Architects: Revit or Archicad?

[Anonymous]

HII
Just gauging the popularity and usage of both Revit and ArchiCad in the industry. The school I'm in teaches and forces us to ArchiCad it in some of our works, which is odd considering that a majority of studios in our country uses solely Revit.

Is there something that ArchiCad that Revit does not offer? And the other way around?

[Martin Jules]

Thank you, all for your comments!

I wouldn't like to put myself in such a situation to draw all the building details which I mentioned in the previous posts. Unfortunately for me, I am still an intern architect who must follow the requirements from the Quebec Order of Architects (L'Ordre des Architectes du Québec).

As a result, I have a lot of internship reports to submit periodically in order to accumulate the necessary hours of practice that will allow me to take either the Examination for Architects in Canada (ExAC) or the Architect Registration Examination (ARE) in the U.S. I just wanted to know what would be the best way to draw such structural details with ArchiCAD.

Moonlight, your latest insights are very helpful! Many thanks to you too, Mr. Morrison!

[Marc H]

I expect there will be as unique answers as there are architects; each of us seeing our world in just a bit different way from another. After reading the pages of threads with so much great content, its comforting (at least to me) that we are such passionate folk.

Back in graduate school so many years ago, there was a very smart fellow who wrote about software implementation. In simplified terms, he said you start with the essential functional criteria (as we do architecture) and work our way from piloting the software to the eventual supporting hardware, detailed components, and then training commitments. I still use this method today. Hopefully, in reading through these entries, you find the functionality you seek.

As an example, mine was:
1. Design visualization / strong modeling and open data platform vs a closed program - where the software development team navigates all manner of innovation trends. This was so I could explore more architecture as they explore hardware and software technology.
2. Design element tools over detailing tools. For me, a program I could use to design fluidly without resorting to yet another program, and remembering we are creating qualitative, buildable design 'intent' models; not shop drawings.
3. If not an Autodesk platform, then with quality import export to ACAD. (Much US government files and Record Drawings were mandated to be in ACAD format; may still do?) This allows me develop internal concepts in my 'platform of comfort' and pass them to consultants whom many have ADSK products.
4. Ability to connect to external databases (e.g., ODBC) for extended datasets and analysis.
5. MEP extension. (While I would not be designing the MEP systems, having the tools are of importance to me for the many benefits of building modeling gives.)
6. Total Cost of Ownership. (Initial license/s purchase + essential add-ons + hardware + training + annual upgrades (now subscription).

After working with a number of object-based and layer-based CAD programs in prior years, I chose ArchiCAD, 'by a length'. Every few years, I return to the questions above, albeit with some updates and emphasis. You may have other criteria:
- A client visualization tool (for example, BIMx vs BIM360).
- Production speed?
- Data-centric focus? Ease with IFC?
- Rendering tools are critical for some - internal engines vs export, compatibility.
- Algorithmic design is always emerging (Rhino? I'm thinking Paramo will be exciting.)

While your immediate firm platform is important, a personal criteria may be just as important. Past is not future, and we are in a huge digital evolution with more employment churn and international firm and 'gig' work on the rise. With a criteria in hand, you may be able to better your choice of a good ship.

[Nader Belal]

Ok to everyone,

@Mjules,
Why don't you start a new thread about your questions and may be we can help you and answer your doubts.

And in line of @Marc H comments:
1. Right now, there is no program (CAD or BIM) that is capable of handling all project data to its full extends, in full detail, multiple specialities and data granularity, why !!
Because, material resources (CPUs, Graphics Cards, Rams, Storage & etc) can not handle all this data (graphical, modelling & text data), and available IT technologies methods and algorithms have not advanced enough to handle it efficiently.
That is why LOD 250-350 depending on the projects design phase and size is considered the sweet spot for modelling. More than this for the whole of the project must be justified.

In line of @DGSketchers comments:
Architects should not and can not design everything in the building, but they should provide the base for other specialities to contribute to the BIM model. And that was the reality of AEC sector long before CAD & BIM

[Anonymous]

I think we Architects and Engineers all like extreme detail. We are perfectionists by nature. The issue is that we Architects don't have and shouldn't be doing others jobs, like it is already been said here. The current technology (CPU, RAM, SSD, 5G) is already prepared for the so called "Digital Twin". Architects, Engineers and Contractors are (almost) all aboard on the BIM Boat. The problem is just one: Manufactures don't. I think the key for the success of any BIM software in the near future, is to pave the road for Manufactures get on board. It can be achieved by creating all sort of workflows and tools tailored for Manufacturers to deliver quality content with multiple LOD's for Architects and Engineers in their day-to-day activities. In the end, selecting a specific Curtain Wall system would be as easy as downloading a Manufacturer file with all possible specs, properties, surfaces, favorites, etc.
My 2 cts.

[jl_lt]

Braza wrote:
. In the end, selecting a specific Curtain Wall system would be as easy as downloading a Manufacturer file with all possible specs, properties, surfaces, favorites, etc.
My 2 cts.

A solution for this was proposed in the very long thread of Graphisoft gaining market share. One solution is to wait for everyone to model, update and mantain their products in gdl (which i think its safe to say wont happen soon), another one was to have access to all the specifications list of many manufacturers and automatically embbed this info into an archicad object. It wouldnt be a super realistic model, but it would containg all the necesary information including dimensions and specs. I would prefer the latter 100x.

[Anonymous]

jl_lt wrote:
A solution for this was proposed in the very long thread of Graphisoft gaining market share.

Yes. A very interesting one... 16633 Views by now.

[Martin Jules]

Here's an interesting comparison between ArchiCAD and Revit: https://www.buildercentral.com/revit-vs-archicad/

[Laszlo Nagy]

Mjules wrote:
Here's an interesting comparison between ArchiCAD and Revit: https://www.buildercentral.com/revit-vs-archicad/

The guy sells Autodesk software. Of course, he says that Revit is better than Archicad.
The funniest sentence of the post is when an Autodesk reseller says:

What more do you need? To the objective mind, the choice is crystal clear here. And that is Revit.

Maybe the guy should get a dictionary and clear up the meaning of the word "objective".

[Anonymous]

Hello guys can anyone tell.
This plans was done in Archicad or Revit?
Sorry if that not right topic for question.
https://imgur.com/a/UT0ECdV

[Laszlo Nagy]

Hard to tell. I do not see anything specifically that may suggest that it is Archicad, mostly because I do not recognize the various library parts used for the sanitary object and furniture, and Archicad plans are usually more colorful.
To me, the plan is just too neat and tidy for it to be done in Revit either. Also, the Revit default library does not have such high detail Windows.
It could be other programs as well, like Vectorworks or SketchUp. I think those are also capable of producing such nice plans.
And, since it is posted with Russian text in the bottom left corner of the plan, and since most of the plan is grayscale with few colors, I can even imagine that it was done by Renga Architecture, a Russian BIM application, which also can produce nice graphics.