesk just aquired Robobat, the company that markets Robot Millennium (Autodesk Robot Structural 2009 now) which is an excellent structural analysis package that has excellent integration with Revit. This is not good news for Archicad.

They keep buying, buying and again buying, are not they shooting themselves in the foot by spreading themselves too thin or GS getting phased out?
Joseph