topic Re: ARCHITECTURE Vs. REVIT in AutoCAD Architecture Forum

ARCHITECTURE Vs. REVIT

alhabi — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:47:59 GMT

Dear Autodesk,

I am an architect that has been working with atuocad for over 15 years, now i am having a chance to work with BIM software and fund that there are two main software that I can choose in between. "Atuodesk architecture" and "Revit". When I have asked around a lot of people told me that Revit is better and easier but you need to learn it from scratch and it doesn't have cad tools, while architecture is cad based and you can build your model from scratch up using the cad tools with addition.

I ususally design my projects from concept to 3d to 2d drwings in autocad. I am told I cn do the same thing in architecture only easier in 3D and you can use it as BIM. While revit has a totaly different approach.

- In a nut shell should i use architecture or Revit?

Some few questions will help me decide

- does revit have autcad tools such as lines, layers, dimensions.... or similarties or do i have to export it to autocad and do the 2d drawings? another words if i use revit do i need autocad anymore or there is no need for it.

- Can I render the projects in very good high resolution? and can i animate in Revit?

- Can i draw anything in Revit, like i can in autocad.

- Can i export revit to 3dsmax easily or there are limitations.

- Is Architecture software dying so there is no point to use it?

- Or there will be a development of Architecture software where it becomes as easy as Revit ( as i have been told it is much easier to work with Revit)

I need your help and answers to help me decide which direction to go with.

Best regards

AL-Hasan Bin Ali

Re: ARCHITECTURE Vs. REVIT

ntellery — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:23:48 GMT

If you upgrade to Autocad Architecture you can continue exactly as you are and learn as you go as ACA has all autocad has plus more although ribbons are rearranged or missing (you can restore. You can even open package as autocad.
If you upgraded to Revit you will be lost without autocad and wont be able to open your autocad drawings.
If you upgrade to a suite that has Revit Arch, Autocad Arch you will have everything but it will cost you more.

Not a user of Revit here but you can do everything in Revit, just lots of users are more familiar with Autocad for details. Autocad is more mature drafting package.
Yes you can render in both. Revit is possibly a little easier but both use same render package.
Yes both export to 3dsmax in fact have 'link' function.
ACA is not dying. It's based on Autocad which will not die for many years.
I do mainly resi / small comm using ACA. I always model everything and render as well. Renders are decent but not highend. It can do higher than I go but if you want highend you might as well use 3dsMax.
ACA does BIM but adesk promote Revit as their BIM package. Some Revit tools are more advanced but ACA is very flexible.
Revit would be Adesk's focus but there are many users of ACA still and they are still developing it.

Re: ARCHITECTURE Vs. REVIT

ntellery — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:26:48 GMT

Sorry, just a little more. The Suite with the lot will allow you to continue as you are while learning Revit on the side until you are confident enough to start a project with it and continue your existing projects in autocad. Like many you may continue to use autocad for details for.

Re: ARCHITECTURE Vs. REVIT

pendean — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:36:26 GMT

REVIT is about objects, not lines: you create Walls, Dors, Floors, Roofs, Ceilings, Light Fixtures etc. and you "build" it in the program before you send it out to a contractor to, well, build it for real. You can generate 2D Construction Documents from that model and add notes etc., it's all part of the same package. REVIT is all encompassing, it's designed for our business, you'll never need to use AutoCAD/ARCH with it for anything at all. Ever.

Why don't you download REVIT and try it? Free for 30-days, it will answer all of your questions right on your PC right i front of your eyes.

YouTube has lots of videos to get you started.

Re: ARCHITECTURE Vs. REVIT

alhabi — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 03:48:11 GMT

Thank you ntellery so much for the info. It puts thing in perspective. One more question is there a way to communicate with the ACA. Thanks.

Re: ARCHITECTURE Vs. REVIT

alhabi — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 03:51:23 GMT

Thank you pendean so much for the info. I will try to have ago at Revit. A one more question can I transfare a file between both revit and cad.

Re: ARCHITECTURE Vs. REVIT

ntellery — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 03:52:37 GMT

Not sure what you mean.
There are several programing languages from Autolisp to more complex.
ACA / autocad was more open than Revit but Revit is starting to expose it’s innards to programming.
VisionRez is a specialist add-on to ACA for residential work that has now been brought across to Revit.

Re: ARCHITECTURE Vs. REVIT

alhabi — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 06:30:42 GMT

I meant the team that is working on the development of "AUTODESK ARCHITECTURE". I want to ask them if they are working to find away to make BIM in the program as easy as the one in revit or better. also if they make rendering better.

Re: ARCHITECTURE Vs. REVIT

David_W_Koch — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:54:09 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
Thank you pendean so much for the info. I will try to have ago at Revit. A one more question can I transfare a file between both revit and cad.

That depends on what you mean by "transfer". Revit can export DWG files. DWG files can be linked into Revit (or imported, not a good idea, generally). Most people will tell you that the best workflows keep all of the work in one or the other, however.

Note that AEC objects in AutoCAD Architecture drawing files (Walls, Doors, Windows, etc.) cannot be read by Revit, so if you really need to link in a file that contains AEC objects, you will need to export that file to AutoCAD (from a viewpoint that shows what you want to see in Revit) to explode it down to AutoCAD objects that can be read by Revit. Note also that exports from Revit, while nominally plottable "as is" from AutoCAD and, possibly, usable as background reference files, will require an amount of post-export processing to get them to be "editable" as a CAD file moving forward. I have found that even for use as a background file, the DWG files exported Revit require post-export processing. I would highly recommend having the entire project team on the same platform.

Re: ARCHITECTURE Vs. REVIT

Anonymous — Thu, 11 Jun 2020 04:49:40 GMT

The main problem with Revit is that a small business may waste their time with it. Some small businesses have to do all the works from Civil Engineering/Surveying to Architecture and they do not need the full range of bells and whistles of BIM while Revit is considerably less optimized and powerful for almost any kind of CAD work that resides outside building information. It should be also stressed that EVEN PLAIN AUTOCAD can in effect do some "BIMing" because you can take full advantage of Fields and Dynamic Blocks among other things.

Re: ARCHITECTURE Vs. REVIT

alhabi — Thu, 11 Jun 2020 14:38:37 GMT

Thank you for your response. I am still working with AutoCAD architecture hoping it will develop more.

Re: ARCHITECTURE Vs. REVIT

magnus.enstromBIM — Tue, 08 Jun 2021 09:06:12 GMT

I'm reviving this thread once more. I am curious as to what made you choose AutoCAD Architecture instead of transitioning to Revit, 6 years ago? And what make you stay in AutoCAD Architecture instead of using Revit?

Regards

Re: ARCHITECTURE Vs. REVIT

ntellery — Wed, 09 Jun 2021 03:24:05 GMT

I was notified of your comment as to me but it appears you've asked the original poster.

I'll give you my response as well.
I am still using ACA2020 which does mostly what I need it to do. My reasons to stick with ACA was that it does everything Revit does anyway so why pay more, take a big hit in training, reworking my whole setup, libraries, process etc which would mean a big financial hit, just to change programs so I can do what I do now. Revit gives me nothing extra. Not really. There needs to be a strong reason and it ain't there.
I've got off the bandwagon (no paying any sub) and will stick with ACA2020 for years to come. I will focus on the holes and tighten the workarounds, add some programming options . Every new release brought new bugs so now I won't have to contend with the new broken bits giving me nightmares. Autodesk has not improved ACA substantially for 10 years although there are a couple of small features that are nice. Not enough to pay more than $10,000AU for since that's more than the cost of the whole program.

They now give ACA away in Autocad. Hopefully that means more people will use it.
Autodesk deliberately dumbs down the rendering tools and while it's gone thru a number of reworks, they never really got it together and it's hobbled so as to not compete with Max but that's a stupid thing to do. It's a hodgepodge of broken bits from different eras.

I am now investigating free Blender which is far more powerful, and importing into Unreal engine or it's architectural derivative TwinMotion for rendering, sun studies and easy walkthru's. They are fast at manipulating 3D, far more powerful and a pleasure to use over Adesk which is like trying to get an elephant to sit in a child's chare without breaking it. Lumion even created a tool bar within Autocad that exports file formats that 3D programs use, something Adesk could easily have done but refused because they won't play with others, whilst crippling their own products.

ACA2020 is graphically slow and cumbersome, but Revit is not much better IF. My local industry is strong on ArchiCAD so if I were to start over I would possibly use it but it's over $10,000AU for 1 seat if you include local content etc. to get started. Blender now has free tools to create arch components but obviously not suitable as a full on Arch package (at least not yet). Sketchup has long been used as a very competent arch tool.

For me, Adesk has failed big time to meet current expectations and they have deliberately penalized me for their own marketing purposes and they have lost me as a loyal customer. But I am a single seat and they don't care.
I do like using ACA and I have customised to be efficient but it's failed on the extras side of things. It's atrocious for walkthroughs (embarrassing level) and it's rendering is now a decade behind. They even crippled what I was doing easily in ADT6 and ACA2016/17. Imagery plays a big part in winning clients over and offering to the market. Adesk failed. I'm done.

Re: ARCHITECTURE Vs. REVIT

alhabi — Wed, 09 Jun 2021 14:02:23 GMT

My experience is based in autocad since 1991 then came autocad
architecture. I am trying to use it as it is a step up from my experience.
While when Revit came out it was limited. Then when I tried to use it I had
to go through the start from step zero. And I wasn't able at that time to
find professional support in my Region, to teach a step by step course from
the start of knowing the app then the drawings ( as a drafter) ,..... ,
move to conceptual level ( as a designer) .... , rendering level ,
documentation level , printing and plotting. So I went back to autocad.

Today I discovered one of the features of Revit is having the dark theme
which really is much better than the white theme. One more thing need to
check, is the capability of drawing curved or tensile structures that can
help to design futuristic smooth curved or tensile architectures.