!Restored: Success = getting new customers

[Anonymous]

I saw some documents to compare between Revit and AC.
I study Revit from own website.
It is just copy from AC!!

I used to work with AC (and very satisfied, and like many friends from AC-forum).
As AC-user I hope, AC must be better than Revit for Architects.

I have not used Revit, but just seen from Website.
The web-site from Revit is so nice, that I must believe, Revit should be better than AC.

I like to know your opinions and also opinions from GS.

Thanks

[Anonymous]

Dilbert wrote:

Matthew wrote:
I happen to know that is is quite intuitive to the people that wrote it. But no-one else that I am aware of.

It's not intuitive out of the box, but if you work with it for 2-3 days it makes sense and feels good. No, you won't know everything by then, but it will be a comfortable product to use. There are ArchiCAD features that you need to take a few minutes to learn, Revit is no different.

I was referring to form•Z not Revit. Naturally all advanced programs will require considerable time to master, form•Z just seems to make it a bit harder with their non-standard approach (I had the same issue with AllPlan).

[Eduardo Rolon]

Matthew wrote:
I was referring to form•Z not Revit. Naturally all advanced programs will require considerable time to master, form•Z just seems to make it a bit harder with their non-standard approach (I had the same issue with AllPlan).

Specially when form•Z's original selling point was its Architecturally friendly drawing approach.

[Anonymous]

Matthew wrote:

It was a few years back I heard that Revit users were falling back on AutoCAD for completion of their CDs. I don't know how true this was nor whether they were just lacking the necessary Revit skills (or personnel).

It was a combination of factors. Some still go into AutoCAD, but frankly you don't need to if you know what you are doing. Many companies will still use their old AutoCAD details and bring them into Revit just to make the process of CD creation faster (why detail something a second time?).

Mostly I believe we have arguements because while different, ArchiCAD and Revit are just about equals now. I might give ArchiCAD a slight edge because of modeling of complex shapes, but its so close that for 95% of the firms they likely wouldn't notice much of a difference except for the location of commands and Icons.

Over the long haul I'd likely invest in Revit just because I believe long term more vertical products will be designed for it by Autodesk (Structure and Revit Systems are just the first, many more are on the way) and the Revit information will share more easily with these verticals which likely will be more wide spread in the industry 5-10 years from now. That's nothing against Graphisoft and their fine product line, is just a reflection on the industry hold and financial resources provided by Autodesk. Of course, if/when data interoperability is finally introduced then the software you use won't matter as long as its right for you, it will only be the data that really matters. Ultimately I see Graphisoft being very much like Bentley, both companies successful over the long haul against Autodesk. Yet, while I'd bet both ArchiCAD and Revit will be fine products, I'd invest in Revit because over the next 10 years you'll likely find more employees trained in it than ArchiCAD thus aiding in employee retention and easing employee replacement. But that's not a knock against Graphisoft or ArchiCAD... the products are equal (some ways better, some ways worse) to those currently offered by Autodesk and its a company that will serve its users well.

I hope these comparisons and arguements rage on, the more passionate each user base feels the better both products will get and become. Ultimately that makes us all winners.

[Anonymous]

Dilbert wrote:
it will only be the data that really matters.

so true...problem is is that Autodesk does NOT guarantee the data will be readable from previous releases.

We've done government contacts that insist on readable data for 10 years.

That immediately counted Revit out.

[Anonymous]

RLC wrote:

Dilbert wrote:
it will only be the data that really matters.

so true...problem is is that Autodesk does NOT guarantee the data will be readable from previous releases.

We've done government contacts that insist on readable data for 10 years.

That immediately counted Revit out.

Well, Revit data has been readable between each release so far, also every version of AutoCAD and ADT have been readable for each new release (yet not always backwards compatable, but the data from previous releases has always been readable in the new version). I'm curious, does Graphisoft guarantee this? Technically AutoCAD's been able to read each previous release's data since the beginning.

I suppose I'm wondering why it rules Revit out? Is it because Autodesk doesn't provide anything in writing?

[__archiben]

metanoia wrote:
My two biggest gripes about Revit are
- performance problems on large projects (yes, it can be offset by linking files, but files don't link as well in Revit as they do in AC)
- lack of freeform modeling tools

ha! you could be talking about archicad there . . .

~/archiben

[Anonymous]

This has been an interesting thread and one which has been relatively free of the usual software advocacy that you get on such things. There are a few questions i have which i am not sure it has answered though.

As a company at the moment we are stuck in Autocad land. Actually for the most part we use LT. This is a legacy of decisions made in the past and the size of projects we used to work on. Its pretty much unsuitable for us now.

Our workflow is currently hand drawn sketch, to sketchup to LT to sketchup to LT and then often a Sketchup model getting run in parallel with the 2d drawings in LT. Horribly inefficient. We also have our own office cad standards which people tend not to either understand or implement. They rely on Xrefs and discipline in file naming and layering. Our staff are often simply not CAD literate enough to cope with that without errors.

We are now starting to consider a BIM solution. There is a camp within the practice which is using Microstation. I tend to suspect thats not an answer. Our 3d guys use ADT but having tinkered briefly with it its complexity strikes me as being more of a problem than a solution.

What i would like is something that integrates the workflow better. I would rather not have a model run in parallel with the drawings. Obviously all of the BIM solutions will do that but i am intersted in which one replaces the Sketchup stage most successfully (if at all). I am also intersted to know which takes layering and drawing standards most completely out of the hands of the user. I need something which reduces the opportunity for error where possible.

I tend to suspect that the technology isnt there yet to answer all of those questions but a view on how Archicad or Revit measure up would be interesting.

[Anonymous]

Dilbert wrote:

RLC wrote:

Dilbert wrote:
it will only be the data that really matters.

so true...problem is is that Autodesk does NOT guarantee the data will be readable from previous releases.

We've done government contacts that insist on readable data for 10 years.

That immediately counted Revit out.

Well, Revit data has been readable between each release so far, also every version of AutoCAD and ADT have been readable for each new release (yet not always backwards compatable, but the data from previous releases has always been readable in the new version). I'm curious, does Graphisoft guarantee this? Technically AutoCAD's been able to read each previous release's data since the beginning.

I suppose I'm wondering why it rules Revit out? Is it because Autodesk doesn't provide anything in writing?

Hi Brian,

Oddly enough dwg drawings are OK. I guess these as a " standard" have been around long enough.

Revit rvt files aren't considered robust enough yet.
Ditto for Archicad files as well.
I'm afraid at this point in time flatland files rule for archiving

I think until there's a "std" for bim models, this will be the case for a long time.

[Djordje]

outofchaosaworld wrote:
What i would like is something that integrates the workflow better. I would rather not have a model run in parallel with the drawings. Obviously all of the BIM solutions will do that but i am intersted in which one replaces the Sketchup stage most successfully (if at all). I am also intersted to know which takes layering and drawing standards most completely out of the hands of the user. I need something which reduces the opportunity for error where possible.

There is nothing that replaces SketchUp at this point of time.

However, with Archicad you can take the SketchUp model directly and build the final precise set of information on that. Not sure about Revit.

The discipline in adhering to the office standards is something that does not depend on the software at all.

Maybe you should read through the CAD Managers topic, there are quite a few of your questions answered there.

IMHO the only two solutions are Archicad and Revit, each with its own pluses and minuses, and let's not forget personal prederences - something that is not measurable. For you, whether it is VB or BIM (same thing, different name) the critical factors are the business ones:

- technical support
- implementation support
- training support
- upgrade/licensing/maintenance options
- cost per license
- crossgrade options
- local standards adherence

In short, you are doing a great leap from flatland to space. Someone has to hold your hand during the leap lest you slip and fall. Is there anyone nearby that can do that?

Be sure to invest in some whips and rulers to be cracked over the knuckles ...

[Dwight]

But there's a management issue, too.

SketchUp is certainly closest to the Tabula Rasa we all dream of where a wave of the arms in the air produces building form. See my Avatar "Architect explains the concept" - a Tai Chi for the new millennium.

I've been a slow adopter of SketchUp beyond the play stage because I've developed my ArchiCAD design management with building-type specific templates and favorites that prepare me to address producing and evaluating design efficiently. Most ArchiCAD users do one building type - if you acknowledge the creative aspects versus the cookie cutter repetitive aspects, I believe a project can be schematically designed more efficiently than in SketchUp.

It is all about discipline now for payback later.