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]

Chazz wrote:

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.

..........so what do you suggest Graphisoft do? Kidnap Bill Gates' daughter and hold her for the ransom of resources and funds to compete at an equal level with Autodesk?

It's one thing to point out shortcomings, but its quite another to go on and on, yammering about, without exactly making any particular point. It's already been pointed out that Graphisoft has chosen not to go down that route because they clearly lack the resources, size (and perhaps greed) of an Autodesk-size company to want to put out a do-it-all software or suite of softwares. It's also been pointed out to you on those other threads as well that if you really believe that ArchiCAD really is on its last breaths thanks to the Revit onslaught, then do what any self respecting intelligent person would do and.....switch. It's just a mouse click away and maybe then you'll spare the rest of us your pointless Sky-is-falling nonsense that never seems to happen.

Just beware that Revit is not exactly the panacea to all design ills you seem to want to make appear to be. Some of us like to design buildings and projects over 100,000 sq.ft without the program choking up nor without breaking the building up illogically, so just so we can work on it efficiently while effectively defeating the whole purpose and point of designing a building with BIM coordination. Oh, and we also like our programs to have robust API's and fully functioning IFC-interoperability that allows us to share our models with colleagues who happen not to use the same program or family of program and who might want to send us back information in the same model. Not to mention the fact that it would be nice to have it produce DWG files that can be read flawlessly with the native DWG program that also happens to be produced by the same company without having to result to fancy tricks to make them play nice with each other. I could go on and of course you would know all this if you had even an inkling of a clue as to what out talk about, but as has been pointed out to you before, if you're that convinced that Autodesk is doing a killer job with Revit, then please try not to let the door slam you in the buttockal posterior on the way out to switching.

[Chazz]

Bricklyne wrote:
It's one thing to point out shortcomings, but its quite another to go on and on, yammering about, without exactly making any particular point.

Read my sig, dude. I don't yammer. I NATTER!

Bricklyne wrote:
It's already been pointed out that Graphisoft has chosen not to go down that route because they clearly lack the resources, size (and perhaps greed) of an Autodesk-size company to want to put out a do-it-all software or suite of softwares.

This is precisely the frame of reference I object to. Size does not make a company's products better. Bigger budgets do not yield greater innovation. A strong market position does not protect a company from disruptive forces (in fact, the opposite is frequently true).

OK, example time...
. . . .
There were 14 fairly decent search engines a few years ago. Then a 15th with a different approach came along called Google.

There is a company about 45 min away from my home and they are tiny compared to their competition. It has a fraction of the RD budget of its rival several hours to the north, but guess what? It consistently out-innovates its larger opponent. Its products are eagerly anticipated and invariably become the cause de celebre when introduced. I'm talking, of course, about Apple and Microsoft. Apple succeeds not because they have more money but because they have more of every thing else: passion, vision, willingness to take risks, leadership and a culture of revolution. When you use Apple software you come away thinking dang, these guys really love this shiet! When was the last time you said that after trying out a new version of AC?
. . . .

Let me say it again: Innovation doesn't cost more. Stagnation costs more.

What sets my teeth on edge and gets me at my keyboard at midnight on a Friday is that Graphisoft is not even giving the appearance of trying. For years they owned this space -no other company even attempted to enter the BIM market (and oh the irony that we use the acronym BIM and not GS's original term virtual building). The software used to be easy to use (for what it did) and groundbreaking in its approach. That was 1992.

ArchiCAD is not getting worse because Revit is getting better. ArchiCAD is getting worse because EVERYTHING is getting better and they are sitting still. But you, my Canadian friend, do them no service by apologizing for their smaller budgets or handicapping the competition for them. My approach is more tough love: Sometimes I want to wrestle one of those borsht swilling code monkeys to the ground and scream at them: INNOVATE! INNOVATE! For the love of GOD INOVATE!.

Instead, I post here.

[TomWaltz]

Chazz wrote:
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.

Why would Revit Architecture become more valuable? I think you're falsely assuming that they play and work perfectly together. They don't. I would use a 3rd party program like Navisworks or Solibri for model coordination any day.

Since I've started working with a much larger firm with internal engineering disciplines, BIM integration has become a larger concern for me. I've started seeing different analysis capabilities for each engineering field which are much more important than just the drafting/modeling.

BIM is about much more than just modeling. "Virtual building model" could be used to refer to Cinema 4D, SketchUp, or anything else that can model in 3D because the term says nothing about the information/data about the building.

[Anonymous]

Bricklyne wrote:
Some of us like to design buildings and projects over 100,000 sq.ft without the program choking up nor without breaking the building up illogically, so just so we can work on it efficiently while effectively defeating the whole purpose and point of designing a building with BIM coordination. Oh, and we also like our programs to have robust API's and fully functioning IFC-interoperability that allows us to share our models with colleagues who happen not to use the same program or family of program and who might want to send us back information in the same model.

Alright, already enough with the 100,000 sf barrier nonsense. Please add a zero to that number now, thank you, carry on, interesting thread 😉

I think that moving forward, focusing on architecture is AC's best strategy. While Autodesk moves madly in all directions accruing all manner of features to the three-headed monster of Revit Arch, Struc and MEP, Nemetschek can focus on the one product. And I think there are innovations in AC -- that trace paper thing in AC11 is a useful feature.

But the #1 innovation is ease-of-use. As much as possible, someone needs to be able to sit down with the software and figure it out fairly readily on their own. Bentley Architecture? Forget it. ADT a.k.a. AutoCAD Architecture? Two words: display representations! Apps live or die based on how readily people can pick them up.

If AC ends up easier to use than Revit and behaves more predictably and with fewer bugs, that news will spread. And architects need to look harder at this very important topic and do their homework. Choosing a BIM platform should not be done without looking at the varying answers to the problem.

[Anonymous]

Ease of use: I'd agree with this sentiment. However, it is myopic to adopt a stance that because an application has a GUI that is easier to use ergo it must be THE app for the industry.
Perhaps to put it another way, one man's meat is another man's poison. I've used ArchiCAD in practice and still regard it as having a phenomenal GUI. I've used ADT in practice and believe it did what it said on the box after I relearnt a few concepts that had Autodesk's language to them and I've done the same, successfully, with Bentley Architecture too. As professionals we get to know and like the interface and the applications we work with and anything else is not good enough. If you haven't used all of the applications and haven't taken the time to de-programme yourself from the ways of the other ones and approach it with an entirely fresh mind, then all you will get is negativity. Do you prefer Ford or Chevvy? Well sorry, I prefer Subaru. Come on please? If you want to take the approach that 'my CD is shinier than the other person's" then your social life needs to be re invigorated with some life.

[Anonymous]

GUI isn't really what I'm getting at -- an app can have a dorky UI but if its workflow can still be readily understood by the uninitiated, then they're more likely to be successful.

BIM necessitates a more complex workflow, and understanding that workflow and what tools are needed is something that needs to be the first thing that hits your eyes when you click F1 😉

YOU might be pretty clever with software, but there's a lot of people in offices whose computer skillz are pretty low, so you've got to lower that learning bar as far as you can.

[Chazz]

TomWaltz wrote:
Why would Revit Architecture become more valuable? I think you're falsely assuming that they play and work perfectly together. They don't. I would use a 3rd party program like Navisworks or Solibri for model coordination any day.

Why does your flavor of Revit become more valuable when a colleague from a supporting discipline adopts another flavor or Revit? For the same reason that your Skype account becomes more valuable when your mom signs up. This idea is nothing new.

Yeah, it means the different flavors of Revit have to interchange data well together and I'm not surprised that in 2007 they fall short. But is it really fair to say that mechanical guys who've been Autodesk customers for 10 years are going to want to try some screwball 3D app made by some newcommer and hope they can get it to understand models from the architect or the structural guy via IFC? I think you underestimate the power of the Autodesk brand in the eyes of many users out there. Autodesk will improve Revit interoperability because it's their ace in the hole. The Structural guys will use it because it's what the Architects use. The the MEP guys will use it because the structural guys use it. It's just a big feedback loop powered by the upgrade path from AutoCad.

Getting all those millions of flatland users into Revit-space is low hanging fruit for Autodesk. The task of conversion for Graphisoft/Nemetschek is immeasurably harder and this is really the crux of the problem as I see it.

You say you would "use a 3rd party program like Navisworks or Solibri for model coordination any day" However, you are an atypically sophisticated user and I think many people will be swayed by the AutoDesk imprint. Remember that even the relatively simple DWG interchange is far from foolproof.

[Chazz]

metanoia wrote:
But the #1 innovation is ease-of-use.

Thank you.

Why in world isn't some guy from Graphisoft saying this in our forum? Why is the wish-list manager of a company who's products traditionally required university courses to even comprehend, saying this IN OUR FORUM?

Am I the only one who sees the perfect, abject, undeniable, inescapable IRONY here?

Thank you Wes. Thank you for being here and speaking the truth.

[Anonymous]

My personal experience and the experience of the companies I've dealt with is that they should first look at the software they have in house; and by that I mean the supplier of that software and inquire as to whether they produce a BIM solution. This surely, is common sense because you are taking advantage of the skill sets, in-house and can also carry on the relationship with a company that you already know. If your existing service provider - let's not escape the fact that be they Graphisoft, Bentley or Autodesk, they are service providers - don't offer that product AND it doesn't or cannot fit into your business processes, then THAT is the time to look elsewhere.
Maybe it's more pertinent to ask the question this way: Why did ADT sell like hotcakes here in the US and flopped everywhere else in the world? If I remember correctly, Dominic Gallello, father of Rubicon, oops Inventor, was attributed to saying that ADT was the LEAST discoverable application that Adesk ever put out.
Why does Revit galvanise the market here in the US but elsewhere it is not?
Why does Graphisoft have a comfortable lead 'elsewhere' and a growing presence here in the US? Why does Bentley Architecture continue, in the face of all it's criticism to deliver projects to it's clients and ultimately to their clients?
Maybe because each company, each project is unique? Maybe it's because software developed in one are 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?
Questions to ask yourself and ask them honestly and deeply.

[Anonymous]

Some points:

- I'm here as an ally from the other side of the fence. What we want out of our respective platforms is largely the same. I'm here to make both Autodesk and Nemetschek slightly uncomfortable. Fraternizing with the enemy, eh? I'm not an Autodesk employee at all and work full-time with an architectural firm while retaining a connection to my previous job at a reseller. I wish to see ArchiCAD thrive in the interests of maintaining competition, which means better software for everyone. A monopoly sucks.
- New products sell better into a company's existing sales channel. There was little BIMming in North America before Revit came along, so Revit has increased BIM here. In Europe (where cars are smarter and the designers are more sophisticated w.r.t. software), ArchiCAD is much more popular, and BIM has already reached a level of saturation: not as much room for Revit to grow.
- Bentley Architecture continues because there are power users to support it. The same is true with Revit and ArchiCAD: neither are easy enough to use that 'cadtards' can use them start to finish without assistance. It's just that the level of cadtardation is so much higher with BA. (No dissing 'cadtards' now: call someone a cadtard and they should rightfully retaliate with GEEK!) BIM needs to be idiot-proof, and while I think it ought to be so, I wonder if it will ever be. I suppose the next generation will find this point moot, as our toddlers manage their friends on Facebook