Archicad or REVIT or XX ??

[Anonymous]

Arch/Planning practice w/focus on streetscape:bldg interface + small subdivisions design on hilly terrains.
No actual Civil engineering, but approvals work includes detailed street/bldgs-interface planning. Good street, parking, stormwater portrayals critical.
Also, good portrayal of graded cut/fill/ret.wall design (much topo modification).

Way more 2D over 3D, yet 3D critical to verify design. Also require BIM for multi-story elevations + occasional MEP work.


Revit, Archicad, (& many others) ALL can do these tasks.
But I need a program which is FACILE & USER-FRIENDLY in performing them.

Leaning to Archicad over Revit (based on Forum reviews) but unsure if AC16 is best for performing this combination ?

Also, can it be rapidly absorbed without tutors ? (there are many Revit tutors claiming ability to bring one to solid working ability in a few hours - but none for Archicad)

Never used Autocad. Can NOT do gradual transition: will do intense 3 week "cold turkey" transition. (too many new projects to blend old cad w/ new program)

Experienced architects opinions very welcome !

[Anonymous]

Comparing ArchiCAD and Revit without add-ons I would say ArchiCAD has the advantage for ease, speed and accuracy in modeling terrain, hardscape and site utilities.

Revit has a good facility to quickly create terrain models from imported points. The big difference for me comes from the ease and accuracy of editing the forms in ArchiCAD. I find Revit to be pretty tedious for this.

For site utilities I have found ArchiCAD to be much better but this has involved using the MEP addon. The biggest problem with Revit MEP in this regard (and in general IMO) is that drain work can be very frustrating. It has gotten a lot better in recent versions (I have not tried 2014 yet) but it can still be quite a challenge getting Revit to make routings and connections that should be straightforward. ArchiCAD MEP has its own quirks and limitations but when it doesn't do the routings automatically they can forced manually (or even assembled piece by piece). Revit often has to be tricked or coerced or it will simply not cooperate.

Revit does have an advantage in the vast number of families (components, parts) available from manufacturers. It is really nice being able to grab the exact Zurn Wilkins backflow valve that's been spec'd. Many of these are also available as DWG that ArchiCAD can use directly but sometimes I'll use Revit to set up the part I need and export as IFC to ArchiCAD.

The morph tool in ArchiCAD is a huge help for modeling hardscape and site utilities. This probably more than compensates for Revit's advantage in available libraries as it provides for quickly making just about anything exactly as you need it. It's often quicker to model something than to search for it on the web (assuming it's there to be found).

Both programs are very complex tools for doing very complex work. I would not put too much stock the claims of tutorial authors. I have trained people in both programs and each can be learned with comparable efforts. There may be a little less to learn at first with Revit since it is not as rich and sophisticated as ArchiCAD. A lot of what I teach as basic in ArchiCAD are productivity techniques that don't exist in Revit.

There are add ons to both programs which may affect your choice but that's more than I can get into right now. In general Revit has a greater number of arguably more powerful add ons but they are also generally much more expensive. Some costing more than Revit itself.

[Anonymous]

Editing/modifying terrain forms is a large part of my work specialization. (not civil per se: mostly entitlements in regulatory-rich jurisdictions, so Civil3D isn't necessary).

Just read elsewhere that Revit is really bad at "digging in" bldg pads on sloped terrain. If true (?), that's a dealkiller for me, Revit-wise.


Thanks for the tip that stormdrains aren't facile in Revit - & glad to learn it is in ArchiCad. ("C3" is just now looming as a major design challenge in the Bay Area for just about any project, at all stages). Modeling, rather than finding library components, sounds fine for my workflow.
Is ArchiCad at least equivalent to Revit in Street details ? (parking, curbs, cut-ins, treeliners, etc.)

Regarding actual building-design tasks: In addition to ArchiCad enabling greater productivity, is it somewhat more design/intuitive-friendly than Revit ?

[Anonymous]

ArchiCAD does have much better tools for detailed excavation, particularly in sloping sites. I also find it much better for curbs, cuts, sidewalks etc. For accessories such as benches, trash bins, tree grates, and so on I expect there will be the same relative abundance of ready made stuff for Revit and ArchiCad will still have the advantage in making custom parts with the morph tool.

You mention the Bay Area. If you mean San Francisco perhaps we could go into more detail over coffee or lunch sometime. PM me if you're interested.

[gpowless]

Although a little pricey to get into, Bentley Microstation is probably the best fit for urban planning. A few years back I saw a demonstration of a model of downtown Chicago (including detailed buildings) being used for sun/shade & wind studies for a proposed building. The speed at which the model was explored was incredible. The detail was unmatched.