Well.... this is a very interesting discussion. It reminds me of the not so good old days when everyone complained about buggy releases and the developers insensitivity to the users concerns and issues. "Deja Vu all over again"
For the sake of discussion, and perhaps to play the devils advocate, I feel complled to offer the following perspectiive. I only hope this doesn't get me kicked out of the discussion community.
Having been in this business for over 27 years now and having sat in on the birth of the computer age in architecture, when only the largerest firms had CADD systems and those were all primitive DOS or UNIX based OS's with monochrome CRT's, my perspective is perhaps a little different. I still remember drafting everything by hand with pencil and pen and straight edge. No one in those days spent any time at all sitting around and wishing that someone would invent desktop computers and drafting software, nor did we spend any time complaining about the tools we had to work with. Pencils are a very simple, inexpensive, and user friendly technology. Nor did architecture suffer because we couldn't model in 3D. We had lots of paper on which to doodle whatever the imagination could conceive, and experienced drafters such as myself were able to take those doodles and turn them into perfectly usable 2d drawings, usable for permits and construction - just like today.
And firms had much lower operatioing costs because they weren't constantly having to upgrade their hardware, buy new software, or spend thousands of dollars sending their staff back to school to learn how to use the new software; and as a result a firms fee structure was more realistic and approachable for the average consumer. Consultants all had the exact same technology so the process of file sharing was not an issue. And becuase the operating costs were lower, firms could afford to hire more staff and keep them around during the lean times.
Most of you who participate in this group, becuase of your age and world view, may not understanda this, but architecture and construction haven't really changed at all, only the means by which construction documents are created has changed. Yes, it could be argued that there has been progress in some areas, especially for conceptual design and engineering, but at what cost and if you look at the totallity of the AEC industry and the quality of the architecure, has anything really changed?
So what have we gained from this new technology? Maybe it's because I'm an old guy now, but it seems to me that we haven't really gained very much. We spend entirely too much time and money dealing with the technology, not to mention the added stress, and not enough time taking care of our primary responsibility, which is serving the needs of the client and the community by creating new visions for how communities look and function and how transportation systems can be improved and integrated into new communal concepts. Computers are an amazing technology and the internet is priceless, but for architecture, I think the jury is still out - or at least it should be.
For the record, I am not an anarchist or anti-technology or anti-Autodesk. I believe in progress and a better future for my children and I think that BIM will probably be a part of that future - someday. Nor do I blame Autodesk or any other software company for this dilemma. They are not malicious, they are a corporation with shareholders. We, you and me, are to blame. It's our own addiction to technology and our need to have the sexiest new toys that is too blame. Also, I suppose that naively, we always hope that the next release will be our salvation - that they will actually fix the issues - but it never seems to work that way, they just keep adding layers of complexity.
At the end of the day, we all have a choice. Software companies provide a service and a product, if we don't like that product or service, we don't have to buy it. It's that simple. Revit, as I see it is still in it's testing phase. Yes, it's being used in the marketplace, but it's quite obviously still a work in progress and many firms are not eager to jump on the band wagon, for obvious reasons.
The problems we have with this and any other software are not going away anytime soon. It's the nature of the beast. So what's the moral of this story? It is simply this... if a particular software isn't serving you and your needs, walk away. I guarantee that the pressure to show quarterly profits or the need to explain the lack thereof will get someone's attention.
Anyway, for what it's worth, that's my two cents.
Aloha,
SG.
