AutoCAD Architecture General Discussion

AutoCAD Architecture General Discussion

Reply
Distinguished Contributor
JayMoore
Posts: 159
Registered: ‎09-10-2007
Message 11 of 15 (112 Views)

Re: Is it worth getting the Autocad Architecture??

11-21-2008 08:36 AM in reply to: LeaAllenDesign
Both of these BIM programs have major pros and major cons. The pro on ACA is its AutoCAD base but at the same time that is its con. The pro of Revit is it not AutoCAD based but at the same time that is a con for it as well. Without question AutoCAD is the worlds leader in efficient and timely 2D construction document development. Yeah, I know AutoCAD can now show 3D views but it has no intelligence attached to that data so that puts it out of contention for us.

Yet both programs are greatly hindered by their "hybrid" quality of trying to appease the build gods of commercial and residential standards. That is a very difficult task to do. Just because they both build structures does not mean they can use the exact same software, process and get the results they require. In my opinion, the greatest contributor to Autodesk customer loyalty and support is that we have all been rolled into one solution and that just does not work. What works great in commercial situations does not have the same effect for residential. Commercial has months to years to develop a project. Residential has weeks, days and sometimes only hours to complete projects.

So back to the main question at hand. For our residential work we find ACA to be the best solution because it is based on AutoCAD. This allows us to continue to create the same 2D docs quickly and efficiently. ACA also has the "foundation" for BIM data but never achieved full status for our needs because it lacked items to allow us to create a full model and docs in a timely manner. But that con lead to a pro for ACA because it has a wonderful programmers interface that allowed us (and many other organizations) to custom build solutions to take ACA from its base to a fully functional BIM solution. So we can utilize ACA 3D objects, still access and complete our 2D data without leaving our BIM environment and when we need a quick detail (that does not require 3D intelligence) we can quickly knock that out with AutoCAD.

From our experience with Revit we found the model capacity to be very good. It (just like ACA) was greatly lacking in many residential functionality and while the roof object is a bit better than ACA slabs it still was lacking for many of the complex roofs we come across. The biggest problem for us was when it came to the 2D documents. It seemed every time we could get to about 80% completion on docs in Revit but to finalize them we would have to jump out of Revit and finish the work in AutoCAD. This does not make any sense as you just broke any intelligence that was between the Revit model and now the 2D AutoCAD docs. Then if we had a quick detail we needed to complete you have to make a "family". I get it, once it is done one time you don't have to do it again but there is no access to the family editor programmers interface so we had no way to automate any work so creating family after family for something that takes a few minutes in AutoCAD again does not work for our timeline. It killed our revenue return and timelines to the customer.

So that's my 2 cents from our experience thus far. If you only design and have no regard for 2D docs (or other downstream users that need to access and edit those docs) and are not focused on the economics of your production time then Revit is certainly worth your time for a look. If you still share 2D data with downstream users (subs, etc.), want to access robust 3rd party products, and have tight economics to adhere to then AutoCAD and ACA are still the king of the jungle. In my opinion of course :smileyhappy:

Thanks
Jay
Distinguished Contributor
cadman009
Posts: 336
Registered: ‎12-17-2003
Message 12 of 15 (112 Views)

Re: Is it worth getting the Autocad Architecture??

11-21-2008 09:24 AM in reply to: LeaAllenDesign
Oh, I get it. You're an AutoCAD Architecture salesman, aren't you? (jk) :smileyhappy: But seriously, thanks for the info!
Distinguished Contributor
JayMoore
Posts: 159
Registered: ‎09-10-2007
Message 13 of 15 (112 Views)

Re: Is it worth getting the Autocad Architecture??

11-21-2008 12:46 PM in reply to: LeaAllenDesign
Actually I can sell both ACA and Revit I just have the luxury to push the best one for the customers needs not because I get a bigger discount on one or the other. But the previous input is from our architectural services research into the best solution for service work. And as I always say gather information here then do your own testing all the way through.
Active Contributor
gt1000
Posts: 41
Registered: ‎09-23-2008
Message 14 of 15 (112 Views)

Re: Is it worth getting the Autocad Architecture??

11-21-2008 06:50 PM in reply to: LeaAllenDesign
I have been rolling through some test project with revit, after using ADT for the last few years. We did fully implement ADT, 3d, scheduling, PN, etc. We got most of it to work and were pretty happy with it.



Revit on the other hand is totally more organized and efficient in places that ADT will just never manage. The single file structure allows for the most elegant no-fuss integration of model, plan and schedule, which all works very well. That is a 100% win for Revit. A lot of what works well in Revit works really well, much better than ADT will probably ever manage to.



But Revit seem to have a more limited 'tool set' for a lot of the production sort of work that real projects can run into. Like the odd fact that there is no coordinate system available. You know that the coordinate information is in there, but you can't see it. So there is not support for the most basic coordinate entry, or even relative entry from the keyboard to set a point. There are other similar omissions and missing tools that have been a part of any CAD program since 1980. I think the Revit notion is to make a clean break to 3d and BIM. But there are a lot of things that are more graphical and or diagrammatic in a set of plans. The text tools in Revit are just really primitive. I still have not found the fence stretch type command, and I don't think it is in there. There is a lot like that in revit.



So in the long run, I'd like to see Revit Acquire some of the drafting, graphic and analytic tools that are the strength of good old CAD. That would be the ideal package.



for now, both programs seem to be not quite what we'd like. But we are never happy are we?
*Nathan
Message 15 of 15 (112 Views)

Re: Is it worth getting the Autocad Architecture??

11-22-2008 04:16 AM in reply to: LeaAllenDesign

Thanks for offering a refreshingly honest review of
both programs.

Personally I have been working on the one file
approach in ADT (something that visionrez have down) for smaller
projects.


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
I
have been rolling through some test project with revit, after using ADT for
the last few years. We did fully implement ADT, 3d, scheduling, PN, etc. We
got most of it to work and were pretty happy with it.

Revit on the
other hand is totally more organized and efficient in places that ADT will
just never manage. The single file structure allows for the most elegant
no-fuss integration of model, plan and schedule, which all works very well.
That is a 100% win for Revit. A lot of what works well in Revit works really
well, much better than ADT will probably ever manage to.

But Revit seem
to have a more limited 'tool set' for a lot of the production sort of work
that real projects can run into. Like the odd fact that there is no coordinate
system available. You know that the coordinate information is in there, but
you can't see it. So there is not support for the most basic coordinate entry,
or even relative entry from the keyboard to set a point. There are other
similar omissions and missing tools that have been a part of any CAD program
since 1980. I think the Revit notion is to make a clean break to 3d and BIM.
But there are a lot of things that are more graphical and or diagrammatic in a
set of plans. The text tools in Revit are just really primitive. I still have
not found the fence stretch type command, and I don't think it is in there.
There is a lot like that in revit.

So in the long run, I'd like to see
Revit Acquire some of the drafting, graphic and analytic tools that are the
strength of good old CAD. That would be the ideal package.

for now,
both programs seem to be not quite what we'd like. But we are never happy are
we?
Announcements
Are you familiar with the Autodesk Expert Elites? The Expert Elite program is made up of customers that help other customers by sharing knowledge and exemplifying an engaging style of collaboration. To learn more, please visit our Expert Elite website.
Need installation help?

Start with some of our most frequented solutions or visit the Installation and Licensing Forum to get help installing your software.