switching from revit to archicad

[Anonymous]

hi, i'm new to archicad... kinda. i used version 6 ages ago but have been using revit since 2006. i thought it would be a piece of cake getting back into archicad but find i'm mistaken. i've done the basic interactive training but have difficulty doing the exercises on my own. could be because i'm trying the same approach as in revit, which doesn't work, obviously.

anyone here made the switch? any tips on how to un-revit my thinking?

[Anonymous]

I learned a lot of things about ArchiCAD while trying to solve the problem of the facade trim. Most of them what you can NOT do and the rest how to go about it in the most roundabout way.

You cannot:

1. edit a wall's profile (or any profile for that matter) in elevation/section.

As a Revit user this is the most logical way to edit the profile of a wall.

2. edit an object's shape graphically but you can change its parameters.

If for some reason an object is not directly editable in the project views, the next option in Revit would be to edit it using 'edit family' which is like ArchiCAD's Profile Manager only you can edit in any view (plan, elev, section, 3D) as well as change or add new parameters.

3. create a roof with a vertical surface; you can create the most complex shapes as long as none of the parts are vertical.

I've never used a vertical roof before but I quickly checked and Revit allows it in complex roofs created by extrusion in elevation/section.

Roundabout way to edit a wall profile:

1. Custom Profile: Do as Dwight suggested.

Dwight wrote:
In cases like these, the Custom Profile should be a wall placed perpendicular to the building wall at the depth you need to express the new element, defining your quoin stack, for instance. Or your brick arch.

To edit a custom profile, sketch over the elevation with a fill to redefine the custom profile, pasting the new fill into the custom profile window or edit the defining fill right in the custom profile window.

Yes, relative to Revit, there's an extra initial step, but each custom profile is saved, so there's payback for repeating situations.

2. Empty Opening: Create the wall and add several empty openings until you get the right profile.

3. Solid Element Operations: Create the wall and some solid element/s (e.g. about 13 stacked slabs of varying widths) that will approximate the configuration of the profile you want to achieve to act as 'operators'.

4. Trim to Roof: Create flat roofs (about 8 in my case) at varying heights and positions and trim wall base to roof.

5. Custom Component Using Slabs: It seems you can create complex shapes using slabs and save them as custom door/window components. I tried this but I don't know where my door ended up after I saved it so I haven't been able to use it but I'm afraid that it's not going to work.

ArchiCAD wrote:
Using ArchiCAD Construction Elements (such as Slabs), create the Door Panel on the Floor Plan. In case of Door/Window custom panels, what you draw in the X-Y plane of the Floor Plan Window will be ‘stood upright’ in the Window/Door library part (rotated 90 degrees around the X axis – as described in the GDL Reference Guide). For other custom component types, this condition does not apply.

6. Import blocks from DXF/DWG: I could draw the profile in AutoCAD and import it into ArchiCAD but I'm not sure if it could adopt the attributes of a wall. I'm not going there as I'm allergic to AutoCAD. I haven't even installed it even though it came with Revit.

[Richard Morrison]

greenfin wrote:
I learned a lot of things about ArchiCAD while trying to solve the problem of the facade trim. Most of them what you can NOT do and the rest how to go about it in the most roundabout way.

You cannot:

1. edit a wall's profile (or any profile for that matter) in elevation/section.

This is certainly news to me! Especially since I've been doing it for quite awhile in the section editing window of complex profiles. And you even get the option of making the profile "stretchable" in the limits of your choosing. However, with the "merge" option, you don't even need to go into the profile editing window.

I'd really suggest you fully learn to use the program before making pronouncements such as the above. I'd also suggest that trying to make the program behave like a different software program is not productive. There are many AutoCAD drafters who whine loudly that AC doesn't do what AutoCAD does, until they give up trying to make AC behave like AutoCAD, and then they find out that they are actually much FASTER drafting in AC.

[Anonymous]

Richard wrote:

greenfin wrote:
I learned a lot of things about ArchiCAD while trying to solve the problem of the facade trim. Most of them what you can NOT do and the rest how to go about it in the most roundabout way.

You cannot:

1. edit a wall's profile (or any profile for that matter) in elevation/section.

This is certainly news to me! Especially since I've been doing it for quite awhile in the section editing window of complex profiles. And you even get the option of making the profile "stretchable" in the limits of your choosing. However, with the "merge" option, you don't even need to go into the profile editing window.

By 'section' I figure you mean 'cross section' and do it the way Dwight suggested I suppose? This does not apply to my problem. By 'section' I meant the section view in case of interior walls. For both elevation and section I was referring to the surface, right/left, in/out.

Richard wrote:
I'd really suggest you fully learn to use the program before making pronouncements such as the above.

Thank you. Suggestion taken. But how do you 'fully learn the program unless you use it? I was not making 'pronouncements' rather stating some observations based on my experience with it. I have consulted the manuals, read the help files, considered everything possible as listed in my previous post.

If I had the answers I wouldn't be asking for help here. Please take a look at the the facade I'm working on (attached two posts before) and tell me how I should go about doing that in ArchiCAD. I would really like to know the simplest and most direct way of doing it.

[Richard Morrison]

Okay, I'll try to explain this.

1) Get to an elevation view of the wall you wish to apply your decorative molding to.
2) Draw a fill (or multiple fills) in any shape you wish.
3) Select and copy fill(s) to clipboard.
4) Open Profile Manager and paste fill. Save under whatever name you want. (Say, "quoins") You can set materials, stretch zones, line types, etc., giving you a very powerful and reusable profile.
5) Draw a wall 2 cm long (or whatever) perpendicular to the wall you wish to apply the decoration to, then make it a complex wall with the "quoins" profile. Done.

Now, if you wish to edit the profile in an "elevation" window, you have two choices:
a) Open the profile manager and edit it in the Profile editor directly, which is very fast.
b) Edit the original fill you drew in the elevation window, and copy-paste into the profile editor window. (Deleting the original fill.) Click "store profile" button, and done.

This may be a couple of steps extra from Revit (I don't know), but I suspect you have far more editing flexibility and 2D control once it is placed.

EDIT: For roofs, you can apply whatever profile you draw as complex profile for beams, and slope THAT on a beam. Trim walls to this with an SEO. Don't limit yourself to thinking in terms of roofs/walls/floors. Slabs or meshes or beams or walls can all act as roofs, if you wish.

[Anonymous]

greenfin wrote:
If I had the answers I wouldn't be asking for help here. Please take a look at the the facade I'm working on (attached two posts before) and tell me how I should go about doing that in ArchiCAD. I would really like to know the simplest and most direct way of doing it.

Having worked with both programs I understand your frustration. While both programs do much the same thing (make building models) they go about it in rather different ways.

ArchiCAD has many useful and sophisticated tools which Revit lacks, but they have accumulated over a long development process that has seen computers go from 16MHz & 8MB RAM (when I started) to around 3GHz & 3.5GB (WinXP) to upwards of 8GB (MacOS & Vista 64) now. As such they are quite varied in their behaviors and capabilities.

Revit on the other hand has relatively few basic functions that can be a bit clumsy at times by comparison to ArchiCAD but have the advantage of being conceptually simple and consistent throughout the program.

The section tool is one of the older functions in ArchiCAD and is in serious need of improvement (ie it is often easier to edit in a 3D section/elevation view than with the section tool). The existence of both Trim to Roof (the old way) and SEOs (the newer function) as ways to fit walls to roofs is another example of this legacy.

If GS were to reorganize the program to have the outward clarity and consistency of Revit while retaining all of its sophisticated capabilities and making them more accessible, I think its advantages would be far more evident to more users.

I wonder sometimes if GS were to just make all the existing features more obvious and accessible (adding no new functions) that this might seem to many to be the biggest upgrade ever.

[Richard Morrison]

Matthew wrote:
If GS were to reorganize the program to have the outward clarity and consistency of Revit while retaining all of its sophisticated capabilities and making them more accessible, I think its advantages would be far more evident to more users.

I wonder sometimes if GS were to just make all the existing features more obvious and accessible (adding no new functions) that this might seem to many to be the biggest upgrade ever.

Matthew,
I personally think the real problem is one of consistent TRAINING options, rather than consistent menus. I don't find AC's menu structure or user interface to be particularly bad or inaccessible, but learning the "real work" on speeding up production has been more difficult than it needs to be. You can learn the basics pretty easily through the interactive training series, I guess, but there is very little to take you to the next level, which is where the frustration really sets in. Maybe the "Learn Virtual" series will do this, but Revit has far more 3rd party training materials: books, classes, DVDs, online tutorials, etc.

For example, Reviters spend lots of time learning how to create families, and then denigrate GDL as being too difficult to learn. Well, it IS difficult, but only because you have to brace yourself for a lot of self-instruction with boring manuals like the GDL Reference Guide. If GS had a readily available step-by-step GDL training series that could get people up to speed in GDL as quickly as people get up to speed with Revit families, then I think you'd see some interesting competition.

[Anonymous]

Richard wrote:
I personally think the real problem is one of consistent TRAINING options, rather than consistent menus.

How often do you train new users? If you find this to be easy I'm sure that Link and Karl and I as well as many others would like to know your secret. 😉

I don't mean to sound snarky here so please don't take this the wrong way. I assume that you are a relatively long time user and have learned like the rest of us to adapt to the wide variety of methods and behaviors over the years.

The difficulty comes when you have to explain to someone things like "you can do that in the 3D window, but not in section/elevation view" and "oh, you make ceilings with the slab or roof tool, and in the latter case you can place lights with the skylight tool but in the former you use the chair tool". The quirks and variations in behaviors, interface elements and workarounds start to pile up in the view of new users to the point of absurdity. When I have trained new people I always try to start with the clear, consistent, elegant and highly productive aspects of the program, but since everyone has specific needs and those frequently require workarounds, it is impossible to insulate them from the quirks and complexities for long.

For example, Reviters spend lots of time learning how to create families, and then denigrate GDL as being too difficult to learn. Well, it IS difficult, but only because you have to brace yourself for a lot of self-instruction with boring manuals like the GDL Reference Guide. If GS had a readily available step-by-step GDL training series that could get people up to speed in GDL as quickly as people get up to speed with Revit families, then I think you'd see some interesting competition.

I agree that more people should probably learn the basics of making library parts (with and without GDL programming) but this really needs to get easier. Adding the ability to define dimension parameters graphically in the 3D 2D full view of the library part editor would immediately push AC ahead of Revit as far as I can see.

[Richard Morrison]

Matthew wrote:
The difficulty comes when you have to explain to someone things like "you can do that in the 3D window, but not in section/elevation view" and "oh, you make ceilings with the slab or roof tool, and in the latter case you can place lights with the skylight tool but in the former you use the chair tool". The quirks and variations in behaviors, interface elements and workarounds start to pile up in the view of new users to the point of absurdity. When I have trained new people I always try to start with the clear, consistent, elegant and highly productive aspects of the program, but since everyone has specific needs and those frequently require workarounds, it is impossible to insulate them from the quirks and complexities for long.

This is pretty much what I'm saying -- that what keeps people from easily adopting AC is that they require personal training to learn the intricacies of being productive, and short of finding a personal tutor like you, Link, or Karl, they are pretty much screwed. While making the interface and behaviors more consistent is a good thing, it isn't going to eliminate training needs.

When I've tried to learn Revit, it seems on the face very consistent, but very deep to get down into the intricacies and subtleties. I hate the "spreadsheet" interface where you have to "drill down" to get to what you have to change. I like that Archicad has everything on a fairly superficial level for editing.

But as a prospective new user who knows they are in for an initial wild ride regardless of the software they choose, I can easily get support in a variety of "how to" books for Revit, like "Mastering Revit Architecture 2008," Paul Aubin's books, Ed Goldberg's books, and a host of others. Where is a current similar book for Archicad?

Then there are many available classes for Revit through various training centers around the Bay Area, as well as numerous online options. We've got ONE person around here (Tom Simmons) who teaches a fairly regular and open class for Archicad. If I lived in an outlying area, my options would be even more limited. So if I were a firm trying to move to BIM, I think the actual choice of software would be more heavily influenced by the issues of getting my employees up to speed and perpetually trained and upgraded, than by which software has a better interface.

[Shivang Rajvir]

I am 100% agree with you and that is why i have started facilitating for training.

[Anonymous]

Richard wrote:
When I've tried to learn Revit, it seems on the face very consistent, but very deep to get down into the intricacies and subtleties. I hate the "spreadsheet" interface where you have to "drill down" to get to what you have to change. I like that Archicad has everything on a fairly superficial level for editing.

The accessibility of ArchiCAD's features is a big advantage. Revit has nothing to match the Pet Palette nor Info Box. Revit's advantage in simple consistency is undermined by the fact that, while it is simple to learn where to find things, it is consistently tedious to do so.

So if I were a firm trying to move to BIM, I think the actual choice of software would be more heavily influenced by the issues of getting my employees up to speed and perpetually trained and upgraded, than by which software has a better interface.

These are not unrelated issues. A clear and consistent interface makes training and maintenance much more productive and affordable.

[Anonymous]

i think both program would have their own advantage and own logic to how they deal with problems. for example, some guys may like to create a plain and extrude it to be a wall, while archicad's concept is to set parameter to create a wall.

how can you compare guitar and piano for their performance in playing music, they are different concept instrument in playing music. which is better? no real answer.

we use different cad to produce drawings, to present ideas,etc. i think revit and archicad are different concept programme, we can not compare them directly(while you can see the projects in the real world which produced by both programmes are so great indeed). if you are in revit mind, you will use revit and bang archicad, if you are in archicad mind, you will use archicad and bang revit.

[Anonymous]

i haven't visited this forum for many months but i had a question regarding the use of digital pens (and tablet) for archicad (see under 'hardware').

since starting this topic, i've moved to another continent, switched employers, platforms (remind me to change my profile), mindset.. well, not really... at least not completely with regards to the latter.

one of the features i'm most impressed with about archicad its rendering engine. with revit (i was using ver 9 so things may have changed since) it took so long to do a high resolution rendering that you can do your shopping, have lunch or take a nap before it's done. i also like archicad's 'sketch' mode option.

but there are still features of revit that i find superior to archicad and one of them is its ease of use. archicad has many 'hidden' settings which one cannot logically discern.

i like archicad's SEO (solid element operation) something revit doesn't have but then again doesn't really need as one can directly edit the geometry of, say, a wall.

i also miss revit's relationships like locking an element's position to another element, or attaching a wall to a roof or storey, etc.

there are many more things in which revit differs from archicad or vice versa but i'm too tired at the moment to get into them. maybe next time.

[Anonymous]

I just wanted to lend some support to your argument greenfin. I am switching from Revit to archicad and everyday i think to my self "if only i was using revit i could do_____(fill in the blank). You have to have training on either platform obviously, but i was able to pick revit up so much faster and use it effectively. I still feel like i wast a ton of time in archicad looking for hidden menus and buttons. I miss Revits clean interface and intuitive controls, and i want to take the Pet pallet and smash it with a 2x4. Just to let you know, since Revit V9, revit 2009 and 2010 now use the same rendering engine as 3d studio Max and is capable of some amazing rendering results, i recommend checking it out at http://revitcity.com/gallery.php Please note that this is a user generated gallery and some users are better than others, also this site is similar to architalk only for revit, While I was an active member i never even heard archicad mentioned on the revitcity.com site. It seams like every time i search for some thing on architalk i find a tread just like this one where ppl are talking about how the like Revit more.