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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

[Da3dalus]

Lawrence wrote:
Maybe because each company, each project is unique? Maybe it's because software developed in one area of the world is more relevant to a greater part of the world than the other? Maybe because one solution allows a practice to work in the way they want, how they want and doesn't impress upon them that one size fits all?

Good point. Europe and America have very different AEC industy paradigms. As I understand in Europe, Architects do conceptual design and some general development, but then hands it off to a Builder who completes construction documents and then builds the thing. VERY different from America, where Architects are expected to go through schematic to complete, engineered documents that are bid out to Contractors. Each has its advantages, but may call for a different process. Perhaps ArchiCAD is designed for European Architects. Even so, I don't think Revit has that many advantages for American Architects, so the jury is still out.

I worked with a couple of MRICS Charter Surveyors from the UK, and we don't even have an equivalent paradigm here. Someone with all of the technical building knowledge of an Architect, but with a focus on existing buildings, and little interest on free-form design? Strange, but very useful!

[Rob]

As I understand in Europe, Architects do conceptual design and some general development, but then hands it off to a Builder who completes construction documents and then builds the thing.

Chuck,

not true... Architects do go through all stages of construction but the actual contract will determine Architect's position - either as a contract administrator or as a builder's subcontractor under Design&Build (Design&Construct) procurement.
I am not sure if I understand you correctly but I WOULD NOT ever touch engineer's drawings as my professional indemnity insurer would execute me first and then commit a suicide afterwards. Architects are liable for life.... this profession is a sentence.

[Da3dalus]

Is Australia part of Europe now? Just because you guys talk funny like the Brits doesn't mean you're part of the EU! Good grief, you're as far from Europe as is possible on planet Earth! (kidding)

To clarify, though design-build and other delivery systems (CMAR, JOC) are growing in popularity in the US, we're still mainly Design-Bid-Build. All of the engineers are subconsultants to the Architect, who has the only contract with the Owner. We then do the complete set of drawings and typically submit for permit before a Contractor is even considered. Then, it is hard-bid (either to the public or a selective set of General Contractors), and the Owner contracts with one of them.

My point it that the Contractor has no input in the design (side deals with the Owner aside), though they are in charge of means and methods. The Architect and Contractor have no contractual relationship, and it's all very antagonistic. They just build what's given them, so everything must be detailed. The Engineers are subs to the Architect, so the Architect is responsible for the Engineer's performance. In many cases, we have to direct the Engineers' work to coordinate the design. They are like employees.

In essence, it is in our best interest to fuse their work into ours, so that we can hand the Contractor a complete package. We have the power and responsibility to force our Engineers to use compatible software to coordinate our documents. With 2D drawing, it's easy to just overlay lines, regardless of software. If that means modeling, then their models have to integrate with ours.

So far, that is the theory, and it has been a rocky road to implementation. Autodesk is providing a one-stop-shop answer, while the IFC formats offer universal compatibility and choices. Unfortunately, most Americans want everything done for them, and will often give up freedom for convenience (ironic, eh? Land of Liberty, but no one's buying).

[Anonymous]

Da3dalus wrote:
Unfortunately, most Americans want everything done for them, and will often give up freedom for convenience (ironic, eh? Land of Liberty, but no one's buying).

DEVO wrote:
freedom of choice
is what you got
freedom from choice
is what you want
(repeat)

[Da3dalus]

Lord wrote:
The price of freedom... is eternal vigilance

[Rob]

Is Australia part of Europe now? Just because you guys talk funny like the Brits doesn't mean you're part of the EU!

Perhaps English is derived from a word “England” so I am not sure who talks funny but I do not wish to drag this topic into that kind of banter

Sorry, I was referring to my previous work experience in UK and EU.. Architects over there and in AU work the same way as you described. My experience is that the architect is the driver in terms of 3D CAD use and the consultants are pretty much locked with their specialised, localised and country-specific software and refuse to accept anything else. The major problem you have to consider in EU is the language barrier and a maze of national standards. So I reckon ifc represents only option in this very incoherent environment. Also, the green-building concept (so fashionable these days) has been established a long time ago there (I am talking about decades in some countries) so the tools used for this are much much older than ADesk initiatives.
Anyway I have seen (3-4 years ago) a presentation of a Norwegian company that runs ifc server as a service. It does not matter what software you are running as long as you can export/import ifc data. The server itself is just synchronising and administering overall data. Pretty smart I’d say...