ACA User Surprised at Simple Things Missing in Revit

[Anonymous]

First up let me say that this is not an AutoCAD Architecture verses Revit
Thread. I am a long-time ACA user in the very earliest stages of
investigating Revit since it is being touted as THE Architectural software.
I like many of the things that I see but am left scratching my head at the
incredible "lack" of some of the simplest things.

My point in this post is an extremely simple architectural convention that
has been in use since the invention of the T-Square. It simply amazes me
that Revit's materials have just one "Cut" Style "hatch" pattern for
materials regardless if the cut is horizontal (aka Plan View) or vertical
(aka Section). This came to light when I was experimenting with a "stacked
wall" type with brick veneer on top of CMU. In Plan View CMU is shown with
double lines crossing at a 45 degree angle. Brick is shown with single 45
degree lines. Revit shows this correctly. However in a Section thru the
wall it is traditional to show the actual masonry coursing. Revit shows the
same "hatch" pattern as it does in Plan View. Tinkering "under the hood" I
soon learned that there is no other alternative. Why? Because unlike ACA,
Revit only has ONE option for showing a "hatch" pattern's "cut" whereas ACA
has independent controls for a material's cut in Plan, Section and
Elevation. Why Revit, if you are so wonderful do you lack such a simple and
basic function?

Autodesk I hope you are listening. If you want us ACA users to switch over
to Revit with it's more costly Subscription then give us the control and
functions we need and want and less hype.

DK

[Anonymous]

Sorry to hear that you are unhappy with Revit. However, Autodesk still
offers ACA and it still is a great program so you really do not have to feel
that you have to switch. The first thing you will always have to remember
is that Revit is not ACA, never was and never will be. Just so you
understand I am a practicing architect with over thiry years experience,
hand drawing/drafting, Autocad, Autcad for Architects add on, ADT and ACA
switched to Revit fours ago and haven't looked back. That's just me, I
realize Revit is not for everyone. But that's ok because you can still use
ACA or any other program that you like. I still keep up my subscritption to
ACAand use it when I am working with another firm that has not switched or
have to export my revit files into dwgs for consultants and/or when I want
to make adjustments to consultant's drawings or manufacturer'd product
drawings prior to importing them into Revit.

At scales 1/4" and below what Revit shows in section or plan for that matter
is more than adequate enough. What you will learn from working with the
program is that for wall sections and details you will end up using the the
drafting tools, similar to ACA, to create a new sections and details or
embelish an exisitng model cut sections or details. it is actually quite
simple. When I started with Revit my approach was to learn it and not try
use or compare it to Autocad. I think you will have more success that way.
There are a number of excellent books (Paul Aubin's Mastering Revit
Architecture 2009) and the tutorials and user guides from Autodesks are all
great resources as well as physical courses. Good luck.

Craig D. VanDevere, AIA


"D.K." wrote in message
news:6165064@discussion.autodesk.com...
First up let me say that this is not an AutoCAD Architecture verses Revit
Thread. I am a long-time ACA user in the very earliest stages of
investigating Revit since it is being touted as THE Architectural software.
I like many of the things that I see but am left scratching my head at the
incredible "lack" of some of the simplest things.

My point in this post is an extremely simple architectural convention that
has been in use since the invention of the T-Square. It simply amazes me
that Revit's materials have just one "Cut" Style "hatch" pattern for
materials regardless if the cut is horizontal (aka Plan View) or vertical
(aka Section). This came to light when I was experimenting with a "stacked
wall" type with brick veneer on top of CMU. In Plan View CMU is shown with
double lines crossing at a 45 degree angle. Brick is shown with single 45
degree lines. Revit shows this correctly. However in a Section thru the
wall it is traditional to show the actual masonry coursing. Revit shows the
same "hatch" pattern as it does in Plan View. Tinkering "under the hood" I
soon learned that there is no other alternative. Why? Because unlike ACA,
Revit only has ONE option for showing a "hatch" pattern's "cut" whereas ACA
has independent controls for a material's cut in Plan, Section and
Elevation. Why Revit, if you are so wonderful do you lack such a simple and
basic function?

Autodesk I hope you are listening. If you want us ACA users to switch over
to Revit with it's more costly Subscription then give us the control and
functions we need and want and less hype.

DK

[bt1138]

I think you are both correct.

Revit really does leave a lot to be desired in terms of 'drafting features' that have been standard offers in CAD programs for the last 10 years.

And yes, just go with it in Revit, don't look for things that aren't there and you'll be happier.

but-

The simplified nature of the Revit (1-file) model, and the consequent smoothness of how the whole building behaves in Revit makes up for a lot of the missing 'drafting tools'. With ADT, the mash-up of all those xref's and the reloads they constantly need, and the weak nature of the sections and elevations and so on in ADT are something that just really suck compared to Revit. Revit Schedules are totally superior as well.

If you are really using the full 3d model approach in ADT, you will likely find Revit is superior. If you are using ADT as a drafting solution, you'll be quite unhappy with Revit, that is for sure.

[vector2]

DK- why is it so hard to let go of line
drafting for architecture when you
know as well as the rest of us that
line drafting is history?

this is the computer age and things
are different..

those radio shack computers that
they started drawing lines on back
in 82 were not real computers..

and those 1982 line drawing programs
that some drafters still try to run on real
computers today are a waste of time..

sure autodesk will still sell you those
old line drawing programs, but they
are feeling sorry for you at the same
time they are doing it..

you are very lucky someone is telling
you this- because most people just don't
speak about it..

and usually they don't speak because
they figure you are in denial anyway..

there is a small window of opportunity
right now with revit because it has
changed radically going into 64 bit..

a lot of experienced revit users are
back to the beginner stages..

if you don't want to pay all that money
to learn revit- just download the 30 day
trial and learn with that.. after 30 days
if you want to print something- just
print-screen it.. and leave your computer
running and your learning projects open..

the trial is all you need for learning..

[Anonymous]

bt1138 wrote:
> Revit Schedules
>
are totally superior as well.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this
statement.

I can accomplish much more sophisticated data
leveraging/analysis

with ACD-A, than I can with
Revit.

(I do agree with everything else that's been
said, however...)

--
CoreyL
class=q0>

[Anonymous]

Well, I see my comments have either been
misunderstood or we are back to the "This program is the BEST and suck up the
fact that it can't represent a

wall section with the materials shown
correctly.  Just suck it up and send your Subscription
money."

The point of my post could not be more
simple:  Despite all the hype of "this
is the computer age and things are different" buildings are still being built
from paper--yes I said paper--prints.  No matter if we hand draft a set of
plans we still have to get them onto paper.  They need to represent the
actual building and its elements.  Doors need to have door jambs. 
Building Cross sections need to show the sectioned materials correctly--i.e.
brick and CMU in section have horizontal lines spaced vertically at 4" or 8"
nominally--not a 45 degree angled series of lines.

My point:  It's the final paper that counts,
and what is drawn needs to meet drafting standards.  Revit--despite all the
hype is lacking in a host of areas just as ACA is.  The point is that
Autodesk is the real one to blame for never--and I do mean NEVER--giving us the
tools we really need other than new icons with each release.

DK

<vector2> wrote in message
href="news:6165357@discussion.autodesk.com">news:6165357@discussion.autodesk.com...

style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">DK-
why is it so hard to let go of line drafting for architecture when you know as
well as the rest of us that line drafting is history? this is the computer age
and things are different.. those radio shack computers that they started
drawing lines on back in 82 were not real computers.. and those 1982 line
drawing programs that some drafters still try to run on real computers today
are a waste of time.. sure autodesk will still sell you those old line drawing
programs, but they are feeling sorry for you at the same time they are doing
it.. you are very lucky someone is telling you this- because most people just
don't speak about it.. and usually they don't speak because they figure you
are in denial anyway.. there is a small window of opportunity right now with
revit because it has changed radically going into 64 bit.. a lot of
experienced revit users are back to the beginner stages.. if you don't want to
pay all that money to learn revit- just download the 30 day trial and learn
with that.. after 30 days if you want to print something- just print-screen
it.. and leave your computer running and your learning projects open.. the
trial is all you need for learning..

[CTREVIZO]

One thing is Paramount; Revit's features makes Coordination less of a backbraker along with other features that can be "Automated" (not to be confused with "Automatic")

[bt1138]

Corey:

Let me re-phrase: Revit schedules work better and are much easier to work with.

That's not to say that ADT schedules can't do more things, and has more flexibly, as you point out.

In my experience ADT schedules take a lot of effort to set up, and to keep working properly once you've got a complicated project going. It does make me wonder why people often assert in this forum that Revit is for commercial and ADT more suited to Residential. From my view that is backwards. ADT has more options and flexibility, but requires more knowledge and resources to get the most out of it.

[damianserrano]

>
buildings are still being built

from paper--yes I said paper--prints. No matter if we hand draft a set of

plans we still have to get them onto paper.




That is also changing fast. Contractors are looking at the models, working with them even before the drawings hit the printer. They are looking at the objects in the model and how they can quantify and extract information from them. I am not saying that graphic representation is not important but if you just get stuck on that and how the 2D sections end elevations look like you will miss a lot of the advantages that come from working with BIM.

[bt1138]

Hi DK:

I don't think revit is 'best' by a long shot.

All of the missing things that you say are missing, are missing.

It has more to do with what your needs are.

I'm still waiting to see what we'll do at our office the next semiconductor process line project we have to do. Revit's many modeling capabilities would go unused, and we would really wonder how to get a lot of the graphics to work in Revit. And let's not speak of the revit text editor - can it number paragraphs yet?

[Anonymous]

bt1138 wrote:
> It does make me
>
wonder why people often assert in this forum that Revit
> is for
commercial and ADT more suited to Residential.
> From my view that is
backwards.

still agreeing with you!

I started getting my feet wet with Revit in a
few residential projects,

and found it to be a wonderful tool for
that.

And a lot of that preference results from the
relative *lack*

of tagging and scheduling requirements in
residential vs. commercial projects.

In other words, I used regular text-notation
vs. tags/schedules to document the Residential project.

I could do this because the overall size was
small, and still manageable to do so.

I did try to automate some energy
calcs,

with regard to % of
window/door;

and ran into issues almost
immediately.

(haven't revisited it since, but
will...)

--

CoreyL
www.cadaptation.com

class=q0>

[javiere]

Mr. David Kuhn, I am totaly agree with Mr. Craig D. VanDevere, AIA

Javier Rosero
David's coworker.

[vector2]

these are the kinds of discussions i like..
and i hope i don't offend anyone..

CAD people keep scratching their heads
and saying that revit produces 2D drawings
just like AutoCAD does in the end..

yup it sure does..

but with CAD nothing actually gets built
before those paper drawings are produced..

imagine a building completely finished
and built with all the errors and problems
found later- then imagine you could go back in
time and fix all those errors that were on the
paper- wouldn't that be nice..

and if you could do that you would save
what the NIST estimates to be a $15.8
billion annual loss because of drafting
errors resulting in construction errors
and design decision mistakes..

now suppose you could build a "virtual model"
of the building first.. and that virtual model
would be exactly like the real one for everyone
to inspect in virtually the same way they do
with the real one..

remember that the revit paper is not
produced until that virtual model has been
built- inspected and analyised by everyone..

things that look okay on paper don't always
look okay after it's built..

see what i mean?

there is an old time CAD drafter in my
family that cannot understand this and
has gone into denial over it.. lol

something happens in the human mind
that says there is only one reality and
there cannot be virtual reality that's
worth anything..

the idea of a virtual reality model of
a building that you can inspect the
same way as a real one- freaks them out..

but we are now up to 350,000 seats
of virtual reality called revit.. (they deny
that too)..

[vector2]

DK- how would you like to be the first to ride in a brand
new airplane that just got finished being built from paper
drawings? no mockup was ever built- no model was ever
built- no prototype was ever build to look over- just paper
for you to ride on.. would like to do that? would you trust
that everything the drafters put on that paper was all you
needed to feel safe in the air?

this just gets more fun everytime i run into one of these
guys..

i would just like to have one of them say something
like: gee thanks- i finally see it.. but they never do..

[vector2]

many of the 1000 construction
workers that are killed on the
job each year is the result of
design deficiencies and paper
errors..

the cost of construction errors
is in the billions of dollars..

the cost of design mistakes is
in the billions of dollars..

walking through a virtual model
first and checking for errors
won't eliminate all the errors-
but it will eliminate 90% of them..

[vector2]

"yes I said paper"

and they will keep on saying "yes i said paper" and
continue in denial until they are out of the drafting
business and don't care why..

it's an interesting mentality..

[sbrown]

The reason is the way revit handles details. You add the "detail components" into views of appropriate scale. So there is no need to have 2 hatch styles per material. Basically in overall building sections showing diag lines is fine for indicating block or brick. then in your 3/4" or bigger wall sections you will add the actually cmu or brick components as "repeating details". this lets you align the courses where you need to and utilize keynoting. Revit behaves much more like traditional drafting(hand) then autocad drafting. In acad / adt people would detail the heck out of a full building section and then just creat viewports and diff. scales for wall sections. Revit doesn't work this way, you start with the big picture, then as you do callouts to larger scales you add the detail appropriate to that scale.

Now would it be nice to have a way to assign a detail component to a wall type layer. Absolutely. Great idea for revit to implement in the future.

[OcciMO]

I too am an ACA junkie researching Revit for our firm's use. I was well aware of its advantages of having the model update everywhere. To me, that was/is a primary reason to move in that direction (aside from the fact that potential CLIENTS are now demanding we use it!?). On Day 1, I was optimistic and appreciated its power in that regard. On Day 30-something, I am still impressed with that part, but have come to the conclusion that is one of the few things that is advantageous for us. Using Revit 2010, I feel a bit like I'm back in the throes of ADT 2i. There is so much that is not included in the OOTB content, such as adjustable door swings! I've read the argument that the OOTB content is sketchy because each firm is different and need maximum flexibility in developing firm-specific content. But if there is a firm out there that NEVER has to adjust a door to 45 or 180 degrees, say "I." I'm amazed that such a common need in the industry is not built in. Since I'm new, it may be that I haven't found it yet, but it's not looking good.

In the end, I agree with DK--Revit has great possibilities, but is extremely skinny in overall development otherwise.

MarlaE

[Anonymous]

I kind of felt
way when I started with Revit some four years ago but instead of saying why
can't it do that OOTB, I said ok how can I do what I want and to that
extent it really helped me understand how the program works.  I am
coming from over thrity years of practicing architecture, started with hand
drafting, vanilla autocad and every version of ADTand ACA and now Revit and am
at the point where I can do so much with Revit I have no plans or
intentions of going back, but that is just me. Some people just don't get
it and that is fine too, that is why there are chocies. Good luck with your
Revit decisions.

face=Calibri> 

I have
attached a zip file with a tutorial from AU convention a couple of years ago. In
the tutorial it shows how to add a door swing feature. While I encourage you to
try  the tutorial you can go right the door swing part create it and add it
to any of the OOTB doors with probably the exception the curtain wall ones, they
require a little more tinkering to get them to work. 

face=Calibri> 

The below
is excerpted from the Augi.com site
href="http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=31902">
face=Calibri>http://forums.augi.com/showthrea...
face=Calibri>. I thought it was interesting.  Right now I think I am some
where around Phase Five. 

face=Calibri> 

style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 8.5pt">What
phase of a Revit user are you?
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 8.5pt">

align=center>
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">

---

style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Phase
One - Initial Excitement!!!


style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">"Holy
****! Look what I can do with this thing!"

Phase Two - First
bump

"Hmmmm...? Why won't it do what I want? That's not how I do
it in (insert other cad software here)!"

Phase Three - Creamy
Middle

mmm... things are going more smoothly,
now......mmmmm"

Phase Four - WTF stage

The family
editor "eats you up and spits you out"!

Phase Five - The
Enlightenment

Things really begin to click! You understand why
things are happening in your model, and better yet how to control them and avoid
problems. You have conquered the family editor.

Phase Six - Zen of
Revit

You have mastered nearly all things revit. You "know" what
Revit "likes", and what it "dislikes" during model construction, a sixth sense,
really. You spend your time exploring and tweaking advanced scheduling, OBDC,
external parameters, AR3. You have a template to beat all templates, families
for every situation.


style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: red; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Copyright
2003 Chris Zoog
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">.
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">

style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

<MarlaE> wrote in message
href="news:6186049@discussion.autodesk.com">news:6186049@discussion.autodesk.com...

I
too am an ACA junkie researching Revit for our firm's use. I was well aware of
its advantages of having the model update everywhere. To me, that was/is a
primary reason to move in that direction (aside from the fact that potential
CLIENTS are now demanding we use it!?). On Day 1, I was optimistic and
appreciated its power in that regard. On Day 30-something, I am still
impressed with that part, but have come to the conclusion that is one of the
few things that is advantageous for us. Using Revit 2010, I feel a bit like
I'm back in the throes of ADT 2i. There is so much that is not included
in the OOTB content, such as adjustable door swings! I've read the argument
that the OOTB content is sketchy because each firm is different and need
maximum flexibility in developing firm-specific content. But if there is a
firm out there that NEVER has to adjust a door to 45 or 180 degrees, say "I."
I'm amazed that such a common need in the industry is not built in. Since I'm
new, it may be that I haven't found it yet, but it's not looking good. In the
end, I agree with DK--Revit has great possibilities, but is extremely skinny
in overall development otherwise. MarlaE

[OcciMO]

I hear what you are saying; thanks for your input and info. I actually found that very same tutorial and then some yesterday. It's not that I expect things to work they way they do in ACA and I'm not saying I won't get Revit working the way I need it. It'll take some time. I'm just saying it's ridiculous that it doesn't include some obvious stuff. Do I expect to see my favorite light fixture symbols and have all the wall styles MY firm uses? No; I can understand needing to build a certain amount of content. Do I expect it to function so I can make COMMON adjustments plan view? Hell, yes! I just can't fathom leaving something something so basic out of industry-specific software.