ArchiCAD and Revit Evaluation Criteria

[Anonymous]

Greetings,

We're a mid-size architectural firm (50-75 people) located on the East Coast of the US specializing in commercial, educational, higher education, retail, and corporate markets. We've been using AutoCAD and ADT for quite some time now with SketchUp being used almost exclusively for all SD and DD imaging. We've come to the conclusion that these tools have out lived their usefulness.

We've started an evaluation process looking at both ArchiCAD and Revit. Our team (8 people) will be professionally trained by outside consultants so they can competently evaluating both tools.

We need suggestions on what type of information gets included in our evaluation criteria. Has anyone gone through this process with both programs? If so, can you give us any tips or directions on what we should be looking for? What are the current advantages and pitfalls to using either program?

Is ArchiCAD generally better than Revit?

Thanks I advance for any replies. We’ll keep everyone updated on our evaluation process.

mj2

[March_ Bruce]

This may highlight the difference in understanding between principals responsible for the work & those they rely upon for CAD expertise.

Access to prior projects is important for legal, accumulated efficiency, repeat client retention, artistic & promotional purposes - it is potentially the sweat equity, database, inventory & most valuable asset of a practice beyond the staff resources...

---

On the lack of pmk support I cannot believe the loss of artistic control in layouts now...

Graphisoft has for what I assume the desire to save a Plotmaker licensing fee traded layout efficacy in the inability to edit in place all past drawing inventory for immediate project workflow efficency.

I cannot express my disappointment strongly enough with this loss of artistic output control at the final stage.

In ArchiCAD 10 I ironically have more artistic output control over an Autodesk drawing than an ArchiCAD one.

[Anonymous]

Just from curiosity, you are aware that pmk files can be exploded in AC10 and will turn into 2D elements?

[TomWaltz]

March, wrote:
On the lack of pmk support I cannot believe the loss of artistic control in layouts now...

What artistic control have you lost?

[Bricklyne Clarence]

muttlieb wrote:

Laura wrote:

Richard wrote:
All those old projects in REVIT are "read-only" - once you've opened them in a current version, you'll be in the current version from then on.

This is what I've recently heard -- any Revit users out there, please correct me if I'm wrong -- we've got structural consultants very hesitant to upgrade to Revit 8, because there's no turning back...

That's right, you cannot "save as..." to previous versions of Revit. But I don't understand the hesitation to upgrade. Why would you want to turn back?

Bugs in the new versions? Familiarity? Consultants and collaborators using older versions? There's a whole bunch of reason why backward compatibility makes sense and should be a must for any software - and the lack of it typically tends to be an indication of the software company's need to make more money rather than the effeciency and improvements of their new versions.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

March, wrote:
This may highlight the difference in understanding between principals responsible for the work & those they rely upon for CAD expertise.

Access to prior projects is important for legal, accumulated efficiency, repeat client retention, artistic & promotional purposes - it is potentially the sweat equity, database, inventory & most valuable asset of a practice beyond the staff resources...

---

On the lack of pmk support I cannot believe the loss of artistic control in layouts now...

Graphisoft has for what I assume the desire to save a Plotmaker licensing fee traded layout efficacy in the inability to edit in place all past drawing inventory for immediate project workflow efficency.

I cannot express my disappointment strongly enough with this loss of artistic output control at the final stage.

In ArchiCAD 10 I ironically have more artistic output control over an Autodesk drawing than an ArchiCAD one.

Sounds to me like you have more of a problem with Drawing and Document storage and management in your office ( with regards to having a workflow that allows effecient transfer of drawings and designs from older versions to newer versions) than there is with ArchiCAD 10. Plotmaker and the Pmk format were eliminated ( or rather integrated into ArchiCAD) due to the overwhelming demand by the user base to have a more integrated process and workflow.

It makes more sense to have everything controlled from right within ArchiCAD where you still have access to the model and any on-going changes or updates, while making your layout - as opposed to having to open 2 essentially seperate programs and having to jump back and forth when working on a design that's still in process and being documented.

Obviously there was always going to be a price to pay for this integration especially for those who have large numbers of projects in the old format and way of doing things, but I have yet to understand, from what you've said thus far, what it is exactly that prevents you from having a seperate older version of ArchiCAD handy and installed on one machine, for accessing these plotmaker layouts whenever needed while starting and upgrading all the newer projects into ArchiCAD 10 and above. If access is all you need, then what's the problem?

As for the loss of artistic control, again, you make little sense here, since most of the Plotmaker editing functions have likewise been integrated into AC's layout book. If you really want to switch to Revit on account of the fact that the program has changed its interface drastically from the last version to the degree that you simply can't function any more, then please, don't let anyone here stop you. Only be aware that with Autodesk's history, you're not likely to like their way of switching interfaces and workflows from version to version, neither. Ditto legacy access and editing, as has already been mentioned.

[Anonymous]

Bricklyne wrote:

muttlieb wrote:
That's right, you cannot "save as..." to previous versions of Revit. But I don't understand the hesitation to upgrade. Why would you want to turn back?

Bugs in the new versions? Familiarity? Consultants and collaborators using older versions? There's a whole bunch of reason why backward compatibility makes sense and should be a must for any software - and the lack of it typically tends to be an indication of the software company's need to make more money rather than the effeciency and improvements of their new versions.

Actually, there are very real technical challenges to maintaining backwards compatibility in a parametric 3D modeling program. This topic of backwards compatibility comes up from time to time at the Revit forums, although it doesn't seem to be a very big issue for many users. A while ago one of the Revit founders responded to this topic on the Autodesk Revit Newsgroup and explained in very good detail just why it would be so difficult, and taxing on development resources, to maintain backwards compatibility. Personally, I'd rather have the developers working on new features and enhancements 😉

And just to get back to my original reply to the question about turning back - It usually makes sense to complete current projects in the version they were started in, especially if they are large projects or close to completion anyway, but I've *never* wanted to go back to a previous version of Revit after upgrading to a new version.

[Anonymous]

Bricklyne wrote:
Only be aware that with Autodesk's history, you're not likely to like their way of switching interfaces and workflows from version to version, neither. Ditto legacy access and editing, as has already been mentioned.

Umm... Revit's interface has essentially remained unchanged since I began using the program at version 6.1, and I think it's pretty much the same from 1.0. There is one camp of Revit users that likes the consistency of the UI from release to release, while another segment of users feel Revit is due for a major UI overhaul.

[Anonymous]

We are participating in the automation of what is perhaps the most complex process undertaken by humans (Architecture). It is inevitable that developing effective and productive methods in this new medium will be difficult and painful. Anyone who doesn't wish to participate is welcome to stand aside and wait for things to get better sorted before jumping in.

I started early (1988) because my circumstances made it possible and productive for me to do so. At that time the software and hardware were such that few firms could realistically make productive use of computer aided building modeling. It was around 1996 as I recall that things really began to shift and most people stopped wondering whether to adopt CAD into their practice and began thinking in terms of what and when. But this was only about the adoption of CAD in general and most were still looking at AutoCAD vs Microstation for replacing their drawing boards.

It is only now that BIM/Virtual Building is becoming the presumed choice and many firms are just getting started on the transition. There is still much work to be done to get it right. The process and methods will (and must) continue to change enough that backwards compatibility is effectively impossible.

Regarding the reuse of older work. That is still one of the great promises of CAD/BIM which is as yet largely unrealized. There are many small ways in which I am helping my clients achieve this but the full rewards of this potential are still yet to come.

In the mean time, CAD and BIM practices are no less backward compatible in any practical sense than manual practices were or are. PDF, HPGL, and even very old DWGs can still be opened and reused at least as easily as finding old vellums and mylars in the archives.

Right now BIM has to facilitate the design and documentation of the building process and the extent to which it fails in this (as it often does) is a very serious matter. Those who can make productive use of the tools in their present developmental form will have an increasing advantage in the future, but for those who are close enough to the end of their career, and in practices that are (for what ever reasons) not well served by the present state of BIM, there may be little or no advantage in adopting it.

One hundred years ago I'm sure some people were complaining about the sorry state of automotive technology, and we are still trying to get it sorted out now (and not kill ourselves and everything else in the process). Progress in computer technology, both in general and in our industry, has been startlingly fast by comparison and is ultimately much more complex in its realization. I do think a little patience is in order. As someone I respect once said to me, "there is no need to rush, but there is no time to waste." I, for one, am going to keep working to improve on what we do and not be troubled by the difficulties as long as we can continue to make serious and substantial progress toward realizing the great promise of these new tools.

[Anonymous]

My experience with both:

I have skipped ArchiCAD (and ADT) learned and choose REVIT because of one very important reason: simplicity!

In fact, since 1999, I worked around GIS technology, Bentley parametric technology (Microstation Triforma) and none of them corresponded my expectations. Just Revit!

REVIT principles seat on a well defined strategy which are well apprehended by the user once they start to use the program.

The elements are well structuralized in the following aspects:
- Model Elements;
- View Elements;
- Annotation Elements

Almost all of these elements are represented by "families", easily editable by any user with 3-4 months experience, like me, in contrast with GDL (ArchiCAD) users.

With REVIT, this organization is reflected in their "User Interface" which is quite simple.

I think with ArchiCAD these features aren't clear. Well, at least, I didn't understand them, and their interface it's not straight forward as it has too many icons and options.

With only 3-4 month's experience, using REVIT, I felt I could do things that "Gurus" ArchiCAD users (with eight years experience or more) couldn't do.
Have a look at the link: http://www.revitpt.com/forum/index.php?topic=289.25
(sorry, it's in portuguese)

The virtue is not in the user but in the program, believe it.

We can say that ArchiCAD does almost the same things, but with REVIT it's more intuitive, simpler and easier. I've tested both and I know what I'm talking about.

Another aspect, eventually the most important one: “Parametric Objects”.

With REVIT this is extremely easy with “families”; if I can do it … then everybody can 😉

At this moment, I fell I can do things with families that with GDL (ArchiCAD) I couldn't dream of, and I've more experience with ArchiCAD than with REVIT. In the attached file we can see the families and GDL interfaces. Please, compare them …

With REVIT I don't need to script the parametric objects, it just does it (draw it), with easy geometries and parameters … With ArchiCAD it’s like you see …

[Anonymous]

... Families (REVIT) interface

refs wrote:
My experience with both:

I have skipped ArchiCAD (and ADT) learned and choose REVIT because of one very important reason: simplicity!

In fact, since 1999, I worked around GIS technology, Bentley parametric technology (Microstation Triforma) and none of them corresponded my expectations. Just Revit!

REVIT principles seat on a well defined strategy which are well apprehended by the user once they start to use the program.

The elements are well structuralized in the following aspects:
- Model Elements;
- View Elements;
- Annotation Elements

Almost all of these elements are represented by "families", easily editable by any user with 3-4 months experience, like me, in contrast with GDL (ArchiCAD) users.

With REVIT, this organization is reflected in their "User Interface" which is quite simple.

I think with ArchiCAD these features aren't clear. Well, at least, I didn't understand them, and their interface it's not straight forward as it has too many icons and options.

With only 3-4 month's experience, using REVIT, I felt I could do things that "Gurus" ArchiCAD users (with eight years experience or more) couldn't do.
Have a look at the link: http://www.revitpt.com/forum/index.php?topic=289.25
(sorry, it's in portuguese)

The virtue is not in the user but in the program, believe it.

We can say that ArchiCAD does almost the same things, but with REVIT it's more intuitive, simpler and easier. I've tested both and I know what I'm talking about.

Another aspect, eventually the most important one: “Parametric Objects”.

With REVIT this is extremely easy with “families”; if I can do it … then everybody can 😉

At this moment, I fell I can do things with families that with GDL (ArchiCAD) I couldn't dream of, and I've more experience with ArchiCAD than with REVIT. In the attached file we can see the families and GDL interfaces. Please, compare them …

With REVIT I don't need to script the parametric objects, it just does it (draw it), with easy geometries and parameters … With ArchiCAD it’s like you see …