Archicad vs. Revit??

[rob2218]

this is not a match up fight here folks. I just wanted some constructive comparison on who here has used both and what they can see the pro's and con's are of one vs. another.

Again, no need to take off the gloves. i'm simply doing a bit of research for someone.

Much appreciated.

[David Larrew]

Try doing a search for "Revit" on this forum. I think this has been discussed on other threads like:

http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?p=154634&highlight=revit

http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=28196&highlight=revit

[Chazz]

Discussed, debated and agonized over endlessly in the past here. TW2 may change the calculus for some potential adopters. However, the discussions here always seem to focus on features and capabilities of ArchiCAD and Revit at version X.

The much more important consideration for anyone considering making such a huge investment (and the investment is primarily in TIME; cash outlay is a distant, secondary consideration) is the trajectory of the tool. Who has the momentum? Which player is going to be viable in 5 years? In 10 years? (I've been using ArchiCAD for 17 years and have such an investment in time that switching to something else is daunting). When you look at it with this criteria, it is hard to make a reasonable argument for ArchiCAD. Revit is dominating by every metric that can be measured.

But looking into the future, what about SketchUp on Chrome?

[Anonymous]

It all depends on what type of projects you do. It's that simple. If you're doing boxy traditional, not to complex buildings, that aren't too large, then both Revit and Archicad will do. Anything else, I would advice you to go with a combination of Rhino/ Maya and Autocad. Pretty much all firms that do interesting work and occasionally make the magazines will never touch software like Revit or Archicad, for the obvious reasons.

However, if you want to use a BIM tool, regardless of the type of projects or architectural style, then Bentley is the perfect tool.

[David Larrew]

blobmeister wrote:
It all depends on what type of projects you do. It's that simple. If you're doing boxy traditional, not to complex buildings, that aren't too large, then both Revit and Archicad will do. Anything else, I would advice you to go with a combination of Rhino/ Maya and Autocad. Pretty much all firms that do interesting work and occasionally make the magazines will never touch software like Revit or Archicad, for the obvious reasons.

I have to strongly disagree with your comment... I have worked for and with firms using ArchiCAD (6.0-13) that have accomplished design awards and magazine spreads with very complex designs. I have been working with ArchiCAD for the last 12+ years (before the BIM marketing avalanche from Autodesk) and never once was unable to accomplish a design (no matter how big or complex) in my tool of choice.

[Anonymous]

David wrote:

blobmeister wrote:
It all depends on what type of projects you do. It's that simple. If you're doing boxy traditional, not to complex buildings, that aren't too large, then both Revit and Archicad will do. Anything else, I would advice you to go with a combination of Rhino/ Maya and Autocad. Pretty much all firms that do interesting work and occasionally make the magazines will never touch software like Revit or Archicad, for the obvious reasons.

I have to strongly disagree with your comment... I have worked for and with firms using ArchiCAD (6.0-13) that have accomplished design awards and magazine spreads with very complex designs. I have been working with ArchiCAD for the last 12+ years (before the BIM marketing avalanche from Autodesk) and never once was unable to accomplish a design (no matter how big or complex) in my tool of choice.

Well, there is a reason why software packages like Rhino, Grasshopper, Maya are dominating this segment of the industry and not Archicad.

[Eduardo Rolon]

That is not true.

Neither Rhino nor the Grasshopper plug-in or Maya do construction documents and they are not market leaders in AEC, though they dominate Columbia.

Neither Le Corbusier, Gaudi, Saarinen, FLlW had any use for any software to create great architecture.

The best tool is the one you are comfortable with, try both see which one clicks with your design and production style.

As you might be able to infer most users in this forum like AC.

[Anonymous]

blobmeister wrote:
It all depends on what type of projects you do. It's that simple. If you're doing boxy traditional, not to complex buildings, that aren't too large, then both Revit and Archicad will do. Anything else, I would advice you to go with a combination of Rhino/ Maya and Autocad. Pretty much all firms that do interesting work and occasionally make the magazines will never touch software like Revit or Archicad, for the obvious reasons.

However, if you want to use a BIM tool, regardless of the type of projects or architectural style, then Bentley is the perfect tool.

WOW. Where to start.

1. Nobody is using Rhino or other tools in CD phase. It is used in very early DD phase and that is it. After that point you just go into the proper architectural tool.
2. Both (all three?) packages are capable of producing CD's no matter how complex a structure. However ...
3. On some very complex structure there is mutual agreement to actually use model for construction. It is just to complex to document all dimensions. Models are used directly to fabricate structure.
4. All those magazines stuff is overblown in importance in design/construction phase because this is the phase where involvement of the big fish ends. It is most medial information. No one is interested that army of CAD technicians is using Archicad/Revit/pickone to produce actual construction docs. All they care is that this complex design/sculpture evolved inside the belly of Maya/Rhino/Catia. It just look cool in magazine.
I suppose I'm done.

[Anonymous]

The firms who use Rhino or Maya use Autocad for documentation as it's still the most flexible and customizable tool available. As a matter of fact , rhino models are used for direct fabrication.

Even Autodesk can't hide the fact that their clients (zaha Hadid, Cage/Clemenceau etc.) all use Maya and Autocad and not there flagship BIM tool. http://download.autodesk.com/us/design_viz/zaha_video/zaha_620x398.html

Now, the term "magazine" architecture is purely to illustrate the type of architecture, not "necessarily the starchitect itself. We can all agree or disagree if this style or the way it is practice is good for the profession. What is odd though is that we all want Graphisoft (and Autodesk, for the those who use Revit) to be on the cutting egde of technology. We expect them to deliver us with the best they can, to us to keep us ahead of the competition. We are pioneers in BIM & IPD compared the 2d firms, yet we use it to "design"and document un-inspiring, un-innovative, traditional architecture that has been here for over a century. And we seem to critize the few that try to bring architecture to another level. And apparantly those working at Graphisoft think the same way too.

Would we be using an Iphone if Apple think the same we do in Architecture?

[Bricklyne Clarence]

blobmeister wrote:
The firms who use Rhino or Maya use Autocad for documentation as it's still the most flexible and customizable tool available...........

Now, the term "magazine" architecture is purely to illustrate the type of architecture, not "necessarily the starchitect itself. We can all agree or disagree if this style or the way it is practice is good for the profession. What is odd though is that we all want Graphisoft (and Autodesk, for the those who use Revit) to be on the cutting egde of technology. We expect them to deliver us with the best they can, to us to keep us ahead of the competition. We are pioneers in BIM & IPD compared the 2d firms, yet we use it to "design"and document un-inspiring, un-innovative, traditional architecture that has been here for over a century. And we seem to critize the few that try to bring architecture to another level. And apparantly those working at Graphisoft think the same way too.

Would we be using an Iphone if Apple think the same we do in Architecture?

I don't really care if ArchiCAD ever develops the capability to design or model blobitecture and organic/freeform designs and forms ala the Hadid's and Gehry's. In fact I think that Graphisoft have already made the calculation that this was never their intended purpose for AC and thus will likely never invest their resources in this direction. The untimely death of Maxonform at the hands of Graphisoft, - especially after all the hoopla they raised when they unveiled it, and especially when they said they were doing so to replace it with new integrated tools within the next few versions (Maxonform was killed at around AC10, 3 versions ago; still no tools to be seen) - should be more than enough proof of this.

I do however, think that this whole 'ArchiCAD-is-not-a-tool-for-blobitecture' argument and meme has ultimately become a big glaring Red Herring for GS and a rallying call for their apologists, - essentially an excuse and pretext to abscond their obligation to develop and improve the modeling tool-set of ArchiCAD - even for the most basic functions in the program for design and modeling of forms that are still very commonplace and conventional architectural components. How else to explain the fact that you can design and build a Custom spiral staircase with panelized handrails and customized risers in Rhino3d ( a traditionally non-architectural program) yet you can't pull the same feat with any logical sense of ease (read: no convoluted work-arounds and no GDLing) in ArchiCAD.

Anytime this topic comes up, someone is bound to pop up claiming ".....but I don't need those tools, so I don't think that GS should spend any precious time of resources developing them? Use Rhino or C4D for that!!", and thus ends the conversation and argument as GS then resort to taking the path of least resistance and develops for the least demanding customers. Instead we end up with Curtain Wall Tool, for example, which is so inflexible for design purposes and counter-intuitive for workflow considerations, and end up having to use it instead, to patch up holes in other parts of the program (railings, Ceiling panelings etc) that it's not even originally intended for.

All because of a red herring of 'Organic/Freeform design and model tools' argument trumping the legitimate need to improve sorely lacking areas of the program.

But at the end of the day I think it's a moot point and argument because I don't believe there's that much further that GS can take this software on the back of a seriously aging 3D kernel and engine driven by GDL - which, for all its flexibility is a considerably inefficient, clunky and resource-greedy Graphical coding language. You really think it's by accident or negligence that we still have no intuitive graphical user interface and/or module to facilitate the creation of custom objects and to replace GDL coding? It's just natural progression, and at this stage of game, there's not that much room for them to navigate with regards to improving the interface, the workflow nor the program in general.

ArchiCAD is never going to have the modeling robustness of a Rhino or a Maya or a CATIA. Which is all well and good, since none of those are architecture programs to begin with. But does that have to mean that we also can't get or have a decent fully functioning program devoid of all the work-arounds, the GDL coding, or having to rely on the third-party developers?