Revit Structural, is it gaining ground? Read the article

[Anonymous]

Hi,
GS please read this article, are we lost in the structural front?

http://redigitaleditions.com/ActiveMagazine/getBook.asp?Path=BDC/2009/01/03&BookCollection=BDC&Reade...

Click on BIM Software

I think a translator from IFC to CIS/2 would gain us some ground.
Thanks,
Joseph

[Anonymous]

Can I assume there is not much interest in ArchiCad Structural?

May be that is why GS does not create one, like MEP.

[Karl Ottenstein]

Looking at the Tekla web page, it seems that they accept CIS/2 and link with ArchiCAD... I believe some have posted experiences elsewhere here? If not, chime in.

I believe that strategic partnerships and open standards are the Graphisoft philosophy, as opposed to acquisition and integration (Autodesk). At least that's what I've seen so far.

Cheers,
Karl

[Bricklyne Clarence]

Karl wrote:
......

I believe that strategic partnerships and open standards are the Graphisoft philosophy, as opposed to acquisition and integration (Autodesk). At least that's what I've seen so far.

Cheers,
Karl

.....Frankly speaking, that's a strategy that's doomed to failure. Especially when the strategic partnerships you have to rely on are with parties who have been, or are arguably soon to be bought out by your main competitor - Autodesk (see Ecotect, Navisworks and maybe even throw in Tekla,.... in the soon-to-be category), - and the 'open' standards are more or less, defined and set by the same said main competitor; thanks to their market dominance and your own poor development strategies and lack of vision ( see: .Dwg format, Revit North American dominance and ubiquity vs. GS North American piss-poor marketing, and of course, IFC format impotence and sterility).

Granted, Graphisoft, (and by extension Nemetschek) don't posses the same degree of raw purchasing and buy-out power, which Autodesk currently wields like an iron fist, but there have been a lot of avoidable mis-steps, lost opportunities, and just plain, dumb business decisions on their own part, in recent years, that would have, more than bridged the gap, had they taken a more innovative approach to ArchiCAD's development and marketing.

Needless to say, that that's a whole other thread discussion, but the point here being that, the primary error with this market strategy ( of relying on 'strategic partnerships' and even third party developers) is that, how long do you suppose it will be before the third-party software, that you have to rely on to fill in the gaps for your own software's shortcomings, but which might be owned by your rival ( or soon-to-be-owned), begin to exhibit deliberate 'strategic' compatibility issues with your own software? Especially when it's in said rival's best interest; and it is.

In other words, how long, or rather how many more versions do you think there are, before Ecotect, for example, becomes an Autodesk-exclusive software reading only Autodesk format models ; - bearing in mind that Ecotect used to have such a great, or at least decent, interoperability and compatibility with ArchiCAD prior to their buy-out . Or the fact that Graphisoft ( or Nemetschek) could easily have bought out Ecotect prior to the Autodesk sale ( like they did with Ductworks, which is now ArchiCAD's MEP modeler), short of developing those kinds of environmental analysis- suite of tools for ArchiCAD, rather than sitting on their thumbs ( or their 'strategic partnerships' if you will,) and waiting until Autodesk bought them out.
Ditto Navisworks.

One would ask why would Autodesk do such a thing (locking out non-Autodesk users from their propriety software like Ecotect and Navisworks) when the more pertinent question should be; what would be the interest or benefit for them in NOT doing so, and hence forcing undecided users to have to use Autodesk software anyway or to begin with?

Eventually, GS (and consequently their users) may find themselves having to rely on their main competitors (who owe them nothing) for features and tools that they refuse, are unwilling or unable to provide for their own customers - and which they risk having completely no access to depending on their rival's marketing decisions. Not a very good place to be.

That's why I think it's a terminally doomed strategy.

[Anonymous]

Wow thats too much

Well for now an IFC to CIS/2 translation would take care of Structural Analysis & Modeling side. Any hopes?

Thanks,
Joseph

[Anonymous]

Sorry just had to share this talk I had with an architect friend of mine (a firm of about 5 designers). I have been trying to convince them to move from Autocad flat land to Archicad.

Now he tells me the structural engineer he is working with has sent him a Revit Structural model to coordinate with so he is also starting to work with his Revit copy Autodesk has provided. That makes me mad, that a structural package could do this.

What ever GS is up to better be good, time is ticking......

I am making a wish for a CIS translator.

Joseph

[Erich]

Joseph,

Of course that is the way everyone ended up with Autocad originally...We have to use Autocad as that is what the engineers are using.

It starts all over

[Anonymous]

Our New York Studio is now fully BIM with Revit, not because it is 'better' than AC but because of their engineers also use Revit/Struct/MEP. Our management wants a roll out of Revit across all studio's - 1000 seats- not least because of the Autodesk pricing incentives (a modest charge over current Autocad licences).

However there is some resistance- see my post in AC/Revit Competition. Would like to know how well AC can work with Revit/S/MEP using IFC etc - so far have heard it works ok but our IT team currently assessing.

It would be a huge blow to Graphisoft if we went down the Revit path as in Australia we have a very large user/knowledge base

[Laszlo Nagy]

Check out this recent post.
Its author says the ArchiCAD Revit exchange through IFC has been pretty good:

http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?p=134684

[Aaron Bourgoin]

I just read the BIM article in Modern Steel Construction magazine cited earlier in this thread. Did I skim it too fast or was there not a single reference in it to interoperability or sharing the structural model with the rest of the team. Whatever happened to 'integrated design'?

I get the part where engineers consider analysis first and the drawings a distant second. Integration is a big issue, but what about collaboration? ArchiCAD users currently model the structure, but the structural engineer gets the piece of the fee meant to cover off the drafting.

Second point - a question really. I note that Revit MEP has some calculation capabilities. Does Revit Structure?