NY Times:"Revit Architecture, the industry standard"

[Chazz]

Maybe eveyone knew or suspected this aready but it's different when the grey lady says it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/business/11gehry.html?_r=1&ref=technology

This is a fascinating article but here is the money quote:

Architects routinely use modeling software, but the latest version of Digital Project would enable them to try extreme designs for skyscrapers. While acknowledging that the Gehry software is impressive, Carl Galioto of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, a firm that has designed many skyscrapers, says that it is hard to learn and three or four times as expensive as a conventional modeling program. Revit Architecture, the industry standard from Autodesk, is listed at $5,495 on Autodesk’s Web site.

[Rob]

We are actually discussing switching over to Revit on a major project JUST to more easily integrate with our Engineers

Yes, and make sure that you and your engineers will use the same version of Revit otherwise you can find yourself in an 'incompatible situation'.

What is wrong with you guys there in US? Do you really think that an engineer will dictate an architect how to manage a project? You are really degrading yourself to another subcontractor... If we (architects) accepted fully the engineer's advice and tools to be used we would be building concrete blocks... Personally as an architect I prefer to use the most effective tool that suits me and me only. I am not asking for it my consultants!

Compare that to a Revit team saying.. "it's part of Revit."

it does not necessarily mean it works well though

get over it, stop whinging and ask yourself why you do like AC... you will find a lot of answers...

[Chazz]

Rob wrote:
stop whinging and ask yourself why you do like AC... you will find a lot of answers...

That's what I call some quality nattering positivism. Run with it Robert!

In CrazyHorse's defense, I think we could all agree (can we all agree on anything?) that using software that is becoming an isolated island unto itself, with very limited import/export and a truly miniscule ecosystem is, well, a drag. Maybe an Australian would not understand that?

Deploying ArchiCAD is a big investment in capital and a bigger investment in time. That investment seems undermined in the eyes of current users and unattractive to potential users when the sandbox of interoperability shrinks or appears to shrink relative to the competition.

As I have said for years on this forum, it is AutoDesk's ability to migrate its AutoCad users to Revit (and interoperability is a big part of this effort) that will herald the death knell of ArchiCAD.

We are QuarkExpress. They are InDesign. It will just take a little longer.

[Stress Co_]

Rob wrote:
What is wrong with you guys there in US? Do you really think that an engineer will dictate an architect how to manage a project?

[Anonymous]

G.S.
If you want free marketing to be done by the architects;again:
Make gdl fun again, 1st (kill most the macros).
Work hard on the Bim.
It will market itself, (or close to it).
That's the way to get the grass-roots to grow.

[Rob]

Chazz,

one more question here. Have you ever worked in a shared model situation? I have tried to coordinate with a structural engineer via IFC. The major problem was not IFC itself but the maintenance of the engineer's mess. All that Revit interoperability is very theoretical because it requires further overheads for maintenance in reality (and that is typically done by an architect). Anyway I want to try IFC server run and administered by a separate party. IMHO this is the way to go.

Your example with Quark vs InDesign has nothing to do with our industry. Those two applications need to communicate with software within one industry only. We do need communicate in a multi-industry environment with a massive diversity of software used. And you have to be kidding yourself if you think that one software company can ever possibly do this. It sounds very convenient but it will not ever happen. Look at dwg file format - it did not stop creating of new CAD software or even new portable file formats.

and I have to repeat again - use the tool you like not the one you think your engineer will.

[Anonymous]

Autodesk don't have an imperative to make IFC work because they would prefer that the structural and services engineers use the appropriate Revit versions for that work. Then the model can be shared without translation issues. That solution to the problem makes very good sense, but it leaves the rest of us out in the cold.

Graphisoft et al have to make IFC work if they are to survive as viable programs. The problem is that IFC is focussed on exchanging 3D information only and it doesn't provide a means of exchanging 2D drawings. Unless that changes we will all still have to rely on DWG to do that.

[Rob]

to illustrate what I mean by multi-industry (I should rather say multi-disciplinary) I have borrowed this image form the internet showing IFC server functionality.

I do not think this can be covered by a proprietary file format based on one company. Considering almost infinite nuances based on national standards and language localisations.

[Erika Epstein]

Rob wrote:
What is wrong with you guys there in US? Do you really think that an engineer will dictate an architect how to manage a project? You are really degrading yourself to another subcontractor...

Not just inaccurate but inexcusably rude.

[Rob]

Not just inaccurate but inexcusably rude.

Oh my word. I would like to remind you what actually triggered my comments here:

..a major project JUST to more easily integrate with our Engineers (who are just now taking the BIM dive for the first time)

All that time we (architects) have been pushing for VB/BIM approach and 3D design kicking kindly buttocks of all our consultants around to get them moving from 19th century slate-and-chalk. Now we will bend over and do whatever would please them JUST to make them comfortable... poor flowers. We will sacrifice our workflows and skills for a very theoretical outcome as there is no real proof that such cooperation will actually work better (given poor skills on the engineer’s side). I understand there is a lot of pressure from Adesk in US but there is a bigger world out there...

"What is Graphisoft doing to make energy analysis/energy modelling integrated into the main program?" Clearly Revit has the momentum and understand the market in our neck of woods.

Maybe Adesk understands the market in US but that does not mean they understand the rest of the world...

[Chazz]

Rob wrote:
Your example with Quark vs InDesign has nothing to do with our industry. Those two applications need to communicate with software within one industry only. bla bla bla

In a word: piffle.

The industry is as irrelevant as color on the box. What matters, what is salient in the comparison is that a big company with a lot of resources and a killer business model (Autodesk) is quickly crushing a smaller company that has less resources and has failed to innovate (Graphisoft). Big does not always trump small but big and effective and with monopolies in related areas pretty much always beats small and poorly organized companies with no business model to speak of (Graphisoft's business model: "it's really hard to switch"). It's a classic case of complacency and sitting on real or imagined laurels. I don't know how else to say it: ArchiCAD is simply not an innovative product any longer and each upgrade continues to disappoint and drag it further behind (curtain wall tool? What the hell was that?). You just can't maintain this way for long without the wheels coming off the bus.

Dude, it's not bossy Revit-lovin structural engineers that are driving architects away form ArchiCAD. It's ArchiCAD driving architects away from ArchiCAD. I'd dump it in a heartbeat except for one thing: it's really hard to switch.