Why ArchiCAD instead of Revit (was ADT)?

[Anonymous]

Hope you don't mind a newbie question I began a thread over at the construction documentation forum about generating material take-offs in ArchiCad. My question evolved into a more general question of why should I switch from ADT to ArchiCad. Karl suggested this is a more appropriate forum for that question, so here it is. I welcome all responses.

Here is my background info. I am a designer in a small residential (mostly remodeling) design/build firm. I currently use SketchUp for preliminary 3D design and ADT for design development and construction docs. I do not produce material lists or take-offs. Once construction docs are done, the general contractor does material take-offs, builds the project on paper and creates his bid. I like the wall, door, window tools of ADT, but I still really use it as a 2D drafting program. All of my framing plans, sections, foundation, etc., are simply made up of 2D lines. I've never found ADT to be useful as a 3D design/modeling tool. The interface is just too cumbersome. I would be willing to switch over to ArchiCad if there were enough compelling reasons. I know the shortcomings of ADT and I like what I've seen so far of ArchiCad, but I'd like to hear everyone's own opinion and experiences using ArchiCad in a real world situation. Particularly when it comes to creating construction docs. Thanks in advance and Happy Thanksgiving!

{edit}

I suppose I should also include Revit in this question. Why choose ArchiCad over Revit? I am looking for serious pros and cons here so I can make an informed decision. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Karl,

Can a Revit user create similarly parametric (and thus geometrically changing) objects?

Yes.

The next time I attempt to answer an inquirey, I will try to be more concise so as not to leave room for speculation between my usually tightly packed words.

Goodbye.

[Djordje]

Bill wrote:
I am truly sorry, but I did not post that reply in manner that was meant to be less than truthful or misleading, or to provided you with the oportunity to springboard into a discourse that led away from my understanding of the thread.

Bill,

Don't get annoyed - what is obvious to you in Revit, might not be obvious to Karl or me. Vice versa also.

As Greg said in another thread, it is unlikely that anybody will switch, but at the same time exchanging information cannot hurt, and the ex users of X tend to bring fresh thinking to the Y group.

Don't understand what ticked you off - Karl was asking a perfectly normal question.

Hope you stick around,

[Anonymous]

My experience is not one of great success or depth - I found the graphical nature of the family editor in Revit to be both easy and at the same time extremely difficult to get the desired results. I built a pair of glass doors for use in one of the office buildings. First because at the time no such door existed in any of the available families, and second was to try to learn the system. The parameters are AFAIK set by the type and graphic dimensions of the part, much the same way a part can be developed via a drawing in AC. The difference is in the manner the variables are set by the program. Another difference is being able to manipulate the script in AC. AFAIK, the script is hidden in Revit and not directly editable by the user in R.

The system of in place families and other elements of the Revit program were for me more difficult to understand and implement than a similar operations in AC. I think the appropriate adjective is flexibility.

I will likely try out the next version as a means to be on the edge of tool technology. After all its the thruput that counts!

[Anonymous]

I would like to see a positive, professional level of communication continue. What has been interesting to me, is to see the comments get over the "bashing" hump and move into a true constructive conversation!

Many people in these two forums (Revit & ArchiCAD) are very loyal to their product, so you are a fabulous resource for us BIM Newbies. The two things I have learned in looking at both programs is that :

1) Both programs are great and neither, in itself, is better than the other. Instead, one may be a better fit for a given firm based upon that firm's own design/documentation process. We will try both - and we may stick with both since every project and team will have different requirements.

2) What is good now will be different in the future. Each program has made such tremendous leaps and bounds in just their latest realeses alone - add in the maturation of BIM in the architectural practice and construction industries and who knows where it will be in 5 years! Within our office, I am taking the stance that whatever application we decide on for now, is just that "for now."

Thank you
Shaun

BTW: I am posting this to both forums.

[Anonymous]

I'll hop in here with hopefully some of the real goods on Revit. This is my first post here at AC Talk, and I've enjoyed Djordje's posts over at Zoogdesign.

I started using Revit before Autodesk bought it out - and had been following its development since the days when Revit Technology Corporation was called Charles River Software! I currently work with an Autodesk / Bentley reseller... so we've got Triforma here as well as ADT and Revit. It's an interesting place to work. People are not interested in Triforma or ADT around here; it's all Revit, Revit, Revit!

Building large projects in Revit can certainly be done. Revit tends to be a "tighter" model than ArchiCAD. Revit is thinking all the time about the relationships between the objects in the model - between the floors and walls, the walls and the roof and so on. While this is great - you can change your building with little effort, the downside is that these relationships take computing power. What Revit users do on larger projects is make fewer of these relationships so that less horsepower is needed to maintain the model as it gets larger. You can also link separate model files into a master, though this is designed more for logically separate buildings. There is no reason that I can see that Revit cannot handle as large a project as ArchiCAD.

Having been an ArchiCAD user back in 6.5, I was fortunate to get an update on R8 from both the east and west coasts of America from a Graphisoft representative and later from a reseller. Because AC doesn't work as hard at maintaining the relationships between parts of the building, you can get into a larger building with less planning.

I think Teamwork for AC is great - it works well, and it's easier to divide the building up so different users can work on separate portions of the building. Revit's developers are playing catch-up with AC in this respect. Revit's multi-user functionality works, and has been made more like AC with release 6, but I would still say AC has the upper hand in this regard.

People who complain about Revit's renderings aren't spending enough time tweaking Accurender. Accurender and Artlantis, while they have their own look to each, are probably in the same level of quality, with more complex renderers like VIZ winning the day but also confusing many users! I do tell people to get more texture libraries, since those that come with Accurender aren't outstanding.

As noted in this thread, sections, elevations and plans are all tied together. Details are based on views of the model, and if the 3D model doesn't provide enough detail, you go the rest of the way with 2D CAD tools included in Revit. From release 4 of Revit and forward, all detailing can be done in Revit. Some firms do opt to pull details in from AutoCAD into Revit; this is done if the firm has a lot of standard details already or if their detailing crew isn't using Revit. It makes sense to let Revit manage the drawing set since section and detail markers will maintain the correct page numbers of the sheets as the project continues.

Revit users can create their own library objects by using templates designed for this purpose. 3D modelling and 2D graphics (if desired) can be combined together with parametric dimensions and other parameters (e.g. materials for rendering). You don't need any programming knowledge, though I often have to spend several hours with new users before they get the hang of creating these new objects. It's not hard: it's just a completely new experience for most people. These objects are fully parametric and can employ formulae, e.g. width = 2 x height, or window top angle = arctan (roof slope). Arrays can be built into the object, so that a louvered grille can automatically add louvers as needed if the grille object gets taller. Families are major benefit of Revit over AC.

AC has some cool modules you can buy (like Plan to Model) that I think are highly valuable. Prospective users might want to look at the features of both to see if there is any feature that stands out.

The reality is that both programs are very capable. Since one's facility with the software is as important with the software itself, I would note the following.

Experienced users of AC or Revit would be fools to switch. They know the work arounds, they know how to get where they need to go, they know the tricks. For them jumping ship would be painful!

Prospective users should have a long look at both to see which they think they can learn more readily, and if they can get support. Learning either one is going to take time and outside help, and you need both.

My personal hope as a Revit user is that more people will realise the benefits of BIM / the virtual building, and start to use these programs. And I hope that Revit and ArchiCAD's developers will feel the heat as ArchiCAD users gripe about creating their own objects and Revit users gripe about creating repeating unit plans in Revit, etc. I hope these programs provide competition for each other for many years!

[Scott Davis]

Revit users can create their own library objects by using templates designed for this purpose. 3D modelling and 2D graphics (if desired) can be combined together with parametric dimensions and other parameters (e.g. materials for rendering). You don't need any programming knowledge, though I often have to spend several hours with new users before they get the hang of creating these new objects. It's not hard: it's just a completely new experience for most people. These objects are fully parametric and can employ formulae, e.g. width = 2 x height, or window top angle = arctan (roof slope). Arrays can be built into the object, so that a louvered grille can automatically add louvers as needed if the grille object gets taller. Families are major benefit of Revit over AC.

For information only, not intended to be a "look why software x is better than y":

Revit 6.1 was just released this past week. Now the Family Editor (not a separate program, internal to Revit) has even more power. The developers added Conditional Formula Parameters and Parametric Display options. The first tool allows the user to assign conditional IF/THEN AND/OR formulas to a Revit object, through simple dialog box interface. The forumulas are exactly like MS Excel "=IF (VARIABLE, IF TRUE, IF FALSE" so they are familiar to most. Example: a window can be conditional, if it's less than 2'-0" wide, it has no muntins, otherwise is has muntins. Conditional formulas can be nested together as well. Parametric display allows ON/Off control of parts of an object. One Family can now contain basically unlimited options. A door family, for example, can have different panel configurations, hardware, trim, etc., which can be turned on and off from within the model. As these changes are made, the entire model updates instant, plans, sections, elevations, 3D, schedules, sheets.

[Scott Davis]

Toward the end of the process so many relationships exist that the model manipulates things that are locked together from early conditions that getting the last changes is a real problem, i.e. moving something that should not move as it is conditioned to be attached to something that has to be moved.

In Revit, you have the ability to 'lock' objects that require relationships or not lock others. Not everything has to be tied together. User input actually determines what is or is not conditional. Beyond that, constraints can be 'broken' if necessary. The move tool has 'disjoin' function to prevent 'moving something that should not move' if you have applied constraints.

The biggest difficulty is Autodesk itself - they just do not give a hoot about an individual user.

This is simply not the case with Revit. The Revit Development team has remained separated from the rest of Autodesk. They have very close personal commitment to the individual user. I have had the founders of Revit come to my office to get a better understanding of how I work. That's personal commitment! At the Zoogdesign forums, you will see many of the Revit staff regularly contributing. They rely on our communications with them through the forums and other means to continually improve the product.

[Djordje]

Scott wrote:

The biggest difficulty is Autodesk itself - they just do not give a hoot about an individual user.

This is simply not the case with Revit. The Revit Development team has remained separated from the rest of Autodesk. They have very close personal commitment to the individual user. I have had the founders of Revit come to my office to get a better understanding of how I work. That's personal commitment! At the Zoogdesign forums, you will see many of the Revit staff regularly contributing. They rely on our communications with them through the forums and other means to continually improve the product.

Very non-Autodesk like! And very commendable.

Seems to me (had quite similar experiences with Graphisoft team) that the people who do the Virtual Building (sorry, I decided NOT to use BIM when I have been using the VB term for ages already) software HAVE TO be in close contact with the users and their methodology.

I am just wondering - how long is the BigA going to tolerate this behavior ... the past record does not make you think anything good. For the sake of the building industry, I hope I am wrong.

[stefan]

Scott wrote:

Revit users can create their own library objects by using templates designed for this purpose. 3D modelling and 2D graphics (if desired) can be combined together with parametric dimensions and other parameters (e.g. materials for rendering). You don't need any programming knowledge, though I often have to spend several hours with new users before they get the hang of creating these new objects. It's not hard: it's just a completely new experience for most people. These objects are fully parametric and can employ formulae, e.g. width = 2 x height, or window top angle = arctan (roof slope). Arrays can be built into the object, so that a louvered grille can automatically add louvers as needed if the grille object gets taller. Families are major benefit of Revit over AC.

For information only, not intended to be a "look why software x is better than y":

Revit 6.1 was just released this past week. Now the Family Editor (not a separate program, internal to Revit) has even more power. The developers added Conditional Formula Parameters and Parametric Display options. The first tool allows the user to assign conditional IF/THEN AND/OR formulas to a Revit object, through simple dialog box interface. The forumulas are exactly like MS Excel "=IF (VARIABLE, IF TRUE, IF FALSE" so they are familiar to most. Example: a window can be conditional, if it's less than 2'-0" wide, it has no muntins, otherwise is has muntins. Conditional formulas can be nested together as well. Parametric display allows ON/Off control of parts of an object. One Family can now contain basically unlimited options. A door family, for example, can have different panel configurations, hardware, trim, etc., which can be turned on and off from within the model. As these changes are made, the entire model updates instant, plans, sections, elevations, 3D, schedules, sheets.

You know that this explanation is the first time I understand what a Revit family more or less can do!
For a strange reason, I never saw such an answer when people tell how wonderfull Revit can be.
I think that it is very much appreciated here, to really show what Revit is about and how similar it sometimes is to ArchiCAD.
Thanks!