!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]

Rob wrote:
finally, I have seen Revit 9 presentation at our office

I can't comment on GDL versus Revit family creation; that's something I'm hoping we can make part of our Revit vs. ArchiCAD comparison.

With regards to the interface, Revit's is simple by design. It's not elegant, but it's practical. Its simplicity is almost its downfall: most new users struggle with the interface's modes, if you will. It has changed very little since R1, by design, so that users of previous versions will have little trouble upgrading. Revit does what AC does with 10% of the buttons

You're spot on with regards to constraints. Revit is sold with the idea that you can lock this to that, and Isn't That Great? As it turns out, it's a moot point for the reasons you have noted.

Revit's use of categories and the Project Browser is probably easier for newbies to grasp over AC's use of layers and the navigator. A demo is not likely to show a fully fleshed out Project Browser using custom parameters to sort views and sheets into additional folders for organisational purposes.

I'm glad you think Revit stairs are alright. The Revit user base is crying for more features and control. One example issue is that you can't boolean together a concrete floor slab and a concrete stair.

[Chadwick]

I can't comment on GDL versus Revit family creation

I can. 🙂 I just gave a 3 hour presentation to our firm (which has been using Archicad for the past 4 years) on Revit (I actually taught this to myself to compare the two side by side). I built a project in Revit that we already built in Archicad and one of the things that I think went over really well was the ability to make windows (and any other object for that matter) a lot easier (and quicker) in Revit's family editor. Its just a lot more intuitive than GDL. Within an hour I had made the custom windows required for the project and I had never used the family editor before. Maybe its a visual vs. a code thing, I don't know.

[Rakela Raul]

in Revit that we already built in Archicad and one of the things that I think went over really well was the ability to make windows (and any other object for that matter) a lot easier

first of all, congratulations on the learning revit by urself !!!

what i dont get is the importance of creating custom windows for example.....isnt it the job of the wdw manufacturer?? to come with windows designs?
i have never designed a wdw....i just select from pella, etc...personally i hate to waste time in things like that...in others words, this is a non issue for me at all....i rather a prefab object that 'resemble' a window and the ability to tweak it a little bit.....but i agree that 'modeling' is nice, but i wouldnt use archicad for that....(dont send to he11 please)

[Chadwick]

Maybe its a firm issue, but if we spec out a Pella window we want it to look like its supposed to in section, elevation, perspectives, etc. I'm a bit new to the profession, but I would think that what we show the client as far as visual representations go and what the final product is should be relatively close.

And thats really a minor thing - you could put in a window that was 'close enough'. But the ability to easily customize and create any object allows the designer more flexibility and you're not constrained to what the software comes with OOTB. Thats where the real payoff comes for me.

[Anonymous]

We are currently going through the great debate here in our office. It is funny how a feature to one person is a shortcoming to another. We have liked Revits "lack of flexibility", everyones interface looks the same since no one can really create new buttons and menus and stick them all over the screen, we just aren't that savvy and it isn't that easy. We also like that "newboy jimbo" can't stick the walls, doors, or whatever on any darn layer he wants to (although we are learning he can put them in any phase or workset he want to). To make a door that is 36 1/364" wide you have to manually enter that number, not just drag a toggle.
On the other hand we like range of rendering capabilities within AC. We like the large library of parts (but wish we could edit them as easily as we can in Revit). Auto-dimensioning in AC speeds up things, but we like the ability to move objects (walls, windows doors) by selecting and simply manually changing the dimension string.
It will probably take us 5 months to decide which way we really go, but the writing is on the wall, most of our structural consultants have Revit in house and it doesn't seem like AC is any nearer to entering that market. In the end, the decision might be made based on that fact alone. If we can work off the same model as the structural and MEP consultant, that saves time in coordination and will be a very hard "feature" to beat.
j

[TomWaltz]

No matter which one you pick, you will always see features in the other that you want.

To me, the goal was picking which one met the specific needs for my company. As I often say, bug your resellers to death. Make them SHOW you (not just say "yes, it can do that) the features that you want to see.

You're right, Archicad itself it not doing structural, but they have interfaces into at least two structural products (though I forget their names, it was a big deal when they were announced)

[Chadwick]

I believe Tekla Structures was one of them - I remember seeing a banner or something on the home page for Graphisoft.

[Anonymous]

TomWaltz wrote:
No matter which one you pick, you will always see features in the other that you want.

To me, the goal was picking which one met the specific needs for my company. As I often say, bug your resellers to death. Make them SHOW you (not just say "yes, it can do that) the features that you want to see.

You're right, Archicad itself it not doing structural, but they have interfaces into at least two structural products (though I forget their names, it was a big deal when they were announced)

Ain't that the truth, I expect we will choose one and immediately think, omg what have we done.
We are going beyond bugging the resellers, we are visiting existing offices and doing parallel projects in the programs. The resellers are great at pitching their product, but not as good at answering the quick and dirty questions. We are relying heavily on the forums for both products to see where people get hung up and what they really like. We have done training in archiCAD and are lining up training in Revit.
All in all, the hope in the end is to do just what you said, pick the software that best meets our firms needs today and in the future.
J

[Anonymous]

Chadwick wrote:
I believe Tekla Structures was one of them - I remember seeing a banner or something on the home page for Graphisoft.

Revit currently exports to Risa and Robobat if I remember right. Does ArchiCad allow for you to use tekla on the AC model. That is the Revit building/ Revit Structure appeal. I update my model, consultants can track my updates and place their work directly onto a parallel model, no more out of date backgrounds is the idea, whether it actually works that way...we should know by next week, as one of our consultants is currently doing exactly that with another arch firm in town.
j

[Rakela Raul]

http://www.bentley.com/bentleywebsite/files/streaming_media/verticals/Building/BA_Take-A-Tour.asx

why didnt you consider the above BIM solution ?