Best BIM modelling software package

[Ras]

Hi everyone

 

Couldn´t find a better forum to put this one in...

 

I am teaching at the Danish School of Architecture in Copenhagen and I have persuaded my boss to help finance a course in BIM modelling or whatever name it goes under - what I mean is drawing objects in Cad that have information attached to it and has the capability to show differently in for example plan and section. - and whatever wonders it might do.

 

I have worked a little bit with ADT and have had good results but I´d like to know your opinion on the subject before I go for a specific course.

 

So - what in your experience is the best solution for BIM modelling?!?

 

Thanks in advance!

[gigl]

HI Ras

 

For me Revit the best choice.Im moving from ADT to Revit and fill big difference.

[angelo]

ADT is very powerful (and in being so, very complex). It's main downfall is that it's built on top of AutoCAD which limits the intuitive character found in other BIM solutions.

 

Revit is very good, but at the moment not great for large team projects (ADT reigns supreme in this area).

 

Microstation Triforma for Architecture has been around a while, but not making many inroads...

 

Archicad is the senior of the entire group--very powerful and able to model very complex buildings while keeping the intelligence of each object intact.

 

If you are teaching young students, then I would go for the more progressive solutions (Revit, Archicad) which will prepare them for what firms will be using within the next decade. If they are "non" traditional students, then it might be more relevant to teach them what most firms in Denmark are using now.

 

Just remember, what most firms are using might not be the best, it's just because it's what everyone else is using!

[Kerry Thompson]

Hi Ras

 

 

 

Difficult to say as success in BIM depends on the many factors outside the choice of software. Successful BIM projects, rely on the attitude of the company carrying out the work and the managements skills of the users of the BIM system.

 

I went to a seminar promoting a “successful” BIM project using ArchiCAD and the impression I came away with was that the ArchiCAD was irrelevant, the directors of the architects company were committed to making it work and managers (manager) of the CAD system was very skilled in making ArchiCAD do its thing (and the scale of the project meant that they had to split up the “single” database). One guy was responsible for enforcing the standards and making the various objects for the project. The other interesting thing was that the associated consultants (engineers etc) did not use the data from the model!!!

 

I use ADT my self and, from my perception, it does provide the greatest flexibly for me - but then I am very experienced in AutoCAD type systems. Another issue is that BIM objects can be complex and there is no silver bullet. “Simple to use systems” often produce “less than elegant” results. Architecture can be very complex - take a curtain wall object, and then design a BIM parametric object to manage the definition, provide the flexibly and manage all the parts that make up that object, - hard enough in the real world without having to computer model it. So much of the traditional process of drawing is implicit. I know some of the users of Revit are now finding the software becoming “complex” because the problem of BIM is complex and as the software moves towards fully dealing with the issues, it is complex.

 

The important thing is to gain experience in the understanding of BIM and how to manage the concepts and processes – learning any of the software packages will start you on this.

 

Kerry

[mnisbett]

I teach in CAD in Maine using primarily Autodesk software. We are fortunate enough to have most of their primary software's. Which include Revit and ADT. We teach ADT classes as part of our curriculum mainly because we listen to our local firms and businesses. This is currently the software of choice in our area. I also have introduced students to Revit, taking about 2 weeks or 8 hours of instruction/labs. The results are remarkable. Although ADT is very robust it is complicated to learn. The students had the ADT class for 15 weeks and produced good drawings but they also experienced a lot of frustration along the way. In the 2 weeks that they used Revit, they produced similar drawings with better results, less frustration and much more interest. They keep asking me when we will do more with Revit! The problem is, there are no companies using Revit in our area, and our program is driven by industry. If it were up to me I'd use Revit fulltime, it’s a great software!

[mnisbett]

I forgot to mention you can get a 60 day free trial from AutoDesk. Most of my students downloaded the trial to use at home as well.

[BobM]

Hi Everyone

 

I Teach at the Colchester Institute, Colchester, Essex, Uk and I would agree with others comment, I think that ArchiCAD is the better product, I looked at Revit but our main platform is ADT and it has the biggest base here.

 

Most can get into it quickly if they come from AutoCAD where the others are better if you are going straight to them in my opinion.

 

Regards

 

BobM

[Ras]

Thanks guys

 

I think I´ll try to get people from Autodesk, Lasercad and Bentley to come out and demonstrate Revit and ArchiCad and Microstation. I think they would love to get a bite of all the future Architects to come out of here.

 

For some reason nobody here in my department is very keen on ADT - it seems that the eternal argument "everybody uses ADT" has backfired and people have become stubborn. This is an art-academy (say no more...)

 

I´´ll be looking forward to getting this new knowledge. I have my own studio on the side and will also benefit from it as a "fieldworking" architect(opposed to teaching).

 

Anyway thank you very much for your advice.

[bricklyne]

FYI ArchiCAD is actually made by Graphisoft International and not Lasercad as you mentioned. They have headquarters in the US and in Budapest.

 

As for the topic, while I would want to try and refrain from giving an opinion either way and to rather let you decide for yourself, you should note that all the BIM/Virtual Building design solutions you mentioned have various comparable strengths and shortcomings that tend to sway people to extreme positions based on their preferences of the various softwares' usabilities. IMHO none is really superior to the others, as each have carved out a distinct niche in the AEC field. Microstation and Vectorworks seem to have a stronger presence and leaning to the engineering end of the field based on their experience and other softwares that are popular with engineers. ADT has both its strengths and weaknesses based on the complexity of its program's structure and interface as well as the fact that it is built on top of AutoCAD ( easier for AutoCAD users to migrate to and specialize in, but notoriously difficult to customize and adapt to various other aspects). I should also mention that the reason that the "eternal argument that everybody uses ADT" persists as you put it, is rooted in part to the fact that "everybody" also "uses AutoCAD" and because they are developed by the market powerhouse (some would say bully) Autodesk, they are able to "brute market" it along with AutoCAD due to their vastly significant resources as opposed to Bentley or Graphisoft. And not necessarily because it is superior to Revit, ArchiCAD or Microstation. However, due to the increasing popularity of Revit and past market practices of Autodesk, the future of ADT is rather murky at the moment ( and to some extent that of Revit as well, pending it's adaptability to larger scale projects and intergration into the Autodesk system as a whole) as they decide which of the 2 systems to take forward and send the other the way of Lightscape.

 

And speaking of Revit, along with ArchiCAD, they sit at the top of the BIM field at least in terms of popularity ( and the zealous loyalty of their respective customers). Its greatest strength is the powerful parametric Engine which dynamically and concisely links every single element in the project to other elements and consequently to the entire project as a whole, such that small or local changes are instantenouesly propagated throughout the rest of the project in terms of the effects and consequences. While this saves quite a bit of time in the sense of coordination and intergration of the project elements, its a drawback on creativity as the design process is boggled down by the discrete rules and guidelines that the parametric engine runs by.

ArchiCAD on the other hand - while it also has a powerful parametric engine that is not necessarily as tightly controlled as Revit - affords its users more flexibility for creative design due to this "looseness" in the parametric engine as well as the powerful GDL scripting language of its objects. They also have the distinction of being the market's 'old dog', in that their experience in the field (dating 20 years) vastly overshadows that of any of their closest competitors and affords their program a host of features that others are only beginning to intergrate into theirs. And of all the BIM solutions out there, theirs is the most inter-operable and intergratable with a wider-range of other software and formats ( from DWG to OBJ to VRML to 3DS etc) making it easier to phase-in from other systems or alternatively fit into other systems like into an AutoCAD-run office for example.

 

But at the end of the day, like you mentioned , I imagine the decision will be driven by which BIM solution holds the greatest potential for marketability in the field for the students - and this of course, depends on what is most popularly used in Denmark and to a great extent what will be most popular in the future, which is hard to predict, anyways ( ArchiCAD and Revit are unheard of in certain places, while AutoCAD is dying a rapid death in others). Good luck with your decision.

[Scott Davis]

the future of ADT is rather murky at the moment ( and to some extent that of Revit as well, pending it's adaptability to larger scale projects and intergration into the Autodesk system as a whole)

 

Revit is very good, but at the moment not great for large team projects (ADT reigns supreme in this area).

 

When you speak of Revit, and its adaptability to larger scale projects, It's already been proven that it can do large scale projects. There are currently over 30 people from SOM and a range of consultants working on the World Trade Center Freedom Tower in Revit. This will be the tallest building in the world, and it's being completely designed and documented in Revit. Even the Structural engineers and MEP engineers are using Revit to model and document those systems. Revit Strutures and Revit Systems have not been released, so those enigineers are finding ways within Revit Architecture to engineer their portions of the work.

 

The integration of Revit into the Autodesk system as a whole has already begun. Sometime in the first quarter of 2005, Revit Structures is to be released. It was shown at Autodesk University, that an ADT user will be able to take an ADT model into Revit Structures to do structural analysis. When asked if a structural solution will be created for ADT, the answer was "Why? You'll use Revit Structures." Revit is the solution of choice as far as Autodesk is concerned. There was such a huge buzz about it this year at AU.

[Kerry Thompson]

It is really difficult to sift out the market spin in this area. AutoDesk definitely are pushing Revit in a big way but I am also seeing a quiet “Revit ising” ADT and AutoCAD in the background (The sheet manager, dynamic blocks etc). Looking at the installed base, I understand that the Revit installed base is around 5% of the ADT installed base – and insignificant compared to AutoCAD so you can still see why ADT/AutoCAD is continuing.

 

I that the products will merge – and AutoCAD will be in the package mix somewhere, even if it is not used in the BIM, - because the inertia of AutoCAD in the market will demand it. Also import to realize the BIM covers every one in the building process, not just the architectural and structural areas.

 

Kerry

[bricklyne]

..............There are currently over 30 people from SOM and a range of consultants working on the World Trade Center Freedom Tower in Revit. This will be the tallest building in the world, and it's being completely designed and documented in Revit. Even the Structural engineers and MEP engineers are using Revit to model and document those systems. Revit Strutures and Revit Systems have not been released, so those enigineers are finding ways within Revit Architecture to engineer their portions of the work.

 

..................Revit is the solution of choice as far as Autodesk is concerned. There was such a huge buzz about it this year at AU.

 

 

 

Not to nitpick too much, but the Freedom Tower will NOT be the tallest building in the world when its completed in 2009. It will not even be the second tallest building in the world. This is marketing spin which obviously accompanied the hype that came along with the announcement of the project and was indeed true for just a couple of months. The tallest building in the world then, if all proposed projects that have now already entered into the construction phase carry on into completion, will be the Burj al Arab in the Middle East and it will be completed one year ahead of the Freedom Tower, in 2008. There's a second Burj planned for Dubai which will complete later that year which will be second to the Burj al arab making the Freedom tower the third tallest building when it's completed in 2009. I understand Reviters love using this line of promotion but it simply is not true!!

 

http://www.skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?2063133

 

Secondly, I also know for a fact that they are not documenting the entire project in Revit, but are exporting project information to AutoCAD because a good deal of the sub-contractors on the project are not on Revit, nor are they inclined to switch. As you said its still a while before Revit Structures will be released and while SOM would prefer everyone involved in the project to switch to Revit, that's just not the case in as far as what is happening on the ground.

 

Lastly, I believe Autodesk said the same thing ".....Revit is the solution of choice as far as Autodesk is concerned..." about Lightscape, Architectural Studio and a few other programs, right before they proceeded to pull the plug on them. And while Revit certainly has a larger user base than Architectural studio and Lightscape, the bottom line remains that it still has a market share of less than 10% of the AEC field, far less than even ADT, which they developed themselves as opposed to Revit which was bought from a German company. If that bottom line does not in some way increase, then trust me, it does not matter how superior Revit is to ADT, it will be canned. At the time of its untimely demise (and some would legitimately argue even now), Lightscape was a far far superior renderer to AutoDesk's VIZ. Lightscape was bought out and then killed with the promise of some of its technology getting incorporated into VIZ but that never happened. So how can you likewise be so sure, despite the all the hype, that Revit will not suffer the same fate if it does not get a larger market share in the coming years, particularly in light of the fact that they have already started replicating some of its features in ADT now? In fact the only reason that ADT continues to be developed at the moment despite the fact that everyone who's used both agrees it doesn't hold a candle to Revit, is because ADT already has a large and significant user base. Autodesk is trying to gauge if they can or cannot convert some among this user base to Revit and the level of success to which that is accomplished will ultimately determine which program goes forward. You may or may not decide to believe me, but in making up your mind I would advise you to stay clear of the hype, (any company is capable of that) but focus instead on their past marketing practices and see their history can give any pointer as to what they'll do.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

they are keeping this in their back pocket, but the freedom tower is going to have a telescoping antenna that gets cranked a little higher every time another building is built taller.

[Kerry Thompson]

Hi Clarence

My understanding is that Revit was originally created by the original partners of PTC software (they set up a company called Charles River Software) and developed a parametric architectural package - Revit then sold it to AutoDesk for 130M after 3 years or so.

I agree with your analysis, the return from sales will determine Revit success, not the technology. If it does not gain critical mass in AutoDesk eyes, it is a goner - (I see technology transfer to ADT/AutoCAD already or maybe AutoDesk Architect.)

Having been involved with AutoCAD since version 2, as a user, dealer and consultant, I have seen many great ideas come and go. This is the market reality that AutoDesk operates to the benefit of their shareholders, not the building industry at large.

Cheers

 

Kerry

[bricklyne]

Hi Clarence

...........

I agree with your analysis, the return from sales will determine Revit success, not the technology. If it does not gain critical mass in AutoDesk eyes, it is a goner - (I see technology transfer to ADT/AutoCAD already or maybe AutoDesk Architect.)

Having been involved with AutoCAD since version 2, as a user, dealer and consultant, I have seen many great ideas come and go. This is the market reality that AutoDesk operates to the benefit of their shareholders, not the building industry at large.

Cheers

 

Kerry

 

You're probably right about the Revit's origins as I am not that well versed with it. But I gaurantee you, that you'll have a hard time convincing hard-core Reviters that their BIM panacea, in reality is on the bubble as much, if not more so than ADT; and this is despite Autodesk's history and past marketing practices with new technology. They have a lousy record when it comes to both integrating and developing technology and software that was not originally conceived in-house but was the result of hostile buy-outs of their parent comapny. The only exception to this has been the 3DS MAX/VIZ duo which not too surprisingly were saved by the fact that they have massive user bases in not just the AEC industry, but also the entertainment, advertising and computer/video gaming Industries. At the very least they gave Autodesk a foot in the door in those fields and as such, they simply could not kill them like they did with Lightscape. All this of course is coming from a long-time Lightscape fan who watched aghast as they took what was, quite simply, heads above shoulders over anything else in the market at the time, and slowly let it die a slow quiet death at Autodesk.

 

I merely see the same fate for Revit if it's user base does not increase, regardless of how much more advanced than ADT it may be. Its always always always been about the bottom line over at Autodesk and it will be no different with Revit.

[mnisbett]

Hey Clarence,

I think you really need to try out Revit before you bash it to much. I've used AutoCAD and its other products since 1986. I've seen the softwares come and go as well but there has always been some path to follow. Do you remember Autoflix or AutoDesk Animatior? What happened to them? I believe most of that technology got absorbed into other packages.. roll with the punches. I used lightscape for a while as well but, VIZ is sooo much better and that good radiosity stuff is in there as well. Yes I agree AutoDesk is a large competitive company but that's what makes them so great...You can't fault them for furthering CAD technology can you? Competition is our driving force right? As far as ADT and Revit are concerned you have to look at Mechanical Desktop and Inventor first. MDT runs ontop of ACAD and so does ADT, this base is used more by technicians that have been drafting for years. Revit and Inventor have been written from the ground up with design in mind and changes in technology. Why not re-write the software instead of making it fit in. I personally don't know if these four packages will stay around for the long haul, and really I don't care. I just want to be using the best software and I'll roll with the punches. I have used ADT and Revit extensively and can say without doubt that Revit has much better technology for designing and drafting. If my students can pick up Revit after 2 weeks and it takes 15 weeks to acomplish the same with ADT, why not use Revit. Once I start getting the word out locally I'm sure more firms will follow suit. It will save them time and money. You should check out AUGI's forums if you want to gain a better understaning of Revit and or Autodesk products.

Regards,

Mark Nisbett

[Scott Davis]

Secondly, I also know for a fact that they are not documenting the entire project in Revit, but are exporting project information to AutoCAD because a good deal of the sub-contractors on the project are not on Revit, nor are they inclined to switch. As you said its still a while before Revit Structures will be released and while SOM would prefer everyone involved in the project to switch to Revit, that's just not the case in as far as what is happening on the ground.

 

I must question your source to this information. I personally know James Vandezande of SOM. He is the CAD Manager in charge of the Freedom Tower. I spoke with him at Autodesk University, and he gave me a 'virtual' tour of the Revit model of the Tower, and I even got to take it for a spin on his laptop. These are the facts, directly from the team that is working on the Tower: Arch, Structural, and MEP are all being completly modeled and documented using Revit. The SD package was just submitted to the Port Authority. The team is now 100% committed to producing the CD set of drawings entirely in Revit. Nothing will be exported to DWG to finish.

 

Early in the project, the sub-grade levels were the only portion of the building being done in Revit. Everything else was DWG. Then, the sub-grade schematic design was nearly done, and they decided to move forward on the lobby in Revit....then the core, then the skin...then the structure and MEP. You may have read some of the early reports, including one from the Wall Street Journal, which stated that most of the project was being exported to DWG. This was true only in the early stages...by the time the arcticle was published, the team was moving forward with 100% Revit.

 

I hope this clears up some of the misconceptions. I'm not making this up, it is coming directly from team members working on the Tower at SOM.

[bricklyne]

Hey Clarence,

I think you really need to try out Revit before you bash it to much. I've used AutoCAD and its other products since 1986. I've seen the softwares come and go as well but there has always been some path to follow. Do you remember Autoflix or AutoDesk Animatior? What happened to them? I believe most of that technology got absorbed into other packages.. roll with the punches. I used lightscape for a while as well but, VIZ is sooo much better and that good radiosity stuff is in there as well. Yes I agree AutoDesk is a large competitive company but that's what makes them so great...You can't fault them for furthering CAD technology can you? Competition is our driving force right? As far as ADT and Revit are concerned you have to look at Mechanical Desktop and Inventor first. MDT runs ontop of ACAD and so does ADT, this base is used more by technicians that have been drafting for years. Revit and Inventor have been written from the ground up with design in mind and changes in technology. Why not re-write the software instead of making it fit in. I personally don't know if these four packages will stay around for the long haul, and really I don't care. I just want to be using the best software and I'll roll with the punches. I have used ADT and Revit extensively and can say without doubt that Revit has much better technology for designing and drafting. If my students can pick up Revit after 2 weeks and it takes 15 weeks to acomplish the same with ADT, why not use Revit. Once I start getting the word out locally I'm sure more firms will follow suit. It will save them time and money. You should check out AUGI's forums if you want to gain a better understaning of Revit and or Autodesk products.

Regards,

Mark Nisbett

 

 

Hey Mark, FYI, if you bothered to read completely through all of my posts you may notice that I was not "bashing" Revit at all. In fact I am hard pressed to find one instance where I directly "bashed" it as you put it and have even stated categorically that it is far superior to ADT and IMHO is up there with ArchiCAD as the best BIM tools in the market. All this of course come from the fact that I HAVE used Revit - from v5 right through to v7 now; which I will admit I use on a much rarer basis, but only because most of my work is ArchiCAD/AutoCA based. I know that Revit has a lot of undeniably nifty, ingenious and quite simply great tools even in comparison to ArchiCAD. And I'm not dumb enough to deny that. If you did bother to read through the posts as I have already mentioned, you might have noticed that my gripe was against Autodesk the company and not Revit, the software they acquired and are now trying to to see if they can "Autodeskize" or kill off. And yes I do remember Autofix and Autodesk animator like you asked. I also remember, as I mentioned in my previous post, Autodesk Architectural Studio (the Sketchup killer that never was) and Lightscape as you mentioned. And while you 'believe' that most of these dead softwares' technologies was absorbed into Autodesk's stock software lines, this is in large part a huge misconception that was spawned by them to try to bring along the loyal users of those original softwares into the Autodesk fold. Sure they tried to incoorporate some features of Architectural Studio into the latest version of ADT, but these were minor features. And sure they raped Lightscape's massive Architectural material library into VIZ and MAX, but trust me, the radiosity engine of lightscape was never integrated into VIZ. Why else do you think they is still an option in the VIZ/MAX import dialog, to import lightscape radiosity solutions into VIZ and MAX? Yes VIZ and MAX have their own radiosity engines, but not the Lightscape radiosity engine. The fact that the Lightscape solution import option still exists in both MAX/VIZ even 2 releases after the demise and subsequent/supposed coopting of Lightscape, is a Testament from Autodesk ( albeit indirect) that Lightscape radiosity is still superior to MAX/VIZ radiosity. Otherwise why have it there? Particularly if what you have now is superior and particularly with a poduct that otherwise notoriously disdains backwad compatibility with older versions.

 

As for your contention that VIZ is "....sooo much better " than Lightscape, that is a subjective opinion which I can only imagine - despite your claim that you have used Lightscape - could only be made by someone that was not completely well versed with Lightscape or at least how to obtain optimal quality images from it. Either that or that you are comparing a VIZ of today- 2004 with a Lightscape of circa 1997-1999, which is around when they stopped developing it and obviously this is not just a skewed comparison but a faulty one. VIZ renders never stood up to Lightscape renders then, and even now I could argue that in the hands of someone who is anything less than an expert, VIZ images produced today still do not completely hold up to Lightscape images. There is virtually no disagreement from people that extensively used both software as to which was superior which is why there was so much outrage when Autodesk bought Lightscape and then killed it after promising its users that they would continure developing it.

 

Lastly, you make the argument that there is nothing wrong with developing CAD technology and claim competition to be the driving force. Which would be true if not fo the glaring fact that you forget to distinguish between developing technology and buying out superior software from less economically significant competitors for the sole purpose of killing the software when it doesn't fit into shareholder prospects (after the appropriate and respected peiod of raping and plundering, of course). If my understanding of that is correct then that's not the driving competitive force you claim, but rather killing technically superior competition and in essence denying the consumer the best product on the market by oversaturating the market with a lower quality alternative. If Autodesk is so confident of their products then they shouldn't be so threatened by upstart competitors to the extent of having to buy them out and subjecting their products to a slow death shotly thereafter. They should, as you say, continue developing their OWN technology to match the marketing trends or even to stay ahead of the curve, and that - I believe - is what competition truely is. Hey, it seems to work just fine for other industries.

 

But then again coming from a company that produces annual upgrades of their flagship product ( AutoCAD) with nothing more than cosmetic improvements and then forces their consumers to have to upgrade to these virtually identical and redundant upgrades and hence fork out the ridiculously exorbitant license upgrade fees if they value the support, it all really shouldn't surpise me. Like I said its always been about the bottom line with AutoTABLE, even at the expense of true technological advancement. Somwhere along the way it stopped being about how the software can improve the level and quality of the architectural pofession, and it became about being the big hunkering market behemoth. How you can even attempt to defend them is really beyond me, frankly speaking.

 

And please read my posts carefully before casting unqualified blanket aspersions on me, like saying that I detest Revit so much. That way, who knows, you might even avoid repeating what I already said in my previous posts, such as, the fact that Revit is unquestionably far superior to ADT. If it were not for the fact that Autodesk already has its grimy hands all over Revit now and has cast its future into some murky nebulous nether-region ( as is comparable to the recent rumours -still not denied by Autodesk - of the impending discontinuation of VIZ), then even I probably would be a hard-core Reviter today. One of the main reasons I continue to stick with ArchiCAD is that they have been around for ove 20 years despite Autodesk and given their increasing user base, I still see them being around for a long long time. They are after, all the primary reason that Autodesk decided to get into the whole BIM game and buy out Revit.

[mnisbett]

Clarence,

I did read your posts but I quess I must have interpreted your sentiments about AutoDesk as more of a slam than anything else. I am sorry if I offended you, but I feel strongly that AutoDesk does the right things for its base. Yes they buy up software and repackage it but the other companies do not have to sell do they? Anyway, I see their steps as good things not bad. As far as AutoCAD is concerned I believe that most upgrades have been worth it, not all but most. I'll continue to use Revit, VIZ, and AutoCAD as long as they are available, when they are not I'll switch to whatever is best.

Regards,

Mark

[Scott Davis]

One of the main reasons I continue to stick with ArchiCAD is that they have been around for ove 20 years despite Autodesk and given their increasing user base, I still see them being around for a long long time. They are after, all the primary reason that Autodesk decided to get into the whole BIM game and buy out Revit.

 

You almost became a part indirectly....Graphisoft approached Revit Technology Corp, pre-buyout, and asked to be bought by RTC. We almost had Archi-Rev, or something like that!

[bricklyne]

You almost became a part indirectly....Graphisoft approached Revit Technology Corp, pre-buyout, and asked to be bought by RTC. We almost had Archi-Rev, or something like that!

 

I was going to leave this alone, but...... . . .

 

( just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in )

And of course now we have Autodesk Revit and Graphisoft ArchiCAD, so from my estimation only one company in that comparison is was actually bought out. It seems Graphisoft must have realized they were better off protecting their creation in their own hands rather than trusting some other industry leader with a not too impressive track record to do it. And in retrospect it seems like they were right. Nice try though!!

 

As for your prior contention that the Freedom Tower is 100% Revit, when you said;

 

This was true only in the early stages...by the time the arcticle was published, the team was moving forward with 100% Revit.

 

...and you were doing so well there Scott, and almost had me convinced even, until you had to talk about 100% Revit. Oh well....

 

.....I would quote Carl Galioto, partner-in-charge of SOM’s technical group, who said regarding the software to be used on the project;

 

".........The team is using the Autodesk Revit building information modelling platform on the whole building, including complex sub-grade levels. Autodesk® Architectural Desktop is being employed for energy analysis with a third-party application, and Discreet® 3ds max® software is being used for design visualisation and creation of 3D renderings and animations."

 

Besides the inclusion of ADT and 3DS MAX in that mix which right away highlights some of Revit's shortcomings, I will give you 2 guesses as to what that "third-party application" that they abominably will not mention by name ( being an Autodesk website that the quote comes from) actually is. But because you are such a frequent lurker in the Graphisoft website's Talk-Forums, what say we just make it one guess. That's right ArchiCAD!!!.

 

By the way, that quote came from;

 

http://www.autodesk.co.uk/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=452932&id=4444824&linkID=413495

 

Granted, that article is dated on July of this year so it is possible as you say that they may have diminished the role of AutoCAD in the process with regards to documentation of the project and certainly modelling the 3D building, although certainly not roles of MAX nor ADT because I'm pretty certain Revit's Accurender engine doesn't quite hold a candle to MAX nor do I imagine it facilitates the process of building modelling energy analysis that they are currently utilizing ArchiCAD and ADT to perform in the project; in any case, here is a more recent article.

 

"..Renowned for its expertise in designing skyscrapers, Skidmore, Owings, & Merrill LLP (SOM) is the design architect of the Freedom Tower on the World Trade Center site, and is currently employing a variety of Autodesk solutions, including Autodesk Revit, AutoCAD®, and Autodesk® Buzzsaw® on this highly complex project. "

 

The article is from Forbes online at http://www.forbes.com/prnewswire/feeds/prnewswire/2004/12/01/prnewswire200412010801PR_NEWS_B_NWT_SF_SFW072.html

 

and is dated the 1st of December 2004, so either they were still using AutoCAD ( and Buzzsaw) in some capacity as recently as 2 weeks ago, or Forbes sources are highly misinformed, although I highly doubt that given Forbes' reputation. I similarly highly doubt that SOM would likewise mislead Forbes into believing that AutoCAD was still part of the design and documentaion process when they were aware that they were going ahead 100% Revit as you put it. (Ironically the Forbes article is actually a focus on Revit, which would further make the mention of AutoCAD in that capacity of the design of the Freedom Tower, bear more significance !)

 

In any degree Carl Galioto's statement and ArchiCAD's role ( which by the way you can easily re-confirm by clicking onto http://www.graphisoft.com, where they have it as the main page flash banner advertising ArchiCAD 9 and quote John Durschinger, Associate Partner Director of SOM's Research Laboratory citing ArchiCAD's role in the Freedom tower design process), completely refutes the assertion that the process is 100% Revit, as you put it, of course.

 

I may not know any of these people (Galioto or Durschinger) personally, like you do Vandezande, but I trust their word when they make statements that qualify my position that Revit is not the sole software suite being used to design this Tower, at the very least to a considerable degree. And in any case they both ( Galioto and Durschinger) seem a little bit higher up the SOM ladder than James Vandezande, whom you claim to know and from whom you got your info, and so I personally would be more inclined to believe them more.

 

Changing gears and on a lighter note, I came across this hilarious crit by some fellow of the Freedom Tower design on the web and thought it might be pertinent to the current discussion. He seems to be an American so please don't jump all over my neck with accusations of American bashing. I particularly liked his characterisation or rather comparisonat the end of the article to the proposed Central India Tower 's significance next to the Freedom Tower; the article is at...

 

http://www.brokenrobots.s5.com/custom3.html

[Scott Davis]

It seems Graphisoft must have realized they were better off protecting their creation in their own hands rather than trusting some other industry leader with a not too impressive track record to do it. And in retrospect it seems like they were right.

 

No, this was Graphisoft approaching Revit Technology Corporation before Autodesk was involved. So it was the bigger corporation Graphisoft with the 20 year old "industry proven" ArchiCAD, coming to the newcomer on the block Revit Technology Corporation with all of 4 years of experience, asking to be bought out by RTC. In the end, RTC saw too much liability in trying to take 20 year old technology and make it work. In retrospect, it seems RTC made the right move.

 

....until you had to talk about 100% Revit.

 

Ok, so now you are going to get me on a technicality? Yes, I used the words 100% Revit. At the end of the day, when it comes time to actually print a set of construction documents for the Freedom Tower, someone is going to open Revit, and hit Print. Yes, tons of other software has gone into the process. Someone has probably used Excel, and Word, and AutoCAD, and ..... Even my own projects that are "100% Revit" have been touched by other programs to do analysis....my structural has probably used Ramsteel or Etabs. My MEP consultants have probably used EnergyPro to run Title 24 energy calculations. We use Buzzssaw, it's all part of the process. But our primary design and documentation tool is Revit. I never made the statement that the ONLY tool on the Freedom Tower was Revit. I said, the building including the Structural and MEP were being design and documented in Revit, through CD's. So if you like these words better, we'll use them instead: Revit is the PRIMARY tool used to design and construct the Freedom Tower.

 

I'm sure your own ArchiCAD projects will have used something other than just ArchiCAD.....probably AutoCAD. In fact, your ArchiCAD projects MUST use some software other than what comes with the program out-of-the-box to do some of the most simple tasks. ArchiStair for example. The energy analysis itself being done on the Freedom Tower with ArchiCAD isn't even just ArchiCAD, its a third party add-on by another company. So the limited role that ArchiCAD plays, is simply just to be a vehicle for which this other program that actually does all the work, rides on. Not something I'd be really proud of splashing all over the banner of my website.

 

The misconception that I was trying to reveal in my assertion that the project was '100% Revit' is the notion that only part of the building is being modeled/documented in Revit. Or that the project will be taken through schematics, and then the Revit model will be exported to DWG for completion. This is simply not the case. Revit will be the primary tool for modeling and construction documentation.

[bricklyne]

... In the end, RTC saw too much liability in trying to take 20 year old technology and make it work. In retrospect, it seems RTC made the right move.

 

So instead they sold their brainchild and the rights to it to a company that has been known to cannibalize it's own programs that don't reach market expections in terms of sales and profits. Yeah....er, rrrrrright. I can clearly see how that was the right move. Particularly in light of the fact that Revit's user base is currently less that 5% that of ADT, which Autodesk has already considered canning, along with VIZ; yet both of which have far larger maket shares and aleady rake in more profits than Revit does for Autodesk. Keep convincing yourself that it's the future of Autodesk's BIM vision. ( you might also consider buying as many copies as you can of it and watch out for more and more Revit features that keeping popping up in AutoCAD and ADT, while you're at it). Oh.. and the friendly men in the white suits holding the funny looking jacket in their hands really really do want to give you candy. Promise.

 

 

..........................Ok, so now you are going to get me on a technicality? Yes, I used the words 100% Revit.....

 

That's not a technicality Scott, that's an egregiously unsubstantiated statement, which as you might have noticed I solidly disproved and in your own obliqued begrudging manner admitted to your error. Albeit with some great difficulty as we can see below.....

 

.... I never made the statement that the ONLY tool on the Freedom Tower was Revit.

 

.....er, yeah, you did. Look at the quote just before this one. For the second time in as many times, you admit to saying 100% Revit. In the English language that's known as contradicting one's self. And this would be mainly because also in the English language ( and in Mathematics for that matter) 100% of something denotes the absolute absence of any other element. 100% water means 0% ink, 0% blood, 0% juice and 0% anything else. So consequently when you say that it was 100% Revit you are in fact saying that the ONLY tool on the Freedom Tower is Revit. Sorry to devolve this into a semantics lesson, but in light of the fact that you continue to contradict yourrself within the same paragraph while trying to stumble over your oblique admission of error, I see no other way of making you undestand. Yes, English can be a tough language, even for native speakers. Oh well.....

Let the back-tracking begin.

 

The significance is particularly key when you continue to try to play both paths by making it seem that you need to address my comprehension of your argument by equating them yet again and saying that altenatively we can say Revit is the pimary tool when you say.....

 

So if you like these words better, we'll use them instead: Revit is the PRIMARY tool used to design and construct the Freedom Tower.

 

I don't like the words any better or less. That's not an alternative; "Primary tool" denotes an entirely different capacity from "100%" something. But in any case you are not only right at the end by saying it is the Primary tool ( while you're not busy stumbling over yourself trying to save face by still insisting the statement "100% Revit" has any level of veracity or relevance following my argument, that is) but in this case accurate, although only if you understand that the meaning is completely different. You wouldn't say that America is a 100% English speaking country when trying to convey the fact that English is the primary language spoken there would you? Because obviously by saying so you exclude the Hispancs, the Chinese, the Potuguese and other linguistic minorities, some of whom don't speak a lick of English despite living in the US.

 

But at the very least you came as close as you could to admitting you were wrong. B for effort!!! and a silver star.

 

.........In fact, your ArchiCAD projects MUST use some software other than what comes with the program out-of-the-box to do some of the most simple tasks. ArchiStair for example.

 

Another egregiously misguided and blatantly misinformed statement that could only be made by someone who by their own admission, has their experience in ArchiCAD limited to a brief demo run of version 5 or 6 ( We are now in version 9 by the way and they have a demo for that as well, which by the way, I would recommend you not only try but really get well acquainted with so as to avoid making ludicrous remarks such as the gems you enthralled us with above. It will also extend your knowledge of the software beyond hearsay complaints and dissatisfaction of regular users that you pick up at the Graphisoft wishlist forum, all the while clearly having no idea what they are talking about.) When we (ArchiCAD users) complain about Stairmaker (which by the way, is ArchiCAD's built-in stair-construction and calculation module; it has one you know), the complaints are not a testament as to the inability of stairmaker to perform it's given task, nor is it a reflection of ArchiCAD's shortcoming with stairs that has to be addressed by a third party API (in this case ArchiStair), rather it's a request on our part for Graphisoft to improve Stairmaker's effeciency and ease of usability. Despite the fact that I have used ArchiCAD since version 5, I have had to use Archistair only twice. And that was because it was already on someone else's computer. Staimaker has always been suffecient for me and what I couldn't get done with it I could always get done with ArchiCAD's core modelling tools. Third party API's or plugins exist in ArchiCAD not because the pogram has shortcomings but rather to provide its users with alternative ways of doing the same things that they can otherwise achieve with either ArchiCAD's modlling tools or plain GDL scripting.

 

Besides all of which, I (nor I doubt any other ArchiCAD user), would never make a statement along the loaded lines of "project A or poject B was a 100% ArchiCAD poject". In addition to being because of the fact that one of ArchiCAD's key strengths is its easy and flawless interoperability with a host of other AEC, MEP, Visualization and Databse software, we never feel the need to work in such a vacuum in spite the fact that ArchiCAD is well equipped to carry entire pojects on it's own from concept to documentation. So whether or not ArchiCAD uses API's, plug-ins or third-party software, it's all irrelevant, as you were the one that made the "100% Revit" Statement not I and cetainly not about ArchiCAD.

 

But once again I would implore, nay, beg you to use ArchiCAD more extensively than you obviously have used it. At least then when you try to bash it you'll actually know what the hell you're talking about.

 

The energy analysis itself being done on the Freedom Tower with ArchiCAD isn't even just ArchiCAD, its a third party add-on by another company. So the limited role that ArchiCAD plays, is simply just to be a vehicle for which this other program that actually does all the work, rides on. Not something I'd be really proud of splashing all over the banner of my website.

 

Yes I imagine you wouldn't be splashing anything on your website in light of the fact that Revit absolutely lacks ANY third party API ( its an API Scott,or a plug-in if you may and not a program, which means it will only run in ArchiCAD and was consicely and exclusively designed for ArchiCAD and nothing else) to achieve the Building Energy Analysis which is why ArchiCAD was brought in; even if as only a vehicle as you claim. Bottom line - Revit isn't even a vehicle much less has the capacity for energy analysis - if it was we wouldn't even be pursuing this mode of argument . So, yes Scott, you wouldn't really be proud of splashing it because you DON"T HAVE IT to splash in the first place !!!

 

For my part I wouldn't be too proud of exposing that glaring shortcoming in Revit by tying to denigrate another software that at least has a plugin or add-on to do what Revit can't ( people in glass houses.....tsk tsk tsk)

 

The misconception that I was trying to reveal in my assertion that the project was '100% Revit' is the notion that only part of the building is being modeled/documented in Revit. Or that the project will be taken through schematics, and then the Revit model will be exported to DWG for completion. This is simply not the case. Revit will be the primary tool for modeling and construction documentation.

 

So, what lessons do we learn here today people ; we learn that saying 100% of something is NOT the same as saying it is the pimary tool (which would be more like 90 or 80 or possibly even 70%) . We also learn that we should refrain from making gross blanket generalizations about subjects ( or software to be more specific) of which we clearly have a tenuous comprehension and grasp of ( if that) at best and mostly from hearsay and third-party vicarious sources. Because that just makes you look really really bad.

 

Notice that I have refrained all along from pointing out or mocking Revit's shortcomings (other than the obvious that was brought to light in the course of this discussion - i.e. it's lack of an building model energy analysis capacity) , because unlike you, despite my having used Revit more extensively than you have ArchiCAD, I appreciate the importance of being in a well-infomed position before commenting on topics I would or or rathe should otherwise keep my mouth shut about. I also appreciate a lot of the great and unique features that Revit has which othewise culmulatively overshadow and diminish it's shortcomings, much like ArchiCAD has its own.

[Scott Davis]

Ok, so far you've proven that no matter what I say, you have a statement to make against it.

 

Particularly in light of the fact that Revit's user base is currently less that 5% that of ADT

 

Where do you all keep getting your 'numbers' from???

 

Bottom line - Revit isn't even a vehicle much less has the capacity for energy analysis - if it was we wouldn't even be pursuing this mode of argument . So, yes Scott, you wouldn't really be proud of splashing it because you DON"T HAVE IT to splash in the first place !!!

 

In my own admission to lack of knowledge about ArchiCAD, this statement above shows your lack of knowledge of Revit. Revit has the capacity to do energy analysis, in partnership with the Green Building Council. I can export a Revit model to GBXML format, upload it to the Green Building website, and in a few moments, for free, get a detailed energy analysis of my building. Yep, a third party app, working with data from Revit. Many others are doing this as well for cost estimation, material take-offs, etc. So yes, Revit does have it to 'splash.' API? Not yet....but it's coming.

 

Third party API's or plugins exist in ArchiCAD not because the pogram has shortcomings but rather to provide its users with alternative ways of doing the same things that they can otherwise achieve with either ArchiCAD's modlling tools or plain GDL scripting.

 

If they can achieve the same things in ArchiCAD without plug-ins, why use the plug-ins?

 

Waiting patiently for yet another 6000 word rebuttal.

[czoog]

I'm not getting into all this junk... it's just too much read.

 

But I will comment on the whole SOM using revit for the FT thing. I was lucky of enough to Visit SOM in late September for large firm BIM round table discussion. I was there, in NY, in the wall street office, on the 23rd floor, talking to the project architects and the Cad manager, seeing the revit model, smiling as they told me the entire schematic design set (with the exception of the drawing index which was autocad) was created with revit. I did not see archicad on any workstations nor did I here any mention of it.

 

-Z