Opinions on Revit

[Anonymous]

I have the task of investigating Revit for my company. It is only been a
couple weeks of spare time running tutorials (have to work also) my initial
observation is it seems to be great for large buildings with repetitive
features. For custom residential, cut up roofs trim etc. custom windows
cornice trim all seems to be a lot of work. I really see no time saving with
Revit in that area. What would be guess of a reasonable test run of getting
the program set up and related to a 6 person staff. We have a lot of custom
lisp , can it be used in Revit?
The owner ( non cad person ) fell for that easy to learn pitch from Autodesk
reseller. Who now
quotes thousands to train the staff. It honestly took me over a year to get
everyone, myself included, on adt 2004. Thank s for any comments good or bad

--

[JeffreyMcGrew]

How does one create & manage these Devisions?

How does one create & manage how these Divisions display elements?

Can you roll two of them together or split them apart with no huge effort?

Can you Schedule agenst these Devisions, so that it's trivial to look at the differences in, say, Windows or Square Footage (or both) between two different options and/or phases?

What are Display Themes? Are they like Display Reps?

Now, take this with a grain of salt, but I already don't like the sound of this. Yet again it sounds like some abstract idea that adds a layer of complexity to just accomplish what is an everyday task. Why is it not just called 'Options' or 'Phases' and made to support those things automatically? Instead I have to master yet another esoteric tool that it's up to me to manage, it sounds like. No Thanks there, I'm too busy to chase around whatever the ADT folks thought up, even if on paper it's possible for it to be technically superior...

[Anonymous]

Still not sure why you are asking Revit users why you should keep using ADT. The ADT ng's would love to help you out.

[Anonymous]

why would I ask non-users?

wrote in message news:4873838@discussion.autodesk.com...
Still not sure why you are asking Revit users why you should keep using ADT.
The ADT ng's would love to help you out.

[john]

I understand your feelings and observations. I have been a long time user of ADT. I always disliked the program and found I spent too much time figuring out how I can make the program work for the work I was doing. I started to venture away from ADT to ArchiCAD about 4 years ago and found that to be a good experience. I was now working the design and less of the program.

Recently I converted my ADT subscription to Revit. I took an intro class to Revit this past March. By the second day I was doing the plan and model of a large residence I am designing - 15,000 sf +. By the end of the third day of class I had all the exterior walls laid out and the floor established. The house is a fairly complicated one so I can relate to your concerns. What I was able to do in those three days was way beyond anything I could do in ADT in the same time frame.

There are limitations I need to learn with Revit just like with ADT. However, if you have ADT working for you and you understand the program I would not change. There are some refinements to 2006 that are really wonderful. My guess is in the next few years we will see Revit and ADT merged.

Revit is an entirely different method of getting to the same completion line. The approach is significantly different. No more layer land or figuring out your base values for wall creation. Creating objects within the "family" groups is not very difficult for even a beginner. Much easier than multi-view blocks and the parametric is truly an experience you need to have.

Like ADT I would not get involved with this product without the commitment of training. It is the fast way to get going. And you do not need to send the whole staff. A few people at most can learn the software and train others. It is that easy.

Hope this helps.

[Anonymous]

Layers are not exactly equivalent to object styles. Although they do more
they also take more overhead to learn and manage. Also they are objects in
their own right.

Xrefs are not that close to worksets. You cannot add any object to any xref
(without changing its location) like you can with worksets.

Display reps are not equivalent to visbility states and detail levels. They
require more overhead to learn, set up and use and again they are objects in
their own right. Visibilty states are properties of objects.

Mvblocks and families are unalike because families are parametric while
mvblocks are not. Closest thing would be styles but again these are
restrictive on parameters and geometry while Revit families are completely
flexible and expandable.

Underlying much of this difference is that Revit is explicitly database
driven while ADT is not. This points to another critical issue for the
future. Revit ,with its clean ODBC export and new API, is well poised to
integrate intelligently with downstream applications while ADT with its
complex object model will require much more effort.

"Matt Dillon" wrote in message
news:4873001@discussion.autodesk.com...
OK, now. In all fairness:

Layers -
Object Styles
xrefs -
worksets
layout tabs, paperspace/model space, viewports -
views and sheets
dimstyles, text styles, table styles, -
dimension types, text/label types
display reps -
visibility states and detail level
multiview blocks -
families
reactors -
and this is a problem where?
Sheet Sets, sheet set manager, AEC Objects, AEC Dimensions, annotations for
each scale, dimensions for each scale, text for each scale, not-so-live
updates of sections and elevations, multiple xref files for multi-story
buildings, Layer Manager, fields -
and now you're just repeating yourself
not parametric -
define parametric. It is parametric, just not in the same way
not bi-directionally associative (cha-ching!) -
true
built on AutoCAD -
some see this as a good thing.

They're both good programs - but you're comparing apples to oranges.

[Anonymous]

Revit is good until you reach the CD stage. Very painful. The program is supposed to save time, but it takes 4 times as long to do anything. It also is very limited. You cant override dimensions, Elevations are inaccurate. Custom work is impossible. I have used many 3d software program and revit is the worst modeler out there. Dimensioning is very hard if you not designing a box. Revit is ok for rectilinear office buildings, but if you do anything with a curve or non conventional geometry then stick to AutoCAD.

[Anonymous]

Are you kidding me? The BIGGEST single time saver in Revit is CD's. If it
is taking you 4 times as long to do something, then you are still trying to
use Revit like AutoCAD.

It is only limited by your imagination.

You can't override dimensions because the model is ACCURATE! Unless you
have drawn it wrong. This is NOT AutoCAD, you can't FAKE anything you'd
like just to get the job done, and over-ride a dimension because something
that was shown at 3'-0" was supposed to be 30". I can fake anything in
AutoCAD to 'appear' correct, but you will pay the consequences when it comes
time to build the project! Do you think the engineers at Boeing over ride
dimensions in the models of airplanes they are working on? No, because the
consequences could be catastrophic!

Elevations are only inaccurate if you have MODELED THEM INACCURATE!
Otherwise they are an exact representation of what is to be built.

Custom work is far from impossible. All the tools are there to create
anything you need. You just need to learn how. Almost every Revit user I
know creates custom work.

Dimensioning is DIFFERENT than AutoCAD. And far more powerful. The first
building I modeling in Revit, starting back in Revit 1.0, had more curves
than straight walls, and I had no problems dimensioning it.

We don't do 'rectilinear office buildings' in our office. We do schools,
police and fire facilities, civic centers, performing arts centers, master
plans, and more. Revit has been handling these just fine.

If you want to stick to AutoCAD for buildings 'with a curve or non
conventional geometry' go ahead.....have fun figuring out how to draw that
curved wall in elevation, or cutting a section BY HAND through non
conventional geometry.

wrote in message news:4881738@discussion.autodesk.com...
Revit is good until you reach the CD stage. Very painful. The program is
supposed to save time, but it takes 4 times as long to do anything. It also
is very limited. You cant override dimensions, Elevations are inaccurate.
Custom work is impossible. I have used many 3d software program and revit
is the worst modeler out there. Dimensioning is very hard if you not
designing a box. Revit is ok for rectilinear office buildings, but if you
do anything with a curve or non conventional geometry then stick to AutoCAD.

[Anonymous]

I have been reading the rhetoric about revit v ADT for months now and have come to the conclusion that the only way to determine which is the best software for YOU, is to trial both. Design companies have different methods of operating and differing projects, so while some say 'revit is better' it may be true, but is it better for YOU?

[Anonymous]

I have a small 6 person firm and had been using the latest and greatest version of AutoCAD then ADT since the late 80's until October of 2003 when we converted to Revit. We did it across the board and 30 days later we published our first job. It was painful. We made lots of mistakes in the way we had to "force" Revit into giving us what we needed, BUT we stuck it out. The limitation was NOT the program but our skill level.

After the first 30 days, I knew there was no way we would go back to ADT. Today, our collective skill level is such that we are able to really take advantage of the program's many benefits There continue to be issues with the software, but it is evolving and improving. (I don't remember AutoCad or ADT being any different.) After 21 months, there is very little we can not now do with Revit.

The main point; however, is not linetypes or text styles or views vs. layers...all of these issues PALE, in my mind, to compare to the FUNDAMENTAL shift in designing a building 3 dimensionally as ONE OBJECT, sliced and parsed into coordinated views as if we had multiple CT scans of a structure that already exists.

BIM is here to stay. 5 years from now, there will be little discussion about this point. It is inevitable because the design process is greatly improved. The question remaining is "what do you want to spend the next 5 years learning? Tomorrow's technology or yesterday's?

"ADT vs Revit?" should be superceded by "Revit vs Archicad?". Pick either. Both are better than ADT. I chose Revit because of the strength of Autodesk and their stated commitment to Revit. The sooner the Architectural community embraces this "3 dimensional design enabling technology", the better off we will all be because of our partner's (Autodesk) ability to focus its resources.

Just my humble opinion.

[Anonymous]

well stated, thanks for that!

wrote in message news:4929250@discussion.autodesk.com...
I have a small 6 person firm and had been using the latest and greatest
version of AutoCAD then ADT since the late 80's until October of 2003 when
we converted to Revit. We did it across the board and 30 days later we
published our first job. It was painful. We made lots of mistakes in the way
we had to "force" Revit into giving us what we needed, BUT we stuck it out.
The limitation was NOT the program but our skill level.

After the first 30 days, I knew there was no way we would go back to ADT.
Today, our collective skill level is such that we are able to really take
advantage of the program's many benefits There continue to be issues with
the software, but it is evolving and improving. (I don't remember AutoCad or
ADT being any different.) After 21 months, there is very little we can not
now do with Revit.

The main point; however, is not linetypes or text styles or views vs.
layers...all of these issues PALE, in my mind, to compare to the FUNDAMENTAL
shift in designing a building 3 dimensionally as ONE OBJECT, sliced and
parsed into coordinated views as if we had multiple CT scans of a structure
that already exists.

BIM is here to stay. 5 years from now, there will be little discussion about
this point. It is inevitable because the design process is greatly improved.
The question remaining is "what do you want to spend the next 5 years
learning? Tomorrow's technology or yesterday's?

"ADT vs Revit?" should be superceded by "Revit vs Archicad?". Pick either.
Both are better than ADT. I chose Revit because of the strength of Autodesk
and their stated commitment to Revit. The sooner the Architectural
community embraces this "3 dimensional design enabling technology", the
better off we will all be because of our partner's (Autodesk) ability to
focus its resources.

Just my humble opinion.

[Anonymous]

I completely disgree with Scott Davis' last sentence. COMPLETELY.
_______________________________________________
"The sooner the Architectural community embraces this "3 dimensional design enabling technology", the better off we will all be because of our partner's (Autodesk) ability to
focus its resources."
_______________________________________________

"The sooner the world embraces Windows, the better off we will all be because of our partner's (Microsoft) ability to focus on releasing new versions and making more pfofit from us."

[Anonymous]

Care to elaborate?

johnsonwwd wrote:
> I completely disgree with Scott Davis' last sentence. COMPLETELY.
> _______________________________________________
> "The sooner the Architectural community embraces this "3 dimensional design enabling technology", the better off we will all be because of our partner's (Autodesk) ability to
> focus its resources."
> _______________________________________________
>
> "The sooner the world embraces Windows, the better off we will all be because of our partner's (Microsoft) ability to focus on releasing new versions and making more pfofit from us."

[Anonymous]

haha!

[parleyburnett]

what the.... Yur messed up. Do you trust anybody, or is everybody part of some conspiracy that's out to get you, or out to make millions? The more people using revit the better I say. I dont care if they make a lot of money making revit as long as they do a good job. The second they start slacking, Ill go somewhere else. Isn't America great that way! More people using revit, the better it'll be.

[Anonymous]

Come on! Why didn't you use Revit before it's bought by Autodesk? It's your choice if you want to pay thousands for so-called upgrades. Autodesk is not the comany it used to be, it is a big fat corporate cat now. Sorry, they care more about their profit instead of the quality of their products.
On the contrary, Autodesk, MS, and Adobe are doing things americans don't want to see.

[Anonymous]

Actually it wasn't Scott's words...but the quote from the post above...

[Anonymous]

I apologize for misquote

[Anonymous]

"....fancy renderings/ walkthroughs and sections ..." from Revit???
Did they ever look at renderings/ walkthrougs and sections from other programs? So far I haven't seen a single rendering out of Revit that could be described as high-end. They all look like from amateur uses. Sorry you cannot credit Revit for everything.