Revit 2012 Another horrible release

[Anonymous]

Man, it seems that Revit really doesn't want to compete with Archicad. I think many Revit users will switch now to AC.

http://autodesk-revit.blogspot.com/2011/03/autodesk-revit-architecture-2012.html

[Eduardo Rolon]

BIMTIM wrote:
That it is a marketing document, and therefore not particularly objective 😉

and you have proof of this?

were are they not objective?

[Anonymous]

ejrolon wrote:

BIMTIM wrote:
That it is a marketing document, and therefore not particularly objective 😉

and you have proof of this?

were are they not objective?

I'm not so sure how to answer that.

For a white paper that is supposedly about "Design Sharing in BIM" it does seem to focus mainly on BIM Server. Claims about competing products are (as usual) stated as Facts without any substantial backup.

I would continue, though have better ways to spend my time...

[Anonymous]

I would continue, though have better ways to spend my time.

Enough with the one liners................

[Anonymous]

Don wrote:

I would continue, though have better ways to spend my time.

Enough with the one liners................

Okay as long as you take over?

[Bricklyne Clarence]

I'm really confused.

When I asked if this guy was trolling in another thread, I was out of line????

How is any of this helping anybody?

[Eduardo Rolon]

BIMTIM,

I'm not so sure how to answer that.

You could answer by quoting from the article the generalizations or the missing facts or the mistakes or the implied falsehoods.

…Claims about competing products are (as usual) stated as Facts without any substantial backup.

You are doing the same that you are accusing GS of doing.

In no part of the paper do they mention any competing products.

They define different methods of sharing data and their Pro's, Cons. Then they go into the concepts they took in consideration to design their solution and why they are important from their point of view.

-----
For those who don't want to take the time to read 13 page document it is divided in:

1. Introduction -
2. Basic Approaches to Design Sharing in BIM
2.a Terminal Services
2.b WAN Optimization
2.c Active Server/Client
3. Comparative Analysis - between the three approaches above
4. Intrinsic Criteria for Real-time Design Sharing in BIM
5. Conclusion
-----

[Anonymous]

I apologise for any of my statements that may have accidentally suggested that Graphisoft ever have, do or will intentionally mislead potential/current customers with any publication or presentation.

Every word they speak are unbiased, honest and true and I swallow each spoonful with a smile and a belch in satisfaction that I am being well nourished.

Enjoy...

[Bricklyne Clarence]

Unbelievable.

[Eduardo Rolon]

BIMTIM wrote:
I apologise for any of my statements that may have accidentally suggested that Graphisoft ever have, do or will intentionally mislead potential/current customers with any publication or presentation.

Every word they speak are unbiased, honest and true and I swallow each spoonful with a smile and a belch in satisfaction that I am being well nourished.

Enjoy...

BIMTIM,

You know that this is not the point and it is a very disappointing attitude to take.

[Karl Ottenstein]

Bricklyne wrote:
I'm really confused.

When I asked if this guy was trolling in another thread, I was out of line????

How is any of this helping anybody?

Hi Clarence,

Yeah, I'm confused, too. Wasn't thinking of you in particular in my 'calm the waters' post... For anyone who is reading only this thread, I was asking for a mature discussion in this post in the 'other' current Revit-related thread:
http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?p=186490

Apparently, I asked more than BIMTIM can manage. Obviously no document from any manufacturer will be 100% objective. Can we move beyond petty throw-off lines and discuss, in this case, Revit work-sharing over the internet vs GS BIM Server, for example? As I said in my post, I'm sure BIMTIM has much to share. With these recent posts, though, he's definitely wearing his welcome thin by not sharing anything meaningful.

Thanks,
Karl