Revit Architecture Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Revit Architecture Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Revit Architecture topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Revit LT Comparison Matrix - Needs Improvements

3 REPLIES 3
Reply
Message 1 of 4
Chad-Smith
476 Views, 3 Replies

Revit LT Comparison Matrix - Needs Improvements

Refer here;

http://www.autodesk.com/products/revit-lt/compare/compare-revit-products

 

The matrix is good, but it is not entirely accurate. So if it could be updated with the following;

 

  • Needs an MEP Modeling heading. It's not 100% clear that there are no MEP modeling tools.
  • Needs to note that it does not support Network Licensing.
  • Needs to specifically note that there is no Beam System tool. Beams on the other hand are included and noted as such, so there needs to be the distinction.
  • Needs to specifically note that there is no Structural Foundation tool. This distinction is not clear as it notes as an inclusion 'Structural walls, floor slab, and foundation'. So it does sound as though Structural Foundations are included.
  • Needs to note that Australian Content is not included.

 

I have a problem with the Australian Content not being included, as other country content is included. The content exists in the full Revit, so why not LT? How come Australia is different with content missing?

Can someone at Autodesk please investigate why this content is missing?

 

Thanks.

3 REPLIES 3
Message 2 of 4
LisaDrago
in reply to: Chad-Smith

I agree with you on those thoughts...

 

I have had to really reiterate that it is Revit ARCHITECTURE LT.... If anything that should be added. I have had a lot of people ask me about it for the MEP side - but it is not for that.

Good thoughts...

 

and it is a bit off that ALL of the content is not there...

 

LD


If this helped solve your issue - remember to 'accept as solution' to help other find answers!
You can't think AutoCAD and run Revit.
Email: LisaDragoEE@gmail.com
Message 3 of 4
Chad-Smith
in reply to: LisaDrago

Here's some more.

 

  1. There are a few numerical footnote markers (1 to 4), which don't refer to anything in the 'fine print' at the bottom. The one I'm particularly interested in is for the Solar Studies. I have noticed that there is no Sun Path which can be displayed in the view, although you can still get accurate shadows.

  2. And why is Solar Studies noted twice?
Message 4 of 4
Chad-Smith
in reply to: Chad-Smith

Autodesk, I can't help but notice that the matrix has changed again, and this time in the wrong direction.

 

  • In-Place modelling is now noted as a feature of LT.
  • The API is listed four times. Twice it is noted as being included in LT, and twice it's not included in LT.

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Rail Community


Autodesk Design & Make Report