I have a dream...about Revit

[Giulio Castorina]

A simply great software, looking user friendly, easy to use, increasing the

project managment process...and much more...

but...just an exception....!

Even if, as someone has already noticed, its 3d modelling tools are useful

being parametric, it has some lack exploiting the MASS ELEMENTS tools...in

fact

in most cases the standard extrusionS and revolveS with union e substract

are sufficient but nowdays is very easy engaging in organic shapes and

structures( for example creating a glass roofs with organic structure)

..thereby there isn't any chance to import 3d model from other software (a

lack on drawing format exchange too excluding dwg) and to integrate it in

the whole Revit project process converting for examble solids in

walls..roofs etc.. or linking fills in section detail or plans etc..

Other software has already similar capabilities such as Microstation

Triforma (it has got a surface modeller too...a great thing) or are provided

with interesting plugin as for ADT who can import SkectchUp drawing and

convert his elements in AEC parametric elements.

 

for example take a look at http://sketchup.com/ADT/ADT_videos.php

 

I have a dream....improving soon the Revit 3d modeller with more cool and

useful feature for Architecture!

 

Waiting 4 ur opinion

 

Regards

 

Giulio

[neill]

hello, im a die-hard sketch upper and im trying to get into revit,

 

ill get back when, more people respond

 

 

later

neill

[Richard McCarthy]

I totally are with you on that dream. I have posted in other forum about that, and I hope autodesk listen and improve and extend the modeling capability of Revit in the next release. The way revit can model is still very lacking in my opinion...

[cullen]

The thing that is really throwing me is how Autodesk is bouncing back and forth between Revit and ADT. We have clients that use ADT now they have people telling them that Revit is going to ADT being that Autodesk owns them. So now some of our clients request there work in Revit some in ADT. The modeling structures are different, but I just wonder if Revit is supposedly going to take over, why are they makeing ADT 2005. I know thats not exactly on subject, but there's my 2 cents.....

 

crw

[Kerry Thompson]

I have not seen ADT 5 yet but I understand that some of the Revit concepts are now appearing in ADT 5. My feeling is that Revit has not sold enough over the last twelve months - First of all we had Revit as the new direction of AutoDesk Architectural apps in the new world of Building Information Modeling – (BIM) - then, later we had Revit being bundled with AutoCAD ??????! (How does this relate to the concept of BIM?) , and now we are seeing Revit concepts in ADT (especially in drawings management.) - does not bode well for the future of Revit.

 

 

 

Most users of ADT use it as AutoCAD and still "scratch" around drawing lines and circles - and will not commit time and effort to learning ADT let alone move from the AutoCAD platform to Revit. The AutoCAD process and concept is very entrenched in the conservative AEC industry. Comparing AutoCAD to an object based approach (ADT, ArchiCAD, Revit) is like comparing a feather quill to a word processor. Most users taught writing with a quill (AutoCAD) , would have a lot of difficulty using a word processor (ADT etc.), - the word processor being far more productive and flexible but may lack the artistic merits of the quill?

[Richard McCarthy]

I have not seen ADT 5 yet but I understand that some of the Revit concepts are now appearing in ADT 5. My feeling is that Revit has not sold enough over the last twelve months - First of all we had Revit as the new direction of AutoDesk Architectural apps in the new world of Building Information Modeling – (BIM) - then, later we had Revit being bundled with AutoCAD ??????! (How does this relate to the concept of BIM?) , and now we are seeing Revit concepts in ADT (especially in drawings management.) - does not bode well for the future of Revit.

 

 

 

Most users of ADT use it as AutoCAD and still "scratch" around drawing lines and circles - and will not commit time and effort to learning ADT let alone move from the AutoCAD platform to Revit. The AutoCAD process and concept is very entrenched in the conservative AEC industry. Comparing AutoCAD to an object based approach (ADT, ArchiCAD, Revit) is like comparing a feather quill to a word processor. Most users taught writing with a quill (AutoCAD) , would have a lot of difficulty using a word processor (ADT etc.), - the word processor being far more productive and flexible but may lack the artistic merits of the quill?

 

 

 

Kerry, you are scaring me with your progressive logical analysis of the downfall of Revit into oblivion like Lightscape...

 

I am sure Autodesk will make Revit stay, as they have publically announced over and over that ADT is going to eventually be phased out, and while Revit is going to go the Inventor to MDT way and be replacing the ADT.

The problem right now for Revit user base to grow, and the massive migration we yet to see is that, Revit is very VERY EXPENSIVE. At $8000 per seat PLUS subscription cost, it's definitely not for everyone. Only large architectural firms can afford this kind of expenditure. What I would recommend (and hope) Autodesk do is to lower the pricing of Revit to that maybe of atleast comparable of ArchiCAD, or better, half that ! to attract more new users.

 

Secondly, I see that learning a new tool is NOT A PROBLEM. Especially Revit, which is one of the EASIEST BIM solution out there. So switching over from another CAD program like ADT is pretty easy as long as the user discard his pre-conception of what CAD is. Our firm currently have run a in-house training program and so far, a lot of AutoCAD users seems to pick up Revit very quickly without much fuzz (within 2 days..sometimes less)

 

And lastly, I agree with you, that Revit is like a advanced word processor compare to ACAD which is like a quill. There is "some" constraint right now as to be able to do some very creative design out of Revit (you have to basically go around the corners to do those) but rest assured, Revit 7.0+ would included a lot of new modeling tools that enhance Revit beyond our wildest dream (yeh, now I am dreaming) that we all wanted

[czoog]

At $8000 per seat PLUS subscription cost, it's definitely not for everyone. Only large architectural firms can afford this kind of expenditure.

 

Just to clarify.... you do mean $8000 AU right?

 

Last I checked, Revit costs about $3300-3500 US ($3995 for ARS (with autocad 2004)) which INCLUDES 1st year sub. $600 US/year after that.

 

We are a small firm (5 people) and we have 4 seats, our R.O.I. has been phenominal. We win and complete jobs that would typically require a firm 3 or 4 times our size.

 

-Z.

[Richard McCarthy]

Just to clarify.... you do mean $8000 AU right?

 

Last I checked, Revit costs about $3300-3500 US ($3995 for ARS (with autocad 2004)) which INCLUDES 1st year sub. $600 US/year after that.

 

We are a small firm (5 people) and we have 4 seats, our R.O.I. has been phenominal. We win and complete jobs that would typically require a firm 3 or 4 times our size.

 

-Z.

 

 

 

Yes Czoog you are right, I am sorry, I forgot to mention that $8000 is AUD

[Kerry Thompson]

Hi Richard

 

 

 

I do see "Lightscape" product trends with Revit - as I have seen is a number of AutoDesk "buy, strip and dump" acquisitions over the last 15 years. It is the nature of the business, which is driven by market culture rather than a innovative technical culture. I see Revit and ADT being merged but the resulting product may not be called ADT or Revit. BUT there will still be an AutoCAD in the mix somewhere - from a market perspective, AutoDesk cannot afford to dump the brand.

 

The AEC industry is very fragmented and the parties (architects, engineers, QS, project managers, interior designers, builders, interior fit out, kitchen fit out - the list can go on, ) involved are doing very well from this fragmentation - i.e. as information is copied to these parties through the project delivery process, every one gets a cut in terms of fees, margins etc. Rationalizing the process would completely change the nature of this culture.

 

In the manufacturing area, the link between the designer and the product production is a lot closer and there have been major productivity benefits and payoffs from using parametric technology. In AEC, these relationships are tenuous at best, which is why I think that the MDT-Inventor paradigm will not work in the AEC industry.

 

The AEC industry will slowly change but will be driven by the changing relationships between the parties involved, rather than a technology being driven by “AutoDesk” or who ever.

 

[frame]

The lightscape analogy pales in comparison.

Lightscape had a limited functional appeal, and could only really relate to high end rendering gurus. Revit, on the otherhand, is far beyond a one-off rendering tool. It was designed from the ground up to redefine how users interact with a 3D model that is represented in the form of CD's. It is a solution that exceeds anything that lightscape could ever dream of providing because it has such broad appeal, (and ultimately goals.)

 

If revit, or the BIM opportunity fails, blame not autodesk, or a failed marketing plan, but a profession so steeped in cynicism that it turns its back on an obvious winner. I suppose architects do love tragedy. Who are we to look to for inspiration? Borromini or Bernini? Both so accomplished, yet such different lifestyles.....