!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]

Karin wrote:
I have searched this forum for entries related to 'design options', 'alternates', and 'schemes' but haven't hit on what I am looking for. Any suggestions?

Beside the add-on Dan mentions, the standard methods (in brief) are:

1. Multiple Files: You can just make copies of the as-built or first design and then proliferate the variations that way. This gives complete freedom in developing the alternates but may induce some redundancy or copy/paste work for elements common to various alternates. This is best used in preliminary and schematic phases.

1a. Multiple Hotlinked Files: Same as above but the base building is hotlinked to the alternates to reduce redundancy and improve consistency. I honestly haven't had a chance to try this one but it seems like a good idea.

2. Teamwork Drafts: When you sign into a teamwork project you can make copies of the local draft (PLC) each of which can be a different alternate and each can also Send and Receive to the shared file. This approach can be quite handy for studying major alternates during design development. It is generally done on a tight schedule for developing the alternates with exclusive access so as to minimize any disruption to the overall work in progress.

3. Layer Alternates: For minor variations within a single file just set up layers and layer combos for the alternates. I generally have just a plan and a 3D layer for each alternate and then move the various elements to their appropriate normal layers once one of the alternates is approved. This method can be used at any time in the design process but should be very limited in scope, such as whether to put a hip or gable roof on the addition, or to study a couple of alternate entry porches.

[Scott Davis]

Rakela wrote:
i support the relashionship thing as long as i have control over it

It seems by this comment that you imply in "other 🙂 " programs you do not have control? In my experience, I have total control over the relationships in the model.

[Anonymous]

Scott wrote:

Rakela wrote:
I have total control over the relationships in the model.

Some people have more control over their relationships than others

In software it is a matter of keeping the relationships from getting too complex to keep track of all their implications. This can even happen in spreadsheets and word processors with formulas and styles so it becomes a major concern with multi-dimensional building models.

There are more relationships in ArchiCAD that have so far escaped mention because they are such second nature to experienced users. Windows and doors have relationships with walls, walls have relationships with each other, surfaces have relationships in rendering, etc...

This does seem to highlight the fundamental difference between the programs. ArchiCAD began when managing extensive relationships between the elements was far beyond the capabilities of the computers at the time. This has meant that Graphisoft has had to add these relationships judiciously over time and leave the rest to the professional expertise of the user.

Revit on the other hand was conceived when computers were (almost) ready to handle the extensive interrelatedness of the elements in a building and so tit was reasonable to make those relationships a foundation of the program. As I recall the earlier versions of Revit did suffer from overloading the hardware of the time when projects got too large, and that as a result more tools were added to enable the user to limit the extent of the relationships (my memory on this is a little fuzzy so excuse me if this is not entirely accurate).

It seems to me that both programs are approaching some sort of common ground regarding how the extent to which relationships are managed automatically by the computer (such as wall intersections), are managed interactively between the user and computer (like the SEOs in ArchiCAD, or are solely in the purview of the architect (such as design and formal relationships of elements).

Ultimately the balance will be a matter to sort out according to the needs of professional practice, and will vary from one firm to another and from one building system to another.

[Anonymous]

Matthew wrote:
Some people have more control over their relationships than others

thank you for providing me a healthy laugh.

As for developing more than one version of the same project:

Once I tried to develop two simultaneous diverging versions on two separate files. So far nothing new.
But what made this a memorable experience, was that I put each AC in a different monitor, so I could see both at the same time.
This made me process all the information kind of like a dual core.
One thing I learned was this is a totally new kind of design process. It was amazing, the way both solution diverged and approached.
Another thing I learned was that I should have done this 15 years ago.I ended up with a major headache.

[Rakela Raul]

t seems by this comment that you imply in "other Smile " programs you do not have control? In my experience,

no scott, i didnt imply that...but the clarification is good

[Anonymous]

This is a crucial moment for Graphisoft to win new clients. Autodesk in on the aggressive to keep old clients. Revit-9 is hitting the market with an aggressive price plan. If you have an old autocad, you can upgrade for under 1500$ and get both Revit-9 and a full autocad 2007. People wishing to leave autocad for archicad will have hard time, as archicad 10 is priced 4250$. I recommend GS to revise its prices, be aggressive and advertising. I noted that most resellers, including GS itself, do not list the price in their websites, thus forcing people to ring. This is an old-fashioned approach that has long lost ground. The prices must be upfront, and must be competitive. We are about to close the evaluation period, and thus will decide on the revit-vs-archicad knowing that we already have autocad...

I shall wait for Graphisoft's new prices until October 15, and draw the line.

[Ignacio Azpiazu]

jdk wrote:
This is a crucial moment for Graphisoft to win new clients. Autodesk in on the aggressive to keep old clients.

[Lowering prices for a given product is suicidal in the long term, in any product in any market.]

Autodesk is very understandably promoting an 'upgrade' to Revit, since you are already their client and Autocad 2007 can only be a Stone Age product (with a very respectable market of course, for a few years to come there will still be lots of Stone Age guys out there, trapped in existing workflows etc.).

The money one spends on software is negligible compared to the man hour costs one spends in using the software, learning the software, even dealing with the occasional bug or unexpected limitation one finds using any software. It makes sense to get the fullest clearest possible picture, and stick with whatever one thinks makes more sense. Regardless of cost. If your preferred solution is less expensive, that's very nice of course; if it is more expensive, it means you should be expecting returns that will more than cover the price difference; if you think any of them will be equally good, it means you still need to investigate until you find in one of them a definitive advantage for your specific practice, workflow, help needs, whatever.

[Anonymous]

Ignacio, do not confuse Revit with AutoCAD, as they are different applications. Further, Revit is a BIM, developed independently from AutoCAD. Autodesk has acquired the Revit company due to the failure with Architectural Desktop; it wanted a BIM, to compete head to head with ArchiCAD. In addition to this strategic move, Autodesk is now moving its clients to Revit via a sweet 60% off; if you have a recent version of AutoCAD, you get both Revit-9 and AutoCad 2007 for 1100$. This also allows Autodesk to keep those clients that were about to move to ArchiCAD 10.

[Anonymous]

jdk wrote:
If you have an old autocad, you can upgrade for under 1500$ and get both Revit-9 and a full autocad 2007.

As everyone here knows, getting out of the trees and committing to 3D modeling is a one way step.

If you are serious about BIMinng (and not just wanting to do some fancy renderings to appease your client), you have to get into it 100%, dump the old ways, and move on.

In this aspect, I really don´t see any advantage of having Autocad and Revit in the same office.
-They are not compatible, workflowwise. Unless you want to model 3D and then produce your drawings in 2D, which does not make any sense.
-If you are worried about your old 2D work as you move into de 3D, you can always use the existing Autocad, because you are handling older versions.

So, basically, what you are getting is a $1500 Revit license against a $4250 ArchiCAD one. It boils down to $2750.

If you further consider you will be developing say 5 projects a year, and will work for the next ten years, the difference will cost you $55 per project. Not a big sum.

Of course, if you are really interested in the money issue, you should also take into account all the upgrades you will be doing in the next 10 years.
For ArchiCAD, this is $695 per year subscribtion. http://www.bobrowconsulting.com/b/a9subscription.php
For Revit, it´s €700 ($895). This was not easy to find...
http://www.weyer-edv.de/modules.php?name=Newsx&file=article&sid=225&t=Autodesk-Revit-9

So you have a $200 per year difference, which after 10 years amounts to $2.000.

So, what it really boils down to is $750.

This means that each project (5 per year, 10 years) will cost you $15 more if you choose ArchiCAD.

Not, I would say, a relevant issue to take into account if you are considering changing the way your office works.

[Anonymous]

jdk wrote:
This also allows Autodesk to keep those clients that were about to move to ArchiCAD 10.

And this, of course, is the crucial issue.

What you have to ask yourself is, does Autodesk want their clients to move into BIM, or do they want to keep their clients so they will keep using 2D CAD (which is by far much more profitable, as 3 2D CAD licences do the same work as 1 BIM licence).

Because, as a BIM user, I want total BIM commitment from the guys that produce the software I use every day. I know I have that from Graphisoft, I really doubt I'll have that from Autodesk.