The irony with BIG is that the guy that appeared in the videos is actually a world class Revit user 
Bricklyne wrote:It's true what you say, but come on, with all the money those firms are putting on the table in terms of licences just for Revit (not counting other products), and Autodesk not giving them the attention they require ... it's like Autodesk it actively shooting itself on the knee.
Moonlight wrote:To be fair, you don't know for a fact that they haven't been complaining on their end about those issues in their forums and through their individual correspondence with Autodesk all these years and have just not been getting the feedback they hope for (lack of feedbck IS after all, one of the issues they bring up in the letter).
.......
Actually I think the same, cause if for all those years they hadn't said anything about all those issues before, then either they weren't caring about all those issues, or they have a really big problem of blindness and critical thinking regarding BIM software.....
Perhaps after years of doing so with no results they decided to finally band together to give their collective voice more weight by writing this letter and publishing it in a very public manner and given all the attention its garnered (to the tune of no less than the top guy at Autodesk himself responding and Autodesk themselves as a company having responded publicly twice so far), it would seem this tactic worked.
Or Autodesk have became an ipso facto monopoly, and what we are seeing is only a price tag negotiation.
Bricklyne wrote:Come on Bricklyne!
Is the implication here (or your assumption) that American (or North American) firms or South American firms or Asian firms don't have any issues or problems with Revit and it's just UK firms?
Because I'm willing to bet that if that's what you're insinuating, you're wrong.
Do you really think this? It is almost an insult. "Right in the nuts" 
Bricklyne wrote:Second one in the nuts.
And as for pricing, who wouldn't have a problem with having to continuously pay a high price for a product that they felt wasn't meeting their expectations for what they expected in return for its perceived value?
So what if they want to reduce their software bill?
You wouldn't want to pay less for your license if it wasn't meeting your expectations in terms of what you want?
Alternatively wouldn't you be happier if you were getting MORE for what you're paying now in terms of better features, better and more responsiveness from GS and just overall better return on your investment and value for money?
Isn't that what a good business seeks to do anyway? Under any circumstance?
My point is: Before this crisis,
The thing is: Revit users have a looong wait to Autodesk fix the loads of sh** in Revit, and Archicad users don´t, due to the background work that has been done by GS for at least 10 years. But we will see.
Bricklyne wrote:Again: You have lots of fair points in the content of your posts. But the form you choose to express your ideas, by taking it almost to a personal attack is toxic.
Why is it that anytime people bring up LEGITIMATE issues and problems with the program we're just accuse of being negative or "harshly criticizing" people whose opinion doesn't match your own, when you seemingly don't even bother to note whether there's real concern in why the complaints are being made.
Bricklyne wrote:This one was on the belly!
You seem to have much lower expectations than those of use who've been using this software for a long time and long enough to know what the dangers of complacency and the slow creep of development stagnation portend like a frog sitting at the bottom of a saucepan of slowly boiling water. And you know what? That's fine.
Look Bricklyne. I am not being complacent. I just think that we have to focus on the solution and not the problem.
Perhaps you are just trying to apply that "Good Cop vs Bad Cop" approach with GS (?). Ok you don't have to answer.
Cheers,
Braza wrote:Yes.
...
Come on Bricklyne!
I do.
The idea that people in North America or elsewhere around the world outside Europe using Revit have as many problems with the programs as the ones raised in that letter by those firms is neither outlandish, a stretch of logic nor a bizarre notion.
And that's even beyond the anecdotal claims I've heard from Revit users myself regarding it.
I'm not really sure where the insult is in me pointing it out.
Your implication, or rather the implication in your comment was that the firms behind that letter were complaining only because the problems they were experiencing were either specific to them based on their region (being mostly British and European firms and because of Brexit and COVID-19) and therefore not indicative of wider systemic issues that other people elsewhere also had with it - which is what I disagreed with.
Braza wrote:
......
The thing is: Revit users have a looong wait to Autodesk fix the loads of sh** in Revit, and Archicad users don´t, due to the background work that has been done by GS for at least 10 years. But we will see.
Are you serious?
There are problems and shortcomings in ArchiCAD that have existed in the programs for far longer than Revit has existed as a program at all and which people have been begging Graphisoft to do something about.
Also, are we really holding ourselves to the standard of,...
And look, you don't like my criticism of Graphisoft, or (some of their decisions in) their development of ArchiCAD (...and to be fair, a lot of people here don't. I'm not blind to that), and you think I seem to personally attack people or am toxic when all I'm trying to do is express the frustration that clearly a lot of people are feeling about the same issues I'm raising, but maybe not being as vocal. And like I said, that's fine. Everyone is allowed a difference of opinion, or at least should be in an open society, and to see things differently.
But by the same vein you don't have to read or respond to any of my comments or remarks you deem to be "toxic" or "personally attacking" anyone and vice versa.
I honestly can not for the life of me see whom you think I personally attacked in this discourse, but whatever...I'm not going to try to change your perception of me nor do I have any desire to, and if I'm being honest, I easily could have taken the route of taking personal offense at some of the things you've said about my comments, but there's nothing to be gained from such a tit-for-tat sort of exchange, it's not productive and just a waste of time in my opinion.
Hopefully we can respectfully disagree and go about our own separate ways instead of making this about myself or you, when my focus is trying to be on the program itself.
So I'm just going to draw a line under it at this point and we can both move on.
Still looking?
