AFK_Matrix Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 Hi, I went to a Visualisation Seminar in London on Tuesday and saw Revit being demonstrated and thought it was a great piece of kit. Now I saw about ArchiCAD 11 and went and read a bit about it on their website. To me it sounds like both Revit and ArchiCAD do the same thing. So what are the differences, Pros and Cons etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Island J Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 Although I have not used ArchiCAD in a professional setting as yet, from my vantage point they compare as follows: Similarities In both of them you model the building and input information about the assemblies (walls, floors, doors, ceilings, etc) you made in the model. Floor plans, elevations, etc, are views the are generated from the model. Detailing and annotation can be placed in the views. You dont have to model the entire building and you have to make decisions on how much modeling you want to do. They both force you to have a company standard template in one way or another. They both have "workarounds" for little things that the software wont allow you to do that drives users nuts at times. However, you make up for it by not having to draft elevations, sections, details or do schedules from scratch--all those things are created instantly. Keep in mind that everyone has an opinion on BIM software and would should be aware of anyone that says: a. that you cant detail with them or produce a good set of drawings or b. you should only use them on large projects. Differences Revit is establishing itself as a platform and now has an MEP and a Structural "flavour". And you can get it with AutoCAD as a suite. ArchiCAD does not have separate structural and MEP pacakges. Revit revises views instantly whereas ArchiCAD can be set to not to constantly revise its views and only revise them when the users says so. ArchiCAD appears to focus on allowing an architect to produce plans that appear like a traditional drawing set to architects. Whereas revit appears to be more concerned with the integrity on the drawing set than its appearance. Due to these two different philosophies they both are on two different development tracks. If i missed something or I am wrong on something I am sure someone will say so. Jose' de Castro LEED AP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace_Face Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 Jose', That was a very good unbiased description of the two software packages. It's refreshing to see an impartial discussion about the differences between software packages. Thanks! I hope others will have some more information to add. I personally have never used Revit, so I cannot add anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFK_Matrix Posted May 4, 2007 Author Share Posted May 4, 2007 Thanks Jose for that explination helped a lot. I was wondering really as ArchiCAD seems to be slightly cheaper. I am at this moment trying the trial version of Revit to see if my company would be interested in it. The only problem with stuff like this is the huge cost in implimenting Revit. Not to mention having to get 10 odd people to switch from ADT to Revit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Island J Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 Kelly, Depending on what version of ADT you are using the upgrade to Revit maybe cheaper than buying ArchiCAD. You should contact your reseller about upgrade promotions. There is an AutoCAD Revit suite. Also, autodesk is putting more and more Revit functionality into ADT or AutoCAD Architect or what ever they are calling it now. (I wish I could say the same for the other way around) But becuase of that you might find the switch easier. You will trade display representations (ADT) for dialog boxes (Revit). It is a good trade though. The nice thing about revit is you do not have to worry about text and dim sizes and scaling dwgs. And once you have a template and a commited revit team you can crank out projects in a fraction of the time. From experience I would not recommend having everyone work on projects for the first at the same time. Split it up into teams and put the ones that are more interested (or the ones who would more than likely catch on to a new concept quickly) on the first team for productivity reasons. I did most of my firm's template so let me know if you need any help in that area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now