!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]

Krippahl wrote:
It should be pointed out that Lachmi Khemlani is also founder of Arcwiz, a consulting company that provides training on Revit and AutoCad, but NOT on ArchiCAD... but with that profile I would think Dr. Lachmi Khemlani's position should not be taken automatically as unbiased.

Khemlani is often critical of Revit -- more so than many other reviewers. She also looks at the bigger picture at how BIM data needs to be more platform independent, and the learning challenge BIM poses for everyone in the industry. I would say Khemlani is as unbiased as they get. The fact that she is critical of ArchiCAD for not having any "junk building" checking is a red herring for most of us. Revit's capabilities in this regard are quite nominal, anyways.

JDK: there is a product called "AutoCAD Revit Series" which is a combined license of AutoCAD and Revit. There is no "AutoCAD Revit" otherwise.

[TomWaltz]

angelobanjo wrote:
In reference to a "junk" model:

I DO want a model that is tight. I don’t want to deal with light leaks because there is a ¼” around all my ceilings, or get some wacko number from Green Building Studio or DOE because the model isn’t put together right.

If the message pops up “do you want your walls to attach to this new ceiling” I can chose to say yes or no. If I choose yes, every time I change the height of the ceiling, I can rest easy in knowing everything else is moving with it.

If Revit didn’t give me an option, then I would see it has highly restrictive to the design process.

I appreciate the fact that Lachmi points out where both products need to improve. Autodesk and Graphisoft need a kick in the pants on a regular basis to keep them moving in the right direction!

That's the big one: Like any spell checker or grammar checker, it needs a lot of options and a nice big master OFF switch.

[SeaGeoff]

I have found Ms. Khemlani's reviews and opinions in general to be fair and well reasoned. I thought her review of ArchiCAD 10 was pretty much on target. And in her review of Revit 9 she openly stated that any break that should be granted to young software no longer applied.

I'm happy this topic is broadening to encompass a discussion on the direction BIM is and should be heading. For me simulation must supplant representation. Real materials taking up real (virtual) space, having real (virtual) weight, structural characteristics, etc. This enables the auditing of a (virtual) building against any number of criteria be they code, structural analysis, energy performance, stupidity, etc. There is nothing that says the ability to perform such auditing requires any constraints. At the same time having this ability helps make the application of any constraints more closely conform to the specific intent of the design/build team.

[stefan]

In defense of Lachmi Khemlani, she has always been spot on in the reviews, regardless of her background.

There is no one on this forum that is totally neutral: I talk a lot about BIM and introduce students to it. I love Revit, but I'm an ArchiCAD user, so I tend to look for a balance. The result is usually something in the lines of "Revit & ArchiCAD are both up to the task. There is also ADT which looks appealing for AutoCAD users, but you don't want to work in that...". This feeling was, again, confirmed at the Autodesk User Conference, this week in Belgium, where ADT was displayed only as a transitioning phase in the move to Revit -- from 2D CAD (AutoCAD + LT) to Discipline-Specific CAD (ADT - ABS) to BIM (Revit) or directly to BIM, where ADT was definitely not placed in the BIM corner.

[Mats_Knutsson]

Scott wrote:

Mats_Knutsson wrote:

Krippahl wrote:
Have they changed the name so Autocad users will be less intimidated with the name Autodesk Revit, which gives the impression it's more Autocad like...? Guess so. Cheeky stuff decieving users like that!

Everything in the Autodesk product line is called "Autodesk <insert product name>" There really is no "deception"

Autodesk Inventor
Autodesk Architectural Desktop
Autodesk Design Review

Much like "Graphisoft Archicad"

Technically yes, practically no. Simple marketing tactics. If more people actually knew that Revit is very different from ADT I guess they would reconsider investing in ADT right now. In Sweden we will get stuck with ADT for many years. This is sad not only because I want to sell Archicad to everyone but for a larger reason...the breakthrough for BIM will suffer because of ADT. The chain is no stronger than it's weakest link.

[Anonymous]

Mats,

I agree on the ADT problem. I'm having hard time persuading AutoCAD addicts that both AutoCAD and AutoCAD Architectural Desktop are dead meat. Their default argument is that ADT is the standard, everyone is using it, and thus they do not want to feel "behind", as they would by using a different tool. The other default argument is that Revit is for 3d and rendering, and that their opinion of it is bad. When I ask about the version number, it turns out that they tried version 1 or 4 a while ago. The underlying problem is, that they trust Autodesk is supplying the best for their business. When I tell them that Revit is actually an Autodesk product, they go back to their experience and say that they did not like it, and is not compatible with autocad. Mentioning ArchiCAD is like praising the daemon to a priest. Its is a Mac thing, they say, we all use windows. But it runs on windows too, I reply. The major progress I manage to make was via a simple test. Sitting side by side, I asked: "how long do you take to draw a full project by hand?" About a month, was the answer. Now look what you can do in ArchiCAD: 6 clicks were sufficient to draw a fancy slab, walls around it, and a roof with shingles. Then I clicked on the documentation area, on various projections, made on the fly and customizable. After a couple of WAO, they were ready to reconsider AutoCAD and ADT. On the ArchiCAD vs Revit debate, ArchiCAD has the edge on documentation, while Revit has the edge on concept planning. Both need to be improved, but the BIM approach is winning their hearths.
Bear in mind that this is via direct persuasion. They are like horses with eye-guides otherwise.

[Anonymous]

jdk wrote:
Bear in mind that this is via direct persuasion. They are like horses with eye-guides otherwise.

Bear in mind also that they may be unconsciously aware of just how much of a change converting to from AutoCAD drafting to building modeling really is. It may be hard for some of us modelers to appreciate but there are many firms that have organized themselves quite successfully around the efficient use of AutoCAD drafting. This was made easier by the fact that the organizational (business) models of flatCAD are quite similar to the manual methods we all used not so long ago.

For many of these firms the conversion to building modeling is a radical shift not only in production methods but also in the organizational structure of the practice. I have seen a very wide range in the successes and failures and the costs and benefits of the transition. In many cases there is a high initial cost as formerly efficient and profitable staff struggle with the change to a complex new program and a very different way of working. There is also no guarantee that someone who is a very proficient AutoCAD user will become equally effective at modeling in Revit of ArchiCAD. There were plenty of highly skilled hand drafters who never could make the transition to CAD.

This doesn't change the inevitable shift to virtual building, but I can understand people's reservations about it.

[Dwight]

Absolutely!

Producing BIM attacks the long-established billing pyramid of many underpaid lesser stooges to still underpaid but fewer greater skilled stooges essential to architectural profit. The apprenticeship path is disrupted since individual operators needs greater building and design knowledge to productively generate the model. My experience is that within firms, lots of faking gets done with a storm of linework and then "passed on."

At worst, it is merely a roof gesture like my avatar.

"Now you've got the idea… you work out the details."

Archicad wipes out those billshutters.

On the other hand, I laugh when a student tells me they can operate Archicad. "Haha" I say. It's hard to "imply"in Archicad. You either know, or you don't.

Any comments? How hard is it to bring junior people into the BIM realm?

[Anonymous]

>Any comments? How hard is it to bring junior people into the BIM realm?

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. (Max Planck, 1949)

Of course, Architecture is esthetics, not logic, but the underlying message is the same. The good thing about computing is, that it makes things simpler, when successful. The bad thing is, that it lifts man from grunt work, just to supply more, and of a worse kind.

[Dwight]

I'm with you there - at least in plain old drafting there was a priestlike discipline and dignity in grand gestures and elegant pencil strokes.

The green plastic visor and the arm band.

Computers turned us all into typists.