Any thoughts on this email: Revit Structure Suite 2008

[Anonymous]

From: bruckmandesign@xxx
Subject: RE: CAD: AutoCAD Revit Structure Suite 2008
Date: October 17, 2007 10:10:59 AM PDT
To: seaint@xxx

I made the switch, (I’m an Architect) to Revit about 18 months ago and wouldn’t go back to 2D software or even the partially BIM-inized Architectural Desktop type stuff if you paid me to do it.

Couple of points.

First, expect a steep learning curve. Revit does things and organizes things differently. But stay with it and it will begin to make sense. The biggest problem with Revit is that it is so comprehensive that it doesn’t enjoy it when you want to knock out something quick and dirty. So there is a minimum amount of additional work for small projects that may be irrelevant to the work, but that you need to lay in anyway. So it isn’t ideal for very small projects or small remodels.

Second, what makes, (or is going to make) your life heavenly is that you are not encumbered by the architect’s drawings to understand the design. The architect can no longer hide bad scenarios from you by simply not cutting a section somewhere. Everything in the model can be cut, viewed, rotated, isolated and manipulated. The architect’s model is sent to you and all of your questions can be ferreted out by simply rotating the model, cutting sections or viewing the model in 3D from a particular direction.

Third, after you lay in the structure, Revit can run a compatibility check to see if AC ducts or stairways are in the way of the structure, if headroom is an issue and similar things.. You send the structural back to the architect, and his version of the model is updated with your structure. He can then go through the same process and determine if there are design issues. When you get the model back again, changes made to the model since you last saw it are highlighted by Revit so you can see what changed.

Fourth, although I have no knowledge of it, Revit Structure is said to be integrated with some analysis program(s) although I do not know which. I do know that all the beams and columns are all fully documented in the program, so Revit knows what the Sxx or Ixx of that beam you just laid onto the plan is in anticipation of the analysis program kicking in...

Finally, the best thing is that once it’s changed on the model, It’s changed on each and every plan, section and elevation in the set and if a detail reference is changed, it is changed everywhere. Never again will you have Section A or Detail 8 referenced to the wrong sheet or detail.

I kid you not. I haven’t used ACAD more than a half dozen days since I switched to Revit.

Welcome to the brave new world. Pretty soon our clients won’t even need us….

From: Jeremy White [mailto:admin@xxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 4:16 PM
To: seaint@xxx
Subject: Re: CAD: AutoCAD Revit Structure Suite 2008

Bill,

I have very limited experience with Revit (2 small projects), but I do have a few thoughts on the subject.

If you are familiar with other BIM software then it might not be hard to make the switch. When I first started using Revit I found certain seemingly simple tasks frustrating because I knew how to easily do it in 2D CAD, but it seemed Revit complicated the task (until I figured out how to do it, and do it the right way). Then it becomes second nature like anything else. I now sometimes get frustrated that 2D CAD doesn't do some of the things that Revit does.

On another note, I find BIM to be a "fun" way to design a building because you get to actually build it in the software. BIM software helps satify that nagging urge to build/create that just can't be fulfilled with 2D software. Maybe that's just my personality trait, though. I am bugging my bosses to get me another project suited for Revit.

- JRW

Bill Polhemus <bill@xxx> wrote:
All:

Yesterday was the last day for a "special upgrade offer" for Autocad LT
users to Autodesk's Revit Structure Suite 2008, so I took advantage of
it. Usually I wouldn't be interested in stuff like this, but getting a
big-time building modeling package PLUS full Autocad 2008 for $2,000 was
a bit hard to pass up. I sprung for it.

I'm not sure what I'm getting yet. I have become somewhat acquainted
with TEKLA Structure working with my current contract employer, and I'm
pretty impressed with it. I suspect Revit Structure is probably a lot
the same, but with the added benefit of the Autocad interface, I suspect
it's probably going to give TEKLA a run for its money.

Anyone use any version of Revit? What are your thoughts?

Thanks in advance.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

[Bricklyne Clarence]

....not to be obtuse, but what is the point of this?

[Anonymous]

Bricklyne wrote:
....not to be obtuse, but what is the point of this?

Structural capabilities of Revit & Architects using Revit for its Structural capabilitys and coordination with other engineers. I know there are packages that CONNECT to AC but non work inside AC vs. through file translation. I think there is one add-on outside US that works with AC called MV....?

Is AC falling behind?

Joseph

[TomWaltz]

I think it would be a huge mistake for GS to try to compete in the multi-discipline arena unless they plan to quadruple in size. Let other companies worry about engineering BIM. Graphisoft is a rather small company. They can't afford to start diversifying.

GS barely has the staff to keep up in the architectural arena. If they started making structural, MEP, and civil packages, it would only slow them down.

To quote "Good to Great", each company should find what they can do better than everyone else and do it. Doing anything else just detracts from it. Look at SketchUp. It does one thing very well (simple conceptual modeling), and everyone loves it.

Starting into new areas would mean breaking into all new markets for Graphisoft. I've seen Autodesk Building Systems, Revit MEP, and RAM (structural analysis) up close. GS would have years of development ahead of them just to catch up with these highly mature and functional products. We're talking about software good for both modeling and documentation (like ducts that can cause a lower duct to dash in plan or lights than can be assigned to an intelligent panel that reports when it's overloaded)

Trying to be all things to all people is what watered down AC11 so much. Instead of focusing on better BIM tools like maybe:
- a better database creation/reporting system
- better internal integration (ever try to maintain attributes between hotlinked files or update something with nested hotlinks??
- geez, data can't even exceed one cell in length in a schedule because there's no line wrap.
- Archicad might be the last CAD/BIM program out there that can't add text to an associative dimension (plus/minus, VIF, MO, etc)
...instead of this, they gave us more 2D drafting tools (Worksheets, Linework Consolidation, and an occasionally useful, unfinished Interior Elevation tool, woo-hoo!) to placate former Autocad users.

Let Autodesk go for the all-in-one product. For a long-term strategy, I would rather see highly specialized products that can all talk to each other, allowing each discipline to use the product(s) that best meets its needs.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

Joseph wrote:
......

Is AC falling behind?

Joseph

No.


But seriously, ArchiCAD is not falling behind simply because Revit has a Structural and MEP-based sister-software. Remember that it was a conscious decision by Graphisoft to not only separate the development of Virtual Constructor ( the probably the Graphisoft - or rather, the formerly-Graphisoft equivalent of Revit Structural and Revit MEP) from the development of ArchiCAD despite the fact that Constructor is built on an ArchiCAD engine with MEP, and even construction-simulation modules, but also to completely offshoot a completely new firm (Vico software) to handle the Suite altogether. This isn't just based on the fact that Graphisoft knew well-ahead of time that the adequate development of both programs were beyond the resources of Graphisoft alone, but also in full recognition of the fact that ArchiCAD is first, foremost and unquestionably an Architectural DESIGN software. WE can argue all we want about whether or not Structural and MEP are, or should be within the Design mandate, and as such whether or not they are aspects that should also be served by ArchiCAD or Graphisoft for that matter, but given the current state of the profession as a whole as well as the significance and role of Architects in the AEC hierarchy, Graphisoft wisely opted not to go that route at this point in time and particularly given their resources in comparison to an Autodesk.

It's part of the reason why ArchiCAD has such great interoperability with other software, particularly those used by engineering consultants and colleagues as an acknowledgment by Graphisoft that it is not a Swiss Army knife do-it-all software. And never will be. Personally, I still hope they would release and develop some limited MEP modules and addons (ala Ductwork from ArchiCAD 9) leaving the decision to install or include them to the respective clients, but I would still agree with their view that it is not as much a priority as making certain the base software is running smoothly and addressing the most basic needs of the average architectural designer and user.

......but that's just me.

[Thomas Holm]

Bricklyne wrote:
......but that's just me.

No, it's not!

[Djordje]

TomWaltz wrote:
Let Autodesk go for the all-in-one product. For a long-term strategy, I would rather see highly specialized products that can all talk to each other, allowing each discipline to use the product(s) that best meets its needs.

Amen.

[Anonymous]

Tom & Bricklyne,
Thanks a mil. for the wonderful thoughts; okay I am sold big time.
But let see if GS is going to make this ArchiCad a true Architectural BIM software. I wish someone could make a new pole that GS would read the comments hear and act on them.
Thanks for the enlightment,
Joseph

[Anonymous]

May be a very good CIS/2 <> IFC through interoperability will take care of the structural in AC issue and we will have a true Architectural Software.
Joseph

[Chazz]

TomWaltz wrote:
I think it would be a huge mistake for GS to try to compete in the multi-discipline arena unless they plan to quadruple in size.

I think this misses the point. When your engineer switches to Revit Structure, your investment in Revit as an architect just became much more valuable. For Autodesk, becoming (and controlling) the standard is all that matters (ask Microsoft about this). The network effects of owning the tools to the complete design cycle are undeniable and huge. And as I have shouted in other threads, this (along with the tying of Autodad upgrades to Revit) is the death knell for ArchiCAD.

Can Graphisoft make a good structures package? Should they try? Of course not: They can't even publish the current drivel without gobs of bugs and frustrated users. Thus, I agree with Tom that getting others to do it is the least bad option. But for that to happen you would need killer SDK's or a fantastic interchange format. The former is not very likely and the latter is not there yet.

Autodesk has done what all aggressive competitors do: they have given their competition (Graphisoft) a set of options that are bad, worse, or impossible.