topic Re: ArchiCAD and Revit Evaluation Criteria in Modeling

ArchiCAD and Revit Evaluation Criteria

Anonymous — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:52:06 GMT

Greetings,

We're a mid-size architectural firm (50-75 people) located on the East Coast of the US specializing in commercial, educational, higher education, retail, and corporate markets. We've been using AutoCAD and ADT for quite some time now with SketchUp being used almost exclusively for all SD and DD imaging. We've come to the conclusion that these tools have out lived their usefulness.

We've started an evaluation process looking at both ArchiCAD and Revit. Our team (8 people) will be professionally trained by outside consultants so they can competently evaluating both tools.

We need suggestions on what type of information gets included in our evaluation criteria. Has anyone gone through this process with both programs? If so, can you give us any tips or directions on what we should be looking for? What are the current advantages and pitfalls to using either program?

Is ArchiCAD generally better than Revit?

Thanks I advance for any replies. We’ll keep everyone updated on our evaluation process.

mj2

Re: ArchiCAD and Revit Evaluation Criteria

TomWaltz — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:23:00 GMT

"Let Mortal Kombat begin!"

We need suggestions on what type of information gets included in our evaluation criteria

It depends. What does your company want from them? I think you need to define what you are looking for in general before you start thinking about how to compare the software.

I suspect in this group, you will find a lot of arguments for Archicad over Revit. Compared to Autocad/ADT, you will find dramatic improvements in either product.

Personally, I think both Archicad and Revit are fine products but they have some differences. Very few people have an intimate working knowledge of both. You wil probably have to study each and decide which one fits your specific needs best.

Re: ArchiCAD and Revit Evaluation Criteria

David Pacifico — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:11:28 GMT

Hello MJ2
Here is a short list.

Look and Feel? (intangable right)
How do you have multiple people work on the same project at the same time?
How do you exchange information with people/consultants out-of house?
What types of libraries are available for the work you do?
How do you make your own library parts?
What type of visualization are you going to need?
How does the software handle a sizable project, you are likely to do?

I would suggest taking a project that is already done and putting it through the test. This way you are not trying to make design judgements at the same time your trying to test software. (sorry it's hard to make it billable)

Re: ArchiCAD and Revit Evaluation Criteria

Ignacio Azpiazu — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:46:42 GMT

David wrote:
I would suggest taking a project that is already done and putting it through the test. This way you are not trying to make design judgements at the same time your trying to test software. (sorry it's hard to make it billable)

For a 50-75 people office I think it would even make sense to hire for a few weeks a *top* Revit guy and a *top* ArchiCAD guy to set up the test projects/templates, which would then allow you to base your evaluation and training on a state-of-the-art setups custom tailored for your office's needs.
The guy whose program gets picked could then go ahead as part-time consultant/trainer to your CAD managing guy/s. And when you finished your evaluation you make your choice and are ready to go, for both programs you already have a reasonably well battle-tested template you have been using for training for every phase of an office project.
[This is *not* what reseller training involves. It would certainly not be cheap, but the costs are negligible and benefits huge in a 50+ people office.]

Re: ArchiCAD and Revit Evaluation Criteria

Anonymous — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:44:44 GMT

People here can tell you the pros and cons of ArchiCAD; from what I can see ArchiCAD allows more flexibility when using multiple files to assemble together a large project. Revit's file linking capability is not as extensive, but the programmers are really trying to keep the number of files minimized. AC offers better control of shared projects, though there are ways to prevent changes being made to a Revit project that Revit users have figured out.

If your designs are fairly linear or curvilinear then either product will serve you well enough; Maxonform's inclusion in ArchiCAD makes it the better modeler on its own if you need more advanced geometries. With Revit you can import models from other apps, but I find this to be annoying. The programmers know how to make advanced modeling tools for Revit, but they're too busy working on the multidisciplinary features of the software, which are certainly needed first. (But couldn't they get me a lofting tool in the meantime??)

ArchiCAD's renderer is far and away better than Revit's, which is still stuck at Accurender 3, though you can export to VIZ easily enough. But that's another program again.

With regards to components, AC objects are highly parametric and tend to be well-made over the internet; Revit components (families) are as parametric as the designer decided to make them. Some don't work well at all, or look stupid; others are excellent. It just depends on who made them. There are no standards to this process and not many websites where you can download families. But you can learn to do it yourself with some practice, and at least a couple of people in your office should.

The strong point with Revit is that it is now multidisciplinary, so the virtual building / BIM is tighter; you don't have to use something like Navisworks with whatever your engineers are using. But your consultants also have to switch to Revit, which for structural is a no-brainer. MEP will probably want to wait until the next release of Revit Systems which will probably be March. That is of course if you can get them to switch 😉

Revit is, by most accounts, easier to learn and more intuitive. Schedules work better. All views and schedules are "live" and bidirectional. And the learning part is always the kicker -- a good AC user makes a novice Revit user look rather unproductive.

Re: ArchiCAD and Revit Evaluation Criteria

Rakela Raul — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:56:45 GMT

anybody suggesting Vectorworks ??

whats wrong with VW, check its web page, another BIM solution !!! landscaping module, planning module, you name it....and belongs to the same family of archicad !!
and much cheaper, cmon VW users !!

Re: ArchiCAD and Revit Evaluation Criteria

Anonymous — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:25:07 GMT

Working in the one of the larges US construction company I must say that at this point Industry (architecture) is still not very well prepared for real BIM. With over 2 billion $ of work in 2006 we did not finished one single project that was 100% pure BIM out of Architect. Just when I hoped that my next project (250 mil. $ hospital) will be done in Revit, Architect told me that they used Revit only for shell as a reference model.

metanoia wrote:
The strong point with Revit is that it is now multidisciplinary, so the virtual building / BIM is tighter; you don't have to use something like Navisworks with whatever your engineers are using. But your consultants also have to switch to Revit, which for structural is a no-brainer. MEP will probably want to wait until the next release of Revit Systems which will probably be March. That is of course if you can get them to switch Wink

Revit is, by most accounts, easier to learn and more intuitive. Schedules work better. All views and schedules are "live" and bidirectional. And the learning part is always the kicker -- a good AC user makes a novice Revit user look rather unproductive.

Tighter than what, AC or Constructor? It is hard to say - Revit structure is barely used (I don't know one single company that is really using it it is steel in early development phase) Steel guys use they own tools anyway. MEP modeler? Use Constructor and there you have it. No need to use tools like NavisWorks? C'mon. There is no real scheduling in Revit (phasing in not scheduling). No connector to P3 or MS Project. No real Clash detection. At this point tools like NavisWorks are a must. Constructor finally have real connection with Scheduling software, but still no clash detection.
Now Revit easier to learn, hmm I don't know. We had classes of Revit with Paul Aubin (ADT & Revit guru - and really nice guy) and it is not that straight forward as Autodesk paint it. Some guys over here prefer Constructor learning curve. Schedules works better? Again - unfortunately not AC nor Revit have this area really developed. Transport to Excel and compiling data is a must. There is quite bright light in Constructor Tunnel. Estimator. It looks impressive. You will be able finally to create real estimate out of model - finally, but ... it is still in development.

Anyway as some mentioned. Choose it by the best fit to your current situation. And don't ask sells person for advice. Check also both communities. How much help you can get from it.

Good luck and keep us updated.

Re: ArchiCAD and Revit Evaluation Criteria

Rakela Raul — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:32:22 GMT

Constructor finally have real connection with Scheduling software

im happy and impressed that your company can afford copies of a 10,000 dls software..congrats, i wish i could

Re: ArchiCAD and Revit Evaluation Criteria

Anonymous — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:56:52 GMT

Hmm.
-First of all it is 8000.
-Second, We are not architects, we don't need to buy like 50 or more licenses.
-Third, Architect's don't need that set of tools. But it gives good communication with construction company - it this kind of benefit that can be a selling point for customer. (it is very important for customer to know that Architects and Contractors can communicate flawlessly)
-Fourth, with the project worth of 250 mil. $ I can buy it knowing that during the life of this one project only (around 3 years) It will pay off many times. Actually we always work (if it is reasonable) on the type of software that Architect is using. Sometimes ADT (but we are running away from it), sometimes Revit, sometimes Constructor. Personally I prefer Constructor. But it's just me (ohhh maybe not only me )

Re: ArchiCAD and Revit Evaluation Criteria

Rakela Raul — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:16:01 GMT

hey , i just said that im happy and impressed, all positive...i was given a 10 grants number.....i will check again, if it is 8,000 maybe i can get an extra license

Re: ArchiCAD and Revit Evaluation Criteria

Anonymous — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:29:04 GMT

Wait for official release of Constructor 2007 though. Way better.

Re: ArchiCAD and Revit Evaluation Criteria

Anonymous — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:45:03 GMT

Miki wrote:
It is hard to say - Revit structure is barely used (I don't know one single company that is really using it it is steel in early development phase) Steel guys use they own tools anyway...Now Revit easier to learn, hmm I don't know. We had classes of Revit with Paul Aubin (ADT & Revit guru - and really nice guy) and it is not that straight forward as Autodesk paint it. Some guys over here prefer Constructor learning curve. Schedules works better? Again - unfortunately not AC nor Revit have this area really developed. Transport to Excel and compiling data is a must. There is quite bright light in Constructor Tunnel. Estimator. It looks impressive. You will be able finally to create real estimate out of model - finally, but ... it is still in development.

Revit has built in clash detection... between Revit models only though. And our best structural engineering firms in Vancouver are all using Revit Structure for modeling/drafting, and connecting the model to RISA or ETABS for analysis. Revit Structure is well developed, though Revit Systems is not as far along.

People are connecting Revit to scheduling apps via the API but I daresay someone at Autodesk or Primavera ought to make that connection easier.

Re: ArchiCAD and Revit Evaluation Criteria

Anonymous — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:47:20 GMT

Looks that Canada is adopting to BIM faster than US. It is good to know. Can you tell something more about this API connection? How is it done?

Re: ArchiCAD and Revit Evaluation Criteria

Anonymous — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:01:20 GMT

Vancouver might be faster at implementing the virtual building, but I'm sure there's still more Revit users in the US!

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=2484975
The Revit API allows you to edit objects from outside, create objects, extract data, attach data, etc. Quite powerful, if you don't mind digging in 😉

Re: ArchiCAD and Revit Evaluation Criteria

Anonymous — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:30:43 GMT

@Metanoia
Can you imagine to have AC? instead of Revit...

Re: ArchiCAD and Revit Evaluation Criteria

Anonymous — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:48:33 GMT

Yes, I could. I would seriously consider AC if Revit didn't exist.

But I think Revit is the best thing that's happened to AC, and the other way round. Revit got much better database sharing because of Teamwork; you folks are getting tighter connections in your software because of Revit (elimination of Plotmaker, etc.)

Now all we need is for Autodesk to follow suit and give us integrated modeling like you folks have with Maxonform!

Re: ArchiCAD and Revit Evaluation Criteria

TomWaltz — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:41:43 GMT

metanoia wrote:
Yes, I could. I would seriously consider AC if Revit didn't exist.

But I think Revit is the best thing that's happened to AC, and the other way round. Revit got much better database sharing because of Teamwork; you folks are getting tighter connections in your software because of Revit (elimination of Plotmaker, etc.)

Now all we need is for Autodesk to follow suit and give us integrated modeling like you folks have with Maxonform!

I think Wes is right. Competition improves both products and validates the market. One product could be a fluke. Two in competition mean somebody's buying them

Re: ArchiCAD and Revit Evaluation Criteria

Anonymous — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 20:31:04 GMT

@Metanonia
Database sharing is very important thing.
The existance of Revit is also good thing to AC.
The best way to develope is to compare with other things.
The competition between AC and Revit is pure advantage for AC - and Revit user.

Re: ArchiCAD and Revit Evaluation Criteria

March_ Bruce — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:43:36 GMT

Lack of all but read only pmk support in v10 (all legacy projects from v4.1 are now read only) has been the straw that has broken my back & I am now looking at options like REVIT.

How Graphisoft can drop it's own historical primary output format is beyond explanation - that & the still seemingly nonsensical menu & shortcut revisions shows a seeming lack of respect for the installed user base & has for me dramatically & needlessly increased the complexity of working with my design 'inventory' in an already complex software package...

It has been a disappointment...

Re: ArchiCAD and Revit Evaluation Criteria

Richard Morrison — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:03:50 GMT

March, wrote:
Lack of all but read only pmk support in v10 (all legacy projects from v4.1 are now read only) has been the straw that has broken my back & I am now looking at options like REVIT.

How Graphisoft can drop it's own historical primary output format is beyond explanation - that & the still seemingly nonsensical menu & shortcut revisions shows a seeming lack of respect for the installed user base & has for me dramatically & needlessly increased the complexity of working with my design 'inventory' in an already complex software package...

It has been a disappointment...

I'm scratching my head trying to understand what you're upset about. Why would you WANT to write PMK's if you're working in the current version? At any rate, the old projects are still perfectly usable.

And you are perfectly free to reorganize the menus and shortcuts in whatever way you want. I believe there are even "legacy" Work Environments that are importable, if you wish.

Do you think the current REVIT is going to write back to REVIT v2.0 format? All those old projects in REVIT are "read-only" - once you've opened them in a current version, you'll be in the current version from then on.