topic Re: Why ArchiCAD instead of ADT? in Modeling

Why ArchiCAD instead of Revit (was ADT)?

Anonymous — Thu, 27 Nov 2003 08:29:52 GMT

Hope you don't mind a newbie question I began a thread over at the construction documentation forum about generating material take-offs in ArchiCad. My question evolved into a more general question of why should I switch from ADT to ArchiCad. Karl suggested this is a more appropriate forum for that question, so here it is. I welcome all responses.

Here is my background info. I am a designer in a small residential (mostly remodeling) design/build firm. I currently use SketchUp for preliminary 3D design and ADT for design development and construction docs. I do not produce material lists or take-offs. Once construction docs are done, the general contractor does material take-offs, builds the project on paper and creates his bid. I like the wall, door, window tools of ADT, but I still really use it as a 2D drafting program. All of my framing plans, sections, foundation, etc., are simply made up of 2D lines. I've never found ADT to be useful as a 3D design/modeling tool. The interface is just too cumbersome. I would be willing to switch over to ArchiCad if there were enough compelling reasons. I know the shortcomings of ADT and I like what I've seen so far of ArchiCad, but I'd like to hear everyone's own opinion and experiences using ArchiCad in a real world situation. Particularly when it comes to creating construction docs. Thanks in advance and Happy Thanksgiving!

{edit}

I suppose I should also include Revit in this question. Why choose ArchiCad over Revit? I am looking for serious pros and cons here so I can make an informed decision. Thanks.

Re: Why ArchiCAD instead of ADT?

Djordje — Thu, 27 Nov 2003 18:44:56 GMT

muttlieb wrote:
I suppose I should also include Revit in this question. Why choose ArchiCad over Revit? I am looking for serious pros and cons here so I can make an informed decision. Thanks.

I think this is the real question, as ADT is not really a BIM solution.

Years of usage aside, my first reason would be track record. ArchiCAD is used for 20 years, and quite a bit of the planet's buildings have been DESIGNED and DOCUMENTED using ONLY ArchiCAD. The tallest residential building on the planet included.

As I saw in the Revit forums, and trying it out up to a point, it is still a promising youngster, and has teething problems.

Recent discussion on the old Talk (see http://www.escribe.com/software/archicadtalk/m35147.html for example, th discussion started at http://www.escribe.com/software/archicadtalk/m35100.html) and feedback from some people that tried using it in real life,not marketing brochures, still indicate that as yet:

- it cannot handle large buildings
- the construction documentation HAS TO be finished in AutoCAD
- there are huge speed issues
- there are modeling constraints (surprisingly so ...)

However, if it were not there, it should be invented - because it is the only other high end application that is truly implementing the BIM concept besides ArchiCAD.

Also, I am already an involuntary slave of Micro$oft ... and see no reason to fall under another obligation to the Micro$oft of CAD, called Autodesk. For that matter, read a testimonial from an exADT firm at http://www.escribe.com/software/archicadtalk/m34677.html My second reason would be the treatment of the customers - all else aside, WHO ELSE besides Graphisoft supports fully MacOS with a high-end CAD application?

HTH,

Re: Why ArchiCAD instead of ADT?

David Pacifico — Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:59:04 GMT

ADT and Revit both come from a mechanical design basis. ADT has an AutoCAD base. Revit from PTC Pro/Reflex
http://www.upfrontezine.com/2001/upf-266.htm
Revit's fatal flaw is that it views a building as one big object, kind of like a big mechanical part. ArchiCAD views the building as a collection of objects. The advantage of viewing a building as one big parametric part is quickly overtaken by weight of the disadvantages.

* Interrelationships of the big part in Revit are neat until you have too many or the project gets more developed and you need to get drawings out.
* Split Level Construction in the big part can be a problem.
When one views a building as a mechanical part one tends to view a floor plan as a horizontal cutting plane. Windows in split level may not share that same cutting plane.
* 2D/3D flexibility
Revit likes to have everything connected to the big part all the time. ArchiCAD lets you unlink from the model but also lets you rebuild that link from model.
* As a home design/build company, ArchiCAD would allow you to have different options across different stories (kitchen basic or kitchen deluxe, garage basic or garage deluxe w/ loft) managed with different design modules. Revit advises against this type of linking. They are called hotlinked modules in ArchiCAD
* Many people can work effectively on a shared file with ArchiCAD TeamWork.
* ArchiCAD is more open for API third party development, GDL (you don't need to know it, but it's there if you want it) and IFC exchange (you may not need it, until you want it)
* ArchiCAD has people like Karl, Djordje, and others that have BIM there and done that.

Re: Why ArchiCAD instead of ADT?

Anonymous — Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:04:55 GMT

Djordje wrote:

- it cannot handle large buildings
- the construction documentation HAS TO be finished in AutoCAD
- there are huge speed issues
- there are modeling constraints (surprisingly so ...)

It would be helpful if you could further clarify some of your points.

1. Please define 'large building'. Most of my projects are small residential remodel/additions with the occasional custom home design. I doubt this would be an issue for me.

2. You say the construction documentation HAS TO be finished in AutoCad. This is a pretty bold statement and I doubt it is really true. From what I've seen in the demo and quizzing other Revit users it does not seem this is the case at all. However, it is an important issue for me and it is important that I create construction docs efficiently.

3. It is hard for me to verify the speed issues. Can you be more specific?

4. Can you be more specific about the modeling constraints? Real examples?

Please understand that I am only trying to make an informed decision. It is difficult to get unbiased opionions in a forum like this. I've also visited a Revit forum and posed similiar questions. I am not saying you are wrong about the points you made, but they are a bit too general for me to really make a comparison.

Re: Why ArchiCAD instead of ADT?

David Pacifico — Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:23:25 GMT

Djordje can answer for himself, but here is my 2cents.
#1 Large amount of polygons and info and/or relationships
#2 Revit recommended saving out to AutoCAD when they first started and it remains a common process for Revit users. Ask to see some real working drawing examples.
#3 Work with it and test it. Throw in a few relationships and multiply some elements and make some changes. Do some stretching of elements after the project gets populated. Test it yourself and report back. Get some training, before judging both products too much. Revit will seem easy at first, but the more you know about ArchiCAD the more you'll get done.
#4 One example attached used ArchiCAD's RoofMaker tool to frame a roof. Then you can get take off from it, out of the box.

Re: Why ArchiCAD instead of ADT?

Anonymous — Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:19:47 GMT

muttlieb wrote:

2. You say the construction documentation HAS TO be finished in AutoCad. This is a pretty bold statement and I doubt it is really true. From what I've seen in the demo and quizzing other Revit users it does not seem this is the case at all. However, it is an important issue for me and it is important that I create construction docs efficiently.

Isn't this why AutoDesk released "The Revit Series"...? Revit bundled with ACAD 2004

Taken from their own press release--http://www10.aeccafe.com/nbc/articles/view_article.php?section=CorpNews&articleid=101969

"-- Start a project in Revit and complete it with AutoCAD: Autodesk Revit may be used for schematic design and design development, but then the work can continue in AutoCAD through construction documentation, permitting the greatest number of trained personnel to be applied to the most labor-intensive part of the process."

....From my own research, I was hard-pressed to find a job that was completed soley in Revit....AutoDesk simply does not yet have a stand-alone BIM software.

Well, they have two wannabees...

Is AutoDesk going to continue to support both Revit and ADT?
Which one should you invest you money and training?

Definately ArchiCAD!....(and I am not biased at all)

Re: Why ArchiCAD instead of ADT?

Djordje — Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:44:55 GMT

Sorry I did not answer earlier!

muttlieb wrote:
1. Please define 'large building'. Most of my projects are small residential remodel/additions with the occasional custom home design. I doubt this would be an issue for me.

Maybe so; it depends how modeling you want to be. If you go all the way to the interior, and REALLY model the structure, then the inter-relationship load can get heavy. It IS great to have a wall follow another wall when it is moved, to automatically adjust the height of a wall if you elevate the roof etc. BUT, I prefer doing it all manually than having to manage all the relationships. Put it down to personal taste, unbiased people have reported that this chokes down even a two storey building.

muttlieb wrote:
2. You say the construction documentation HAS TO be finished in AutoCad. This is a pretty bold statement and I doubt it is really true. From what I've seen in the demo and quizzing other Revit users it does not seem this is the case at all. However, it is an important issue for me and it is important that I create construction docs efficiently.

I would believe it, as Autodesk itself says so. Furthermore, the people that find their way into Autodesk press releases say so (see the DMJM article in my previous post).

Never trust ANY software demo - if you cannot try it flat out the full distance. Most of us has to work and make a living, so you do not have the TIME to see if it is true.

muttlieb wrote:
3. It is hard for me to verify the speed issues. Can you be more specific?

Taking careof all the relationships cannot be fast; ArchiCAD does not have it and can hog down the machine if the design is detailed beyound reason.

muttlieb wrote:
4. Can you be more specific about the modeling constraints? Real examples?

I stated that based on the Revit user's questions on their discussion groups; revolutions, surfs, etc, commonly though of as impossible in ArchiCAD, are seemingly also impossible in Revit. Bringing in solids from AutoCAD is as complicated and unusable or impossible.

See http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=636, there are links to Revit discussion groups.

muttlieb wrote:
Please understand that I am only trying to make an informed decision. It is difficult to get unbiased opionions in a forum like this. I've also visited a Revit forum and posed similiar questions. I am not saying you are wrong about the points you made, but they are a bit too general for me to really make a comparison.

Well ... comparing CAD software is very much like comparing cars. Most have four wheels, at least two doors, steering wheels, an engine, etc. The real comparison for the cars is the road test. Never ask the owners - I could tell you stories about my 1966 VW Beetle that are objectively not true, but I know they are 😉

I agree that there is almost no unbiased review of any CAD software, but again, let's go for the cars analogy - ArchiCAD has been on all the roads for two decades. DESPITE being Hungarian, and working only on Macs for more than half of its life, it is still very much around. I still have to see Revit, or ADT for that matter, win Paris-Dakar rallye.

Re: Why ArchiCAD instead of ADT?

Anonymous — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 01:16:11 GMT

Djordje ,

Thank you for taking the time to address my questions. Changing CAD software is a big and complex decision and I am trying to gather all the info I can. I definetely want to make the switch to BIM, if in fact it truly is a complete BIM software solution. Honestly, the UI of ArchiCad feels pretty cumbersome to me. With Revit I feel I can focus much more on design and less on how to get the program to do what I want to do. Granted, that is based on a few days with the demos of both software, but it was something I noticed immediately. Also, I can say with certainty that for the type of work I do (single-family residential design) Revit is a complete solution. In other words, Revit definetely has all the tools needed to complete CD's (no AutoCad needed). It seems to me that AutoDesk is advertising the Revit-AutoCad relationship in order to ease the transition from ADT to Revit. Revit is definately their long-term BIM solution. Also remember, it is still a pretty young piece of software. Version 6 is due out in a couple weeks, and they seem to be on about a 12 month release cycle with it. I look forward to seeing what they've done with Ver. 6 before making a final decision.

Thanks.

Re: Why ArchiCAD instead of ADT?

Djordje — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 08:41:26 GMT

muttlieb wrote:
Djordje ,

Thank you for taking the time to address my questions. Changing CAD software is a big and complex decision and I am trying to gather all the info I can. I definetely want to make the switch to BIM, if in fact it truly is a complete BIM software solution. Honestly, the UI of ArchiCad feels pretty cumbersome to me. With Revit I feel I can focus much more on design and less on how to get the program to do what I want to do. Granted, that is based on a few days with the demos of both software, but it was something I noticed immediately. Also, I can say with certainty that for the type of work I do (single-family residential design) Revit is a complete solution. In other words, Revit definetely has all the tools needed to complete CD's (no AutoCad needed). It seems to me that AutoDesk is advertising the Revit-AutoCad relationship in order to ease the transition from ADT to Revit. Revit is definately their long-term BIM solution. Also remember, it is still a pretty young piece of software. Version 6 is due out in a couple weeks, and they seem to be on about a 12 month release cycle with it. I look forward to seeing what they've done with Ver. 6 before making a final decision.

Thanks.

Welcome

To everyone his own - as you yourself say Revit is a young piece of software, which is appealing as it does not have the heritage from one hand, and exciting too, as you are financing and doing the development. I personally prefer more stable solutions that have proved themselves.

Staying with the same brand in this case means nothing. In workflow terms, switching to Revit or ArchiCAD from practically AutoCAD (you said that you really mostly use ADT for drafting) is essentially the same procedure.

If you are paying for the software yourself, calculate the cost of the subscription/upgrade over five years. Also, if the company is going to do it at your recommendation. See where you stand. At the end of the day, we all work to make some money, not to give the spoils to Autodesk, Graphisoft, or whomever.

I wish you best of luck!

Re: Why ArchiCAD instead of ADT?

Anonymous — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:35:25 GMT

I understand the comment on the UI of Revit but beware. There is a lot of sizzle here with the interface but not too much steak! Wait until you break several rules on the custom project with any size or complexity to it and you will have many problems getting your work done. SketchUp also has an easy interface but I would not try to develop construction documents with this program. As far as ArchiCAD vs ADT I offer a recent ArchiCAD user who switched from ADT to ArchiCAD as follows;

Monty White was a power user of ADT using extensive ARX objects in his plans. Another client firm had asked for the differences between ArchiCAD and ADT, as their management had requested a review, which prompted the request to Monty for his comments. This is his response;

1. ArchiCAD modeling is superior to ADT. If you want to create 3D models there is no question that ArchiCAD is faster, more user friendly, has a better use of materials. It is simple to check the 3D progress and set up cameras vs. using ADT's quickview or cameras.

2. I have always loved modeling but most project time restraints don't allow me the extra time to make the models look good. With ArchiCAD it is a no-brainer. I can produce fast sketches, or even simple renderings even in the preliminary phase. Once I finalize the drawings I can set up a few cameras in the space and do photo-realistic views of the spaces I chose. ADT's rendering and 3D views are undesirable and difficult to customize. In ADT you really have to export to 3D VIZ to produce presentable 3D drawings. VIZ is a good rendering program but it is not Auto CAD-like it is 3D studio-like, which presents a learning curve. Even knowing VIZ it still takes time to convert everything and although they sell it as compatible back and forth to ADT, it really is not that easy.

3. ArchiCAD is actually more compatible with basic AutoCAD users than ADT. In my case when using ADT if you send a drawing to some one using basic AutoCAD they first have to download several updates before they can even view the ADT. When they open your drawing everything is in blocks, you have thousands of hatches for wall composites, etc. If they are on AutoCAD 14 they usually can't ever open the drawing. Typically what I had to do when sending out files was save the drawing as a different name, explode all ADT elements and then save. Of course you end up with extra lines, as well as other problems you have to clean up. The ADT conversion is not impossible, it just takes some extra time. ArchiCAD has a converter that is easy to customize and you are able to save a .dwg file that opens perfectly in any AutoCAD program.

4. ArchiCAD is very compatible with most programs, at least the ones I use. AutoCAD, all Adobe products (PhotoShop, Illustrator, Acrobat, etc.), 3D Studio & VIZ, Microsoft Word & Excel.

5. Producing schedules in ArchiCAD is easier. It is easy to produce and customize door, window, room, area calculation for code analysis, etc. in ArchiCAD. In ADT you can create schedules but it is not easy to customize. Also in ArchiCAD it updates the schedules as you work where ADT again does not work very good.

6. If you convert from standard AutoCAD there is less of a learning curve going to ArchiCAD than to ADT. When I first started using ADT I did not use a lot of the features because I did not have time to re-learn everything so I stuck to the 2D elements except for doors, walls and windows. Eventually I learned ADT very well and it was 1,000 times better than using standard AutoCAD. ArchiCAD is so user friendly that really there is no learning curve you are just learning ways to speed up your process.

7. Sections, Elevations & Details are easier and faster to create than in ADT. I was never very happy with ADT's Sections & Elevations. I always ended up practically redrawing them.

8. Custom 3D objects (such as furniture, etc.) are easier in ArchiCAD. In ArchiCAD I can build a 3D object then save it as a .gdl object file with attributes that can be edited when inserted. When inserted I can change line color and type. I can change materials, etc. All of this is done with minimal effort. You don't have to be a programmer. In AutoCAD not only is it more difficult to create an ADT object but you really can't customize the object after it is saved like ArchiCAD. In ADT your object files are very large and slow down the drawing file especially if, for instance, you had several tables and chairs in a restaurant.

9. In ADT it is difficult to work in "Z" coordinates. Many times while drawing in plan view you might snap a wall to the side of a slab or other 3D objects and it might look okay in plan and you move on. But once you go to your 3D views you have walls going at weird angles, they might not clean up properly or they might even be 30'-0" below everything else. Sometimes it takes breaking out the calculator trying to figure out how to make things work. In ArchiCAD every wall, slab, window, door, everything has a "Z" value that is easy to set or rotate. You can turn the gravity button on and off.

10. I could go on forever with the differences. I am not saying ADT is a bad program, it beats standard AutoCAD for sure. I have used AutoCAD for many years, and have had ADT since the first version came out. As an architect or interior designer, ArchiCAD meets the needs better, no question about it. For anyone wanting to get more into modeling there is no comparison that ArchiCAD is the way to go. I was skeptical about compatibility in the beginning, but there is no problem, my engineers all use AutoCAD and they did not know I had a new program until they questioned how I was getting such detailed drawings out to them so fast. I told them I got a new program.

E X A M P L E:

In 1999 I did an interior remodel on a space converting a civic center into a 40,000 sf night club. Using ADT it took 45 to 60 days to produce the construction documents for the project. In 2003 the owner now wanted to convert his space into a multi-venue night club, having 5 clubs under one roof instead of just one. With ArchiCAD I was now able to produce what I feel to be a better set of construction documents, in a little over a week.

I can't say for sure I have gotten new work just by using ArchiCAD but I do know my clients have been extremely impressed with my ArchiCAD presentations.

I hope this helps you understanding on the issue you have raised.

Re: Why ArchiCAD instead of Revit (was ADT)?

Anonymous — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:35:54 GMT

Thanks for your response, but I edited my question and subject of this thread to a Revit comparison. I've been using ADT for several years. I quickly came to realize that ADT is really just a glorified 2D CAD program. It's nice to be able to draw walls, doors, windows as objects but that's about all I use it for. I still produce CD's with 2D lines. I am fully aware of the shortcomings of ADT. And I LOVE SketchUp as a design tool, however it is not a CAD program. The real question is ArchiCad vs. Revit.

Re: Why ArchiCAD instead of Revit (was ADT)?

Anonymous — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 16:54:04 GMT

Having used Revit through V5 alongside Archicad for several projects: an 18000 SF remodel and addition to a casegoods manufacturing plant and a 16000 SF 2 story office building anlong with a small church and three custom residences, I can attest to the ability of Archicad to complete the work and the inability for Revit to effectively do the same. I had to let my Revit license expire last December as the cost was getting prohibitive without the ability to make a profit on the tool cost. It is true that the automatic relationships that the Revit program creates are both really good and really bad. Initially the ability to keep track of everything seems to allow for greater control of the end product with less having to remember to do it myself. This condition gets quite disconcerting as the model progresses. Toward the end of the process so many relationships exist that the model manipulates things that are locked together from early conditions that getting the last changes is a real problem, i.e. moving something that should not move as it is conditioned to be attached to something that has to be moved.

Many other constraints that were just not productive. The biggest difficulty is Autodesk itself - they just do not give a hoot about an individual user.

Lew Bishop
P4 2.53 AC8.1 XPPro SP1

Re: Why ArchiCAD instead of Revit (was ADT)?

Karl Ottenstein — Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:02:45 GMT

LewBishop wrote:
Having used Revit through V5 alongside Archicad for several projects: an 18000 SF remodel and addition to a casegoods manufacturing plant and a 16000 SF 2 story office building anlong with a small church and three custom residences...

Very interesting, Lew. Glad to finally hear something from someone who not only used Revit, but used it on significant projects. Will be good to meet you and hear more details at ACUWest's ArchiPub "sessions" in March.

Cheers,
Karl

Re: Why ArchiCAD instead of Revit (was ADT)?

Djordje — Sat, 06 Dec 2003 03:40:26 GMT

If you want to see "the other side of the fence" take a look at, for example:

http://www.rugi.org/cgi-bin/webbbs_config.pl?read=529

Also, http://www.rugi.org/cgi-bin/webbbs_config.pl?read=574

Not that I agree with all he says ... but then, we agreed that a completely unbiased opinion is impossible to obtain.

Re: Why ArchiCAD instead of Revit (was ADT)?

Anonymous — Sat, 06 Dec 2003 04:53:51 GMT

Thanks for the links to the "other side" Djordje. I will continue to evaluate both AC and Revit over the next 30-45 days before making a final decision. I'll let you know what I decide and the reasons for my decision. I'm sure I'll have more questions for you guys in the mean time.

Thanks.

Re: Why ArchiCAD instead of Revit (was ADT)?

Karl Ottenstein — Sat, 06 Dec 2003 05:32:35 GMT

Djordje wrote:
If you want to see "the other side of the fence" take a look at, for example:

http://www.rugi.org/cgi-bin/webbbs_config.pl?read=529

Only a bit biased. 😉

I'm having a hard time finding any truth in this statement:

Paul wrote:
2) Revit's Family libraries are always able to be manipulated and custom designed by the user to create variations of the templates provided to you. ArchiCad's libraries do not at this time as they are stagnant and unrevisable. ArchiCad users can only select from a choice of libraries instead of creating / designing new components.

Karl

Re: Why ArchiCAD instead of Revit (was ADT)?

Djordje — Sat, 06 Dec 2003 14:03:49 GMT

Paul wrote:
ttensteinOnly a bit biased. 😉

I'm having a hard time finding any truth in this statement:
Paul wrote:
2) Revit's Family libraries are always able to be manipulated and custom designed by the user to create variations of the templates provided to you. ArchiCad's libraries do not at this time as they are stagnant and unrevisable. ArchiCad users can only select from a choice of libraries instead of creating / designing new components.
Karl

Well ... at least, here the resellers/VARs/whatever are if anything more critical of the softare, and are (seemingly) more realistic. I find it hard to find any truth in any of Mr. Loreto's statements - the one about views not being dynamically linked made me smile. If he meant the rebuild times for the S/E and the 3D, then there is a point.

Interestingly enough, NOBODY mentions the linking rules! Also, nobody mentions CDs.

But - this does sound too idealistic - as I posted there, it is really the struggle between BIM and Flatland, and in that battle both us and Revit users are on the same side. Their problem is, that Autodesk considers its userbase solid and homogenuous - which it is not. Switching to Revit or ArchiCAD from AutoCAD and basically 2D work is the same process, in which I really do not see how the logo on the box helps or hinders the transition.

There is quite an interesting PDF whitepaper on the Web (lost the URL) on what to do to switch the office to Revit from AutoCAD. Search & replace - word for word, it is applicable to ArchiCAD.

The ultimate question arises: why did the people notice only when Autodesk started yelling?

Re: Why ArchiCAD instead of Revit (was ADT)?

Karl Ottenstein — Sun, 07 Dec 2003 03:16:32 GMT

Djordje wrote:
I find it hard to find any truth in any of Mr. Loreto's statements - the one about views not being dynamically linked made me smile. If he meant the rebuild times for the S/E and the 3D, then there is a point.

I found either no truth or at most half-truths, so we mostly agree, of course.

The half-truth that I thought he was going for in the statement about dynamic linking is this: in Revit, all windows are 'live' so you can see the effects of your actions instantly in any of them, much like many other traditional 3D solutions. For example, if you have a plan view, a section view and a 3D view in Revit and you select a wall, then that wall shows as being selected in all 3 windows at once. If you then move it, it moves in all 3 at once.

We do not have that ability in ArchiCAD (and obtaining that behavior in AC isn't just an issue of more horsepower - it requires some major software redesign by GS - not only in terms of multithreading, but also in terms of the concept of 'rebuilding' - which at the moment is a complete rebuild, and which must be an 'incremental' rebuild to support a feature like this, rebuilding/redrawing only the effected elements.)

Cheers,
Karl

Re: Why ArchiCAD instead of Revit (was ADT)?

Djordje — Sun, 07 Dec 2003 07:38:23 GMT

Good discussion threads on "the other" side:

http://www.zoogdesign.com/forums/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1665

http://www.zoogdesign.com/forums/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1685

Re: Why ArchiCAD instead of Revit (was ADT)?

Anonymous — Sun, 07 Dec 2003 20:30:01 GMT

Hi all,

I am a full time user of Revit, and I currently own and operate a design studio. I belong to Zoog Design forums and came to this board at Djordje's invitation.

First, I would like you all to know that I hold Archicad as being responsible for getting me into this industry. I started doing studies on building cases about 8 years ago using an educational copy of Archicad (forensic, as a building official). I loved it. I transfered the CAD skills I garnered in Archicad over to Autocad when I bought my first copy of a cad software. At that time, I had no need for bim (or awareness), and could not justify the expense for a tool used occasionally for analysis of existing buildings. At some point in the future, I would like to re-aquaint myself with Archicad, and really see what it is made of. I truly respect and admire the product, and so I feel I am in a unique position to respond here.

Second, I come here to try to straighten out some brewing misconceptions about the two softwares, and their devotee's.

I think it is unfortunate that visible (to potential buyers), vocal individuals are spreading mis-information and fud about both programs, in both camps. Over at Zoog, there are and have been numerous threads with titles like "More Archicad Propaganda", etc. Likewise, here, in this thread, I see comments and speculation about Revit that are blatant untruth's.

So, rather than "attack the man," or attempt to discredit individuals statements, I would like to open myself up to your
valuable questions in an attempt to create the mutual respect between the camps that Djordje refers to when he alludes that we are the only two true BIM products on the market and share a mutual vision.

Please, before you blow me off this board, or attack this man, allow me the opportunity to clear some air, as I am an invited guest.

Bill