I would say Revit is also good, but far more limited. I am not talking about handling structure and MEP disciplines, as Revit covers them better than Archicad. In a way Revit ticks a lot of boxes, almost all. But overall it can be deemed ‘objectively’ rigidly programmed, as more often than not it grabs the hands of designers to impose specific manners in which they must make decisions towards creating anything. This fact somewhat renders Revit as more simplified solution, useful for forcing standardization- thus rendering it somewhat better fit for larger firms aiming standardized practice (prevalent characteristics among North American firms, I am assuming as not fully informed).
I have been an avid user and advocate of Revit, before I gave Archicad a go, as I just wanted to be less biased being an academician. Initial transition took a lot of effort, as some things are pretty simple and dynamic in Revit, e.g., moving walls in a floor plan. But, then when I kept on going, and completed the same project on Archicad which I had done with Revit in a very detailed manner (in Revit, I had also modeled 3D rebars, baseplates etc. for some part of the farmhouse project). I could summarize the whole experience, as liberating. I could visualize where I had to contain myself in order to be reasonably BIM efficient in Revit. Archicad, on the other hand provided better modeling flexibility and more accurate reporting avenues. To list a few of them:
1. Material Priority (in Archicad) over join geometry (in Revit)
2. Property manager (in Archicad) over utilization of shared parameters (in Revit)
3. Autotext and other labels (in Archicad) over tags and keynotes (in Revit). However, material keynote is rather missing from Archicad. I mean there could be workarounds, but selection of material within complex profiles and composite individually through autotext or other labels is still a big challenge (apart from the skin list tag which is not completely what we want, and not even useful for complex profiles properly).
4. Editing elements in 3D is much better in Archicad, while in Revit, graphically editing is only possible for instance properties. However, as mentioned earlier, working in floor plans sometimes is better in Revit based on the temporary dimensions, aligning ability, locking alignments etc. Locking of surface, edge, and location alignments should also be developed into Archicad.
5. Complex profile feature is a really essential thing to be in Architectural and BIM modeling tools. Only instance, I could gather in Revit is stacked walls, which is non-intuitive and very tricky to use. Whereas complex profiles in Archicad are versatile and parametric (however, modifiers for angle parameters and curves should also be developed).
6. Graphic management is way better in Archicad (and more parametric), though some graphic overrides feature are more flexible in Revit (for e.g., manual temporary view specific overrides for manually selected elements, exploded views etc.)
7. Interactive scheduling of Archicad is more intuitive and reporting is more accurate due to material priority feature.
8. Solid Element Operations, and Boolean Operations are completely missing from Revit.
There could be many many more points (like highly parametrized library elements, better and detailed layouting capabilities, more capable 2D drafting and detailing) which make Archicad more suitable for Architects. Still, Archicad could learn a few tricks from Revit as well. But overall, in my opinion, Archicad is a far more suitable tool for architects. It is a very detailed tool, very very detailed- even intimidating (not complaining). Although, I am forced to use Revit as a Professor of construction management (which is unfortunate, as it is prevalent in India and has secured its place in curriculums as a result of smart marketing strategy from Autodesk), but for architectural work and explorations I would never go back to using it again while it retains its current form. But, I always keep revisiting my decision during the version launches, as I hate to be a zealot (but a little zeal never hurts).
Mjules wrote:
Revit is better than what you describe. It is not without any reason that it is widely used in North America. It is not either because Revit is from AutoDesk that lots of firms use it more than ArchiCAD in both Canada and United States.
