Well, many of the designers in our office use Sketchup for conceptual design because they can knock out many iterations of a concept model much faster than Revit can. They don't have the constraints that exist in Revit and it provides for a much freer environment to work in at the conceptual stage. I wish Autodesk understood this and would create or enhance the conceptual modelling of Revit. If they were smart about it, they could capture another large market and enhance everyones productivity in the process.
Check it out. Perhaps not quite as nimble as SU, esp. at first--but Adesk IS listening, and the Conceptual Massing
tools have improved drastically. You can even edit in Perspective in Vasari--which is a HUGE advance, esp. when trying to convert hardcore SU users. Raster images also are displayed in 3D views in Vasari--another big advantage.
You also have Energy Analysis tools built in. Vasari saves out .rfa and .rvt files, so it works well with Revit.
Soon Vasari will knock SU out of the office. New users who don't use SU, and begin learning Vasari love it
and do not have the "SU - vs - Revit - vs - Rhino, etc" attitude.
Registered Architect/BIM Manager
Thalden Boyd Emery Architects
St. Louis, MO
Why do you prefer this forum over the ones augi has maintainted for many years?
Well for one thing I really don't like that vBulletin software. But yes they have, (or had), all the high-level Revit
experts. Here we only have a handful, (except for the employees),
of Revit experts, and I'm not one of them.
Thank god SketchUp has a completely different mentality. It doesn't matter how people use it in the offices, SketchUp has the ability to function like a very basic design tool such a pencil and paper. Vasari might catch a success in the future because of certain compatibility advantages but it cannot replace SketchUp, because SketchUp serves very different purposes: You can just play, think or mess around with it. This is something Autocad will never be able to do so.
Here is an example:
Absolutely, nothing can beat SketchUp for sketching on the computer
in 3D. More than half of architects use it. A SketchUp model can also
be rendered with V-Ray.
Does it beat a pencil and paper? That just depends on which way the
architect likes to do it.
We're and M/E/P firm making a big push to all Revit all the time, with management figuring we can just export the sheets and views, etc. to cad for our clients. I've been deep into researching what I'll be up against. I can get most of the cad output to look good, and I understand how to get my symbolic lines onto more or less the correct layers when I export.
What I'd like to know is, how do you deal with the following in terms of meeting client standards?
Generic annotation elements used to create floor plan symbol (receptacles, valves, etc) export to AutoCAD as line work, not as blocks. (Clients want blocks)
Unlike exported model elements, exported annotation elements if created correctly can be tricked onto a particular layer, but such elements do not have “Phase Status” (-D, -E, -N) modifiers which can be added to the layer name through the Revit export table to separate them in the cad drawing. (clients want items on correct layer for demo/existing/new)
If it is visible in the view it will be exported. One recommendation is the creation of an EXPORT view which displays only the elements you need exported. For example: Hide all unreferenced section lines. The alternative is going through all drawings to remove unwanted elements. (time consuming clean up)
Text must be manipulated/tweaked in the cad drawing due to differences in how the programs format text (time consuming clean up)
Revit currently exports leaders as unconnected components (client expects leaders)
Hatches and filled regions DO NOT export correctly and must be fixed manually. This includes things like the filled region in some receptacles and panels. (time consuming clean up)
Matern Professional Engineering