Poll...Revit Packaging

[Anonymous]

Forgive me for re-posting the issue....

As these forums serve the additional function of providing indirect feedback
to AutoDesk, I'm hoping to garner some support to influence how Revit is
packaged. As stated in the post "Revit Packaging Discussion," I believe that
the Revit revolution would be significantly furthered by offering Revit as a
single Revit Building/Systems/Structure/ACAD seat.
I believe this would accelerate wider cross-discipline use and acceptance of
this critical BIM software. Good for us, good for AutoDesk.

All issues raised regarding hardware requirements aside, please (if you care
to respond) start your response with YES or NO to the question: "Do you
think it would help simplify and promote wider cross-disciple use of Revit
in the industry, and some comments stating why you think so....or not.

Regards
--
David Ford

[Anonymous]

Yes.

Because, as a facility manager, I'd rather not have to buy 3 packages to
enjoy *every* feature of the drawings that I'll be receiving.

--
Melanie Perry
***not all who wander are lost***
http://mistressofthedorkness.blogspot.com/

"david" wrote in message
news:5267753@discussion.autodesk.com...
Forgive me for re-posting the issue....

As these forums serve the additional function of providing indirect feedback
to AutoDesk, I'm hoping to garner some support to influence how Revit is
packaged. As stated in the post "Revit Packaging Discussion," I believe that
the Revit revolution would be significantly furthered by offering Revit as a
single Revit Building/Systems/Structure/ACAD seat.
I believe this would accelerate wider cross-discipline use and acceptance of
this critical BIM software. Good for us, good for AutoDesk.

All issues raised regarding hardware requirements aside, please (if you care
to respond) start your response with YES or NO to the question: "Do you
think it would help simplify and promote wider cross-disciple use of Revit
in the industry, and some comments stating why you think so....or not.

Regards
--
David Ford

[Anonymous]

I second that yes!

As I am a cad manager and it would be so much easier to deal with on an
installation and management side as well as just getting more users aware of
the product. There are a lot of people out there that still just associated
revit with being an architect's tool. putting it all together in one package
would definately make some look at Revit in more of a beneficial way to
hvac, piping, electrical and structural engineers/designers than just a
fancy way for architects to do "interiors, elevations and renderings"



"melanie stone" wrote in message
news:5267905@discussion.autodesk.com...
Yes.

Because, as a facility manager, I'd rather not have to buy 3 packages to
enjoy *every* feature of the drawings that I'll be receiving.

--
Melanie Perry
***not all who wander are lost***
http://mistressofthedorkness.blogspot.com/

"david" wrote in message
news:5267753@discussion.autodesk.com...
Forgive me for re-posting the issue....

As these forums serve the additional function of providing indirect feedback
to AutoDesk, I'm hoping to garner some support to influence how Revit is
packaged. As stated in the post "Revit Packaging Discussion," I believe that
the Revit revolution would be significantly furthered by offering Revit as a
single Revit Building/Systems/Structure/ACAD seat.
I believe this would accelerate wider cross-discipline use and acceptance of
this critical BIM software. Good for us, good for AutoDesk.

All issues raised regarding hardware requirements aside, please (if you care
to respond) start your response with YES or NO to the question: "Do you
think it would help simplify and promote wider cross-disciple use of Revit
in the industry, and some comments stating why you think so....or not.

Regards
--
David Ford

[nzeeben]

While I understand the point being put up here. I hope you all understand
what this would equate to for your organizations. An end all be all package
is going to be mighty expensive. One only has to look at ABS for an
example, ABS costs more than ADT, because it contains adt and the additional
functionality. I shudder at the thought of cost on a
Building/Structure/Systems package.
Nick
"Patrick Porter" wrote in message
news:5268013@discussion.autodesk.com...
I second that yes!

As I am a cad manager and it would be so much easier to deal with on an
installation and management side as well as just getting more users aware of
the product. There are a lot of people out there that still just associated
revit with being an architect's tool. putting it all together in one package
would definately make some look at Revit in more of a beneficial way to
hvac, piping, electrical and structural engineers/designers than just a
fancy way for architects to do "interiors, elevations and renderings"



"melanie stone" wrote in message
news:5267905@discussion.autodesk.com...
Yes.

Because, as a facility manager, I'd rather not have to buy 3 packages to
enjoy *every* feature of the drawings that I'll be receiving.

--
Melanie Perry
***not all who wander are lost***
http://mistressofthedorkness.blogspot.com/

"david" wrote in message
news:5267753@discussion.autodesk.com...
Forgive me for re-posting the issue....

As these forums serve the additional function of providing indirect feedback
to AutoDesk, I'm hoping to garner some support to influence how Revit is
packaged. As stated in the post "Revit Packaging Discussion," I believe that
the Revit revolution would be significantly furthered by offering Revit as a
single Revit Building/Systems/Structure/ACAD seat.
I believe this would accelerate wider cross-discipline use and acceptance of
this critical BIM software. Good for us, good for AutoDesk.

All issues raised regarding hardware requirements aside, please (if you care
to respond) start your response with YES or NO to the question: "Do you
think it would help simplify and promote wider cross-disciple use of Revit
in the industry, and some comments stating why you think so....or not.

Regards
--
David Ford

[Anonymous]

😉 oh, don't think that thought didn't cross my mind as well, but, surely it
would be less than the total cost of the 3 packages together?

--
Melanie Perry
***not all who wander are lost***
http://mistressofthedorkness.blogspot.com/

wrote in message news:5268084@discussion.autodesk.com...
While I understand the point being put up here. I hope you all understand
what this would equate to for your organizations. An end all be all package
is going to be mighty expensive. One only has to look at ABS for an
example, ABS costs more than ADT, because it contains adt and the additional
functionality. I shudder at the thought of cost on a
Building/Structure/Systems package.
Nick
"Patrick Porter" wrote in message
news:5268013@discussion.autodesk.com...
I second that yes!

As I am a cad manager and it would be so much easier to deal with on an
installation and management side as well as just getting more users aware of
the product. There are a lot of people out there that still just associated
revit with being an architect's tool. putting it all together in one package
would definately make some look at Revit in more of a beneficial way to
hvac, piping, electrical and structural engineers/designers than just a
fancy way for architects to do "interiors, elevations and renderings"



"melanie stone" wrote in message
news:5267905@discussion.autodesk.com...
Yes.

Because, as a facility manager, I'd rather not have to buy 3 packages to
enjoy *every* feature of the drawings that I'll be receiving.

--
Melanie Perry
***not all who wander are lost***
http://mistressofthedorkness.blogspot.com/

"david" wrote in message
news:5267753@discussion.autodesk.com...
Forgive me for re-posting the issue....

As these forums serve the additional function of providing indirect feedback
to AutoDesk, I'm hoping to garner some support to influence how Revit is
packaged. As stated in the post "Revit Packaging Discussion," I believe that
the Revit revolution would be significantly furthered by offering Revit as a
single Revit Building/Systems/Structure/ACAD seat.
I believe this would accelerate wider cross-discipline use and acceptance of
this critical BIM software. Good for us, good for AutoDesk.

All issues raised regarding hardware requirements aside, please (if you care
to respond) start your response with YES or NO to the question: "Do you
think it would help simplify and promote wider cross-disciple use of Revit
in the industry, and some comments stating why you think so....or not.

Regards
--
David Ford

[Anonymous]

If Autodesk completely missed the point in selling it as an all in one
package...if they completely missed the point that they would still sell the
same number of seats for the all-in-one as they would for the combined seat
sales for three separate versions....if they completely missed the point in
cost-reduction in marketing, documentation, development, packaging,
shipping, inventory, etc, etc a single software instead of three or
more.....yes, I agree.

So...assuming Autodesk doesn't miss the point....where do you stand? Are you
a Yes or a No for all-in-one packaging?

--
David Ford


wrote in message news:5268084@discussion.autodesk.com...
While I understand the point being put up here. I hope you all understand
what this would equate to for your organizations. An end all be all package
is going to be mighty expensive. One only has to look at ABS for an
example, ABS costs more than ADT, because it contains adt and the additional
functionality. I shudder at the thought of cost on a
Building/Structure/Systems package.
Nick
"Patrick Porter" wrote in message
news:5268013@discussion.autodesk.com...
I second that yes!

As I am a cad manager and it would be so much easier to deal with on an
installation and management side as well as just getting more users aware of
the product. There are a lot of people out there that still just associated
revit with being an architect's tool. putting it all together in one package
would definately make some look at Revit in more of a beneficial way to
hvac, piping, electrical and structural engineers/designers than just a
fancy way for architects to do "interiors, elevations and renderings"



"melanie stone" wrote in message
news:5267905@discussion.autodesk.com...
Yes.

Because, as a facility manager, I'd rather not have to buy 3 packages to
enjoy *every* feature of the drawings that I'll be receiving.

--
Melanie Perry
***not all who wander are lost***
http://mistressofthedorkness.blogspot.com/

"david" wrote in message
news:5267753@discussion.autodesk.com...
Forgive me for re-posting the issue....

As these forums serve the additional function of providing indirect feedback
to AutoDesk, I'm hoping to garner some support to influence how Revit is
packaged. As stated in the post "Revit Packaging Discussion," I believe that
the Revit revolution would be significantly furthered by offering Revit as a
single Revit Building/Systems/Structure/ACAD seat.
I believe this would accelerate wider cross-discipline use and acceptance of
this critical BIM software. Good for us, good for AutoDesk.

All issues raised regarding hardware requirements aside, please (if you care
to respond) start your response with YES or NO to the question: "Do you
think it would help simplify and promote wider cross-disciple use of Revit
in the industry, and some comments stating why you think so....or not.

Regards
--
David Ford

[Anonymous]

The reality of the cost discussion is that Autodesk would probably offer a
"Crossgrade" to the new version. like if you currently only have revit
building, you can crossgrade to revit systems for less than X amount of
dollars.

It is that thought alone as to why I would rather upgrade my plain autocad
licences to the revit systems series package so that whatever direction they
take for ABS or Revit Systems, since we are are on subscrition we are
"entitled" to receive, the latest way they release either of these 3
software titles (autocad, ABS, or Revit Systems)

wrote in message news:5268084@discussion.autodesk.com...
While I understand the point being put up here. I hope you all understand
what this would equate to for your organizations. An end all be all package
is going to be mighty expensive. One only has to look at ABS for an
example, ABS costs more than ADT, because it contains adt and the additional
functionality. I shudder at the thought of cost on a
Building/Structure/Systems package.
Nick
"Patrick Porter" wrote in message
news:5268013@discussion.autodesk.com...
I second that yes!

As I am a cad manager and it would be so much easier to deal with on an
installation and management side as well as just getting more users aware of
the product. There are a lot of people out there that still just associated
revit with being an architect's tool. putting it all together in one package
would definately make some look at Revit in more of a beneficial way to
hvac, piping, electrical and structural engineers/designers than just a
fancy way for architects to do "interiors, elevations and renderings"



"melanie stone" wrote in message
news:5267905@discussion.autodesk.com...
Yes.

Because, as a facility manager, I'd rather not have to buy 3 packages to
enjoy *every* feature of the drawings that I'll be receiving.

--
Melanie Perry
***not all who wander are lost***
http://mistressofthedorkness.blogspot.com/

"david" wrote in message
news:5267753@discussion.autodesk.com...
Forgive me for re-posting the issue....

As these forums serve the additional function of providing indirect feedback
to AutoDesk, I'm hoping to garner some support to influence how Revit is
packaged. As stated in the post "Revit Packaging Discussion," I believe that
the Revit revolution would be significantly furthered by offering Revit as a
single Revit Building/Systems/Structure/ACAD seat.
I believe this would accelerate wider cross-discipline use and acceptance of
this critical BIM software. Good for us, good for AutoDesk.

All issues raised regarding hardware requirements aside, please (if you care
to respond) start your response with YES or NO to the question: "Do you
think it would help simplify and promote wider cross-disciple use of Revit
in the industry, and some comments stating why you think so....or not.

Regards
--
David Ford

[unjust]

YES!!!

my arguments for it were made here: http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?threadID=490087

personally i'd like to see this:

revit full version
revit building
-Elec package
-Mech package
-Plumbing package
-Structural package.

building would work for small projects, and for certain types of drafter seats. full version would be for coordination type folks, and people needing to comment on the building as a whole. the packages would be add ons to building effectively giving parts of full version tools to those users.

i.e. a electrical engineer has no need for plumbing or structural, but may need to add in a dimming room and a mechanical engineer will need to add in electrical power requiremetnts for the EE to feed. the EE can then power them w/o needing to own a full version.

as a side note i'll reiterate my request for a markup ability where in objects can have a postit stuck on them (i.e. flag that moused over says "$disclipine wants to move this beam 2'-0" west to allow for $problem" and for the ability to do cloud markups (i.e. draw a 3d mass of smoke that carries a note as well.

[Anonymous]

Great input. Thanks for the emphatic yes, and I hadn't thought of the Revit
/ Revit Lite option, the markup items are great as well. Would you mind
copying this same response to the .revitbuilding thread (Re: Revit Packaging
Poll) too?

Thanks,
--
David Ford


wrote in message news:5268843@discussion.autodesk.com...
YES!!!

my arguments for it were made here:
http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?threadID=490087

personally i'd like to see this:

revit full version
revit building
-Elec package
-Mech package
-Plumbing package
-Structural package.

building would work for small projects, and for certain types of drafter
seats. full version would be for coordination type folks, and people
needing to comment on the building as a whole. the packages would be add
ons to building effectively giving parts of full version tools to those
users.

i.e. a electrical engineer has no need for plumbing or structural, but may
need to add in a dimming room and a mechanical engineer will need to add in
electrical power requiremetnts for the EE to feed. the EE can then power
them w/o needing to own a full version.

as a side note i'll reiterate my request for a markup ability where in
objects can have a postit stuck on them (i.e. flag that moused over says
"$disclipine wants to move this beam 2'-0" west to allow for $problem" and
for the ability to do cloud markups (i.e. draw a 3d mass of smoke that
carries a note as well.

[unjust]

cross posted.

as a consultant i really don't *need* revit, but it makes thigns much easier. as more and mroe of the industry adopts it, it will strengthen many disciplines, and as a result improve the software as more users dig in.

while my office has seats of both ACAD and ACADLT, the majority of users are on LT because they don't need all fo the bells and whistles of full version. likewise, most architectural drafters don't need all of the electrical, mechanical, structrual and the like tools, but a few rudamentary or iconic ones are perfect.

however dicipline consultants/engineers still need the basic tools as they may need to add a wall, door, or pad for something to sit on.

now, of course, since this is all family based, it may be necessary to functionally lock out editability of extra package parts inorder to maintain the prioce seperation between releases. i.e. a switch on a wall or beam dimensioned from a wall will move with the wall(or not depending on how the beam is dimensioned/alligned) but a light user will not be able to move/edit the add on created famlies.

of course, this goes back to proper initial design in that a well built model will permit the structural changes to adapt automatically reducing redline drafting through the design process by automating those changes as the model updates.

[nzeeben]

I am a NO strictly based on the cost model that would be produced as a
result. I like the idea of the all in one, but in reality the cost model
never works. People used to like the fact that ABS came as separate
electrical and mechanical packages, but autodesk decided it was too costly
to keep separate products and people wanted all the functionality in a
single package, I have heard many people asking for them to break the
products apart again because they feel as though they are paying for
functionality which they will never use. I do understand folks would like
the ability to have everything under one roof. And no doubt as melanie
suggested a combine package would cost less than 3 separate seats of the
products as they exist today, and that is a workable model in smaller orgs.
However if I look at a large multi discipline firm they should be able to
have network seats of all those products and have a lower cost than buying
the end all be all. I know it means 3 packages to support but at this point
the support structure for each product is not inheirently different and
installs are so light weight that time isnt really and issue(Content aside,
but that will be server based). I will end my remarks by stating I used to
work in the reseller channel so perhaps I see this a little differently then
most end users. Just MHO on the topic.


"david" wrote in message
news:5268157@discussion.autodesk.com...
If Autodesk completely missed the point in selling it as an all in one
package...if they completely missed the point that they would still sell the
same number of seats for the all-in-one as they would for the combined seat
sales for three separate versions....if they completely missed the point in
cost-reduction in marketing, documentation, development, packaging,
shipping, inventory, etc, etc a single software instead of three or
more.....yes, I agree.

So...assuming Autodesk doesn't miss the point....where do you stand? Are you
a Yes or a No for all-in-one packaging?

--
David Ford


wrote in message news:5268084@discussion.autodesk.com...
While I understand the point being put up here. I hope you all understand
what this would equate to for your organizations. An end all be all package
is going to be mighty expensive. One only has to look at ABS for an
example, ABS costs more than ADT, because it contains adt and the additional
functionality. I shudder at the thought of cost on a
Building/Structure/Systems package.
Nick
"Patrick Porter" wrote in message
news:5268013@discussion.autodesk.com...
I second that yes!

As I am a cad manager and it would be so much easier to deal with on an
installation and management side as well as just getting more users aware of
the product. There are a lot of people out there that still just associated
revit with being an architect's tool. putting it all together in one package
would definately make some look at Revit in more of a beneficial way to
hvac, piping, electrical and structural engineers/designers than just a
fancy way for architects to do "interiors, elevations and renderings"



"melanie stone" wrote in message
news:5267905@discussion.autodesk.com...
Yes.

Because, as a facility manager, I'd rather not have to buy 3 packages to
enjoy *every* feature of the drawings that I'll be receiving.

--
Melanie Perry
***not all who wander are lost***
http://mistressofthedorkness.blogspot.com/

"david" wrote in message
news:5267753@discussion.autodesk.com...
Forgive me for re-posting the issue....

As these forums serve the additional function of providing indirect feedback
to AutoDesk, I'm hoping to garner some support to influence how Revit is
packaged. As stated in the post "Revit Packaging Discussion," I believe that
the Revit revolution would be significantly furthered by offering Revit as a
single Revit Building/Systems/Structure/ACAD seat.
I believe this would accelerate wider cross-discipline use and acceptance of
this critical BIM software. Good for us, good for AutoDesk.

All issues raised regarding hardware requirements aside, please (if you care
to respond) start your response with YES or NO to the question: "Do you
think it would help simplify and promote wider cross-disciple use of Revit
in the industry, and some comments stating why you think so....or not.

Regards
--
David Ford

[aaron1]

NO, From my understanding of the Revit family of products, Revit Structure was created from Revit Building, so structure might have all of the Revit building functionality as well as the added structural functionality. Essentially you may only need two programs (Structure and Systems) See

http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?threadID=461948

Reorganizing Revit into Full and LT versions would increase cost for my company since everyone would need the full functionality of there respective disciplines. If Revit is reorganized into a full version and a building version with packages, I don't see how this helps with either cost or simplification.

I say keep it the same.

[unjust]

well, via your reasoning no one ever needs to deal with issues across of the famlies of -building design- -MEP systems- -structural design- clearly that's not true in the market place. one of the main points of BIM is the ability ton integrate design and improve coordination across diciplines.

in my idea pricing would be as follows:

revit basic (building) X
modules Y (electrical, plumbing, mechanical, civil, landscape, structrual, some costing more than others)
revit full X+ 2~3*Y

in effect you need a few modules you buy them all as a price break, but if you only need one you only pay for it.

if you already need full functionality you're currently buying 3 seats of the same program with different feature packages. how is buying 1 seat more? (unless they triple the cost of a seat)

[aaron1]

I don't think my post was really clear. I was trying to cover both ideas presented earlier in the post. First idea was to have full and LT versions. I felt this scenario would increase cost for the company I work for since everyone here will most likely need some functionality, which won't be available in the LT version, so we sill be forced to buy many full versions. The other idea was having the full version and a building version and you could buy the packages you need. My opinion is that this may save some money, but the resulting program would be more complicated. I don't have a great deal of experience with the software, but it has worked well for me on a fairly complex pilot project. I would like to see Autodesk spending their time improving the functionality of the software rather than spending time on reorganization. 🙂

[unjust]

aah.

i was comign at it from a stand point where they have already created the packages functionally (systems, building, structure) except that they've bundled them by their notions of common useages.

the problem lies in that many fields have varying needs for different types of tools. i.e. as a consultant i can mark up prints and send them back, (or even pdf's) in a CAD environment, but in a BIM invironment my markups need to be picked up by another drafter in the model (i.e. if i need a mechanical room wall moved, or a wall changed to a thicker wet wall)

if i can move the wall in my copy of the model, i can then model the rest of the systems that i need to do so, and pending approval my model/markups in the model can be used.

i, however, really have minimal use (at work) for topo modeling, plumbing or mechanical, but a lot of use for structural members, electrical, and general builing modeling. currently that means i need 3 seats to *properly* do what i need to do in revit, and do so in 3 discrete programs.

i can muddle along in building just fine, but systems would make a lot of work easier, and structure would give me a lot more accuracy in schematic drawings for engineers to design final steel work from, saving everyone time, as i draw the initial structure needed in a typical fashion, and the engineer can simply change the family as needed to make it sound.

[aaron1]

Very good argument. You have changed my vote. I actually talked with a gentleman yesterday that informed me that Autodesk may be moving to reorganize the program in the manner you have been speaking of. I believe that Autodesk is currently working towards that end. Thank you for changing my mind. It is great that we can all put our heads together in this forum and share our ideas.

[Anonymous]

An open mind is a beautiful thing.

--
David


wrote in message news:5270233@discussion.autodesk.com...
Very good argument. You have changed my vote. I actually talked with a
gentleman yesterday that informed me that Autodesk may be moving to
reorganize the program in the manner you have been speaking of. I believe
that Autodesk is currently working towards that end. Thank you for changing
my mind. It is great that we can all put our heads together in this forum
and share our ideas.

[SRobbins]

Do you guys really want to give architects the ability to changing your
ductwork?


"david" wrote in message
news:5267753@discussion.autodesk.com...
Forgive me for re-posting the issue....

As these forums serve the additional function of providing indirect feedback
to AutoDesk, I'm hoping to garner some support to influence how Revit is
packaged. As stated in the post "Revit Packaging Discussion," I believe that
the Revit revolution would be significantly furthered by offering Revit as a
single Revit Building/Systems/Structure/ACAD seat.
I believe this would accelerate wider cross-discipline use and acceptance of
this critical BIM software. Good for us, good for AutoDesk.

All issues raised regarding hardware requirements aside, please (if you care
to respond) start your response with YES or NO to the question: "Do you
think it would help simplify and promote wider cross-disciple use of Revit
in the industry, and some comments stating why you think so....or not.

Regards
--
David Ford

[aaron1]

Actually, I think they would need the mech package to CHANGE the ductwork, such as size. They may be able to select the duct and move it, but the tools would not be there if the mech package is not there.

I would also like to add that on the project I have been working on that I have been able to move walls (accidentally) as well as the structural components (again accidentally), but I have been working with Revit Systems, which does not have any of the structural tools and a limited number of the building tools. I haven't been able to change anything just reposition it.

Regards,
Aaron B

[unjust]

not necessarily.

however that ties into markup abilities, and model integration.

i.e. they're going to be bring in a mech model just like the mech brings in a building model except that the mech locations are based off the buildign model. the architect can move things based on how the mech sets things up. meanign if the mech lays out diffusers at = intervals they'll scoot, but if they're laid otu at = intervals no more than 2' o.c. then a new one will propogate.