Revit Architecture Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Revit Architecture Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Revit Architecture topics.
abbrechen
Suchergebnisse werden angezeigt für 
Anzeigen  nur  | Stattdessen suchen nach 
Meintest du: 

Call for Revit 2.0

24 ANTWORTEN 24
Antworten
Nachricht 1 von 25
tnievesP53K8
1627 Aufrufe, 24 Antworten

Call for Revit 2.0

I remember my first time using Revit. It was Revit 2012. It was a buggy mess, but man was it flexible as far as 3D modeling for architecture. Now, 12 years later, it seems as if Revit is where it should have been then. A bit cleaner, features like filtering names, advanced search, and other common missing features are finally in Revit. There is finally even a Dark mode! However, fundamentally, you could have packed most of the last 12 years of updates into 3 years and it still wouldn't have felt like it advanced too fast. The truth of the matter is, Revit feels dated, unintuitive and clunky, and this comes from an avid Revit user and enthusiast who is in charge of Design Software at my firm. For years I've thought about what a good replacement might look like. I even have a notebook with dozens of improvements and diagrams. However, as much as I think the AEC needs a new player and real competitor, the truth is, the industry is already so reluctant to change, that I think the only competitor for Revit will be a "Revit 2.0" from Autodesk.

 

I can easily write a long novel here about the many cool improvements I see it needing, but here are a few key points

  • A "from the ground up" 3D modeling platform that uses all the power from a pc and maybe even the cloud and can model more efficiently.
    • A blend of mesh and vector modeling that utilizes the strength of vector based modeling, and still be versatile and easy to manipulate late mesh models.
    • I would really look to unreal engine for some insight into real-time  rendering and it's latest features like nanite and lumen and see how something like that could help make Revit able to handle more elements smoother than ever. I feel like unreal could benefit from Revit for architectural elements, while Autodesk can benefit from unreal with more efficient and immersive modeling.
    • An open format, something easier for moving between software and building other tools upon. 
    • A from the ground up underlying visual scripting system, (dynamo meets unreal blueprints basically) that allows for BIM managers to really customize the experience and designers to really have ultimate flexibility. There is a lot of efficiency lost by not allowing this, as most firms will rather spend time finding workarounds every project, then try and do things how Autodesk thinks they should be done.
    • Easier manipulation tools, for example, rotating, scaling, moving, and copying should be easy and intuitive (probably having multiple ways to do each is good). Most 3D software has a contextual handle that lets you easily work in 2D or 3D and move, or rotate elements locked to an axis or freely.
    • More contextual menus close to the mouse pointer, less greyed out elements. More ways to customize the layouts and add things.
  • Smarter families, like way smarter. I would honestly like to see this be a collaboration between epic and Autodesk because I think both industries could significantly benefit off a more universal set of assets that are more flexible. I'll dig into that later.
    • Ability to have an object have changeable parts more intuitively (natively). Currently the 'Family Type" option is too open ended and not intuitive. There needs to be ways to contain what parts can be changed and a way for Revit to recognize what family is being used as the type so it can be better used in formulas. For example, a door could have multiple panels, hardware, and accessories, and Revit should have a way to only allow a user to choose a door panel in the door panel dropdown, and not just anything with the category. Additionally, shared families tend to complicate this further when brining something into a project. 
    • A way to see each type's images so you can have a visual of any differences, especially when a family has changeable parts.
    • A visual way to manipulate parameters. (an image of the door for example, where a user can click on the frame or door panel in the properties Dialogue and choose options for it like changing panels or adding accessories.
    • Powerful LOD tools that don't require you to make several versions of a family to dumb it down, instead, maybe AI can do it. In 2D drawings, an object shouldn't be heavy and should render all 3D elements as 2D in the view so masking regions and lines don't need to be added to a family just to make it run better in these types of drawings.
  • Built in, clear to use and understand maintenance tools. While some functions may remain to only be for BIM managers, they should still be quick and easy to use and relay.
    • Reports should be easy to modify and explain to users. They should help paint a clear picture why it's an issue and what would be better for the software. There is still disparity on what issues are really important issues and what are simply best practice issues. The software should have a good diagnostics toolset to help make it as clear as possible what is going wrong, where it is, what is the recommended action and if there is a recommended limit, what that is. 
    • Reports should also have customizable rules and checks for company best practices and this should be easy enough to edit and modify quickly by BIM managers.
    • Issues in the model that may cause performance issues, should be marked as such,
    • elements with duplicates overlapping should have an easier way of fixing them
    • "showing" an issue shouldn't require a specific view to be open. other tools do this much better.
    • built in visibility finder. I believe there is an ideate tool that already does this somewhat, but it really should be built in for as much as this software costs.
  • A ground up platform that integrates tools across the AEC, including review tools, concept design tools, and analytical tools. Issues and markups should live inside the project in a way easy to see and track collaboratively. Standards and templates should live in a layer that makes it easier to transfer across projects.
  • More insight from firms, maybe always having some form of communication between BIM managers at firms, and teams that actually make or determine changes. This is the front I think would be too hard for a small newcomer to compete. Autodesk has scale, It just needs to have a more clear line of involvement from firms interested. (they have gotten better over years)
  • More Accessibility options like glowing highlights, semi-transparent focus modes (ability to pick an area to focus on and make everything us temporarily fade, similar to how a design option works), text sizing for more elements across the board, visual cues and popups for elements that help find things easier or see more about them without having to search through menus.
  • New interactive elements that can be placed in views or on sheets. These can be used by reviewers, BIM managers and designers to help communicate or coordinate in a variety of ways, or make changes easier, but can easily be hidden from printing (or shown if desired). I have several examples of how this might be useful if anyone's interested!
  • much better text, including the ability to constrain, stretch with constraints, and add smart data that can change automatically (sheets, spec references, links etc.)
  • a way to track and highlight changes, so that users can still be aware of them whether they are since last login, added by a manager, or changed automatically based on other changes.

Sorry for the book, I have a giant list of many more things I could add. Might find a better place to be more thorugh and organized and link that in here at some point, but I tried to keep to overarching things. Ultimately something from the ground up that is more intuitive and runs smooth would be a big start. I find it near impossible to keep designers constantly thinking about "best practices" when  modeling as "Time" always ends up being the reason things get ignored. However, if issues are quicker to find and the software was more intuitive and able to handle more while also accounting for the fact that many designers aren't here for the technology aspect of the job, then it would much better! Obviously there needs to be more effort from designers to try and better follow practices to reduce performance and size issues, but to be fair, most design software outside of Revit there isn't nearly as much of a concern about major performance or stability issues based on "modeling" correctly. Maybe more day to day designers can chime in, but I think the software needs to get more out of the way for designers, and be more customizable and easier to manage for BIM managers. Ways for other teams to work behind the scenes too (like managers reviewing sheets and marking them up in semi-Realtime would be helpful too, especially if some quick things could simply be edited on the fly). 

Beschriftungen (4)
24 ANTWORTEN 24
Nachricht 2 von 25
RSomppi
als Antwort auf: tnievesP53K8

TLDR because this should be in product feedback or break it down and try the IDEAS forum. Maybe even a white paper but not here in a user help forum.

 

Good luck.

Nachricht 3 von 25
HVAC-Novice
als Antwort auf: tnievesP53K8

The problem isn't really that Revit needs to be a new software. Autodesk just needs to put in resources and implement many of the common-sense ideas from the ideas forum.  If Autodesk creates your Revit 2.0, it will linger the same way Revit 1.0 does and it will take decades to make acceptable. 

 

Autodesk basically is trying to sell as many subscriptions with the least development effort. This is a theme with all Autodesk products, like ACC etc.

 

You basically need Revit to be bought by a better company than Autodesk. 

Revit version: R2025.4
Nachricht 4 von 25
blank...
als Antwort auf: HVAC-Novice


@HVAC-Novice wrote:

You basically need Revit to be bought by a better company than Autodesk. 


/thread

Nachricht 5 von 25
Tom_Kunsman
als Antwort auf: tnievesP53K8

Autodesk has already stated that they do not intend on rebuilding Revit from the ground up. I have often wondered who Autodesk talked to when they bought Revit and started developing it. 

 

Hopefully the Open Letter helped some, and the Roadmap at least gives us an idea on where the program is heading. 

If you find my post interesting, feel free to give a Kudo.
If it solves your problem, please click Accept to enhance the Forum.
Nachricht 6 von 25
tnievesP53K8
als Antwort auf: HVAC-Novice

This is probably very true. I'm just not sure it's old programming can
continue to handle the demands of 3D. Maybe what I'm thinking is less of a
new product and more of a major new iteration, like how Unreal has Unreal 4
and Unreal 5. Essentially enough of a change to help improve its
performance and underlying capabilities but not start fully from scratch. I
am not quite sure how flexible the programming for Revit is because its
innovation seems to function at snail speed; it's hard to tell if it's
capable of any major improvements.
Nachricht 7 von 25
RSomppi
als Antwort auf: tnievesP53K8

I tried to read this again and couldn’t get past the first couple of sentences before my eyes got glazed over. Pretty much the same feeling I got when reading that “letter” mentioned earlier. It seems like an over the top demand for “simple improvements” without any appreciation for the reasons why Revit is designed the way it is. For most people there are a number of “ah ha!” moments when the bigger picture comes into focus and a lot of things suddenly start making sense. Revit is capable of some amazing things and even more so when used in a multi-platform environment. If you aren’t happy with certain aspects of Revit, add more tools to your arsenal. Revit is only a part of the process. If you don’t feel that it fits all of your needs, then find the tools that you need. Revit can probably work with then in some aspect.

 

Your “Revit 2.0” probably won’t be what you picture it to be and will require a huge learning curve rather than an extension of your current knowledge.

Nachricht 8 von 25
tnievesP53K8
als Antwort auf: RSomppi

Thanks for your reply. I mean I’ve been using it for 12 years and
definitely consider myself an expert. However many designers don’t want to
be experts in it and record underlying framework as a whole seems dated and
too slow to adapt. Besides over 12 years and being basically the only
program yniversal to 3D architecture nationally, you’d think 12 years the
program would not become unstable after 500mb file sizes and with more
clients wanting facilities models and higher LOD requirements, revit needs
to not struggle when someone makes too many model in place elements.

Please don’t misunderstand, I fully appreciate what Revit does, but I have
used a lot of software and am a design manager for over 200 staff so I see
the little struggles and efficiency drops and I feel like Revit can do way
better than it is. No one can say Revit is intuitive or the best it can be,
and that’s coming from an avid user and enthusiast. I guess I just see its
potential and incremental tiny updates for expensive prices seems like
wasted potential.
Nachricht 9 von 25
HVAC-Novice
als Antwort auf: tnievesP53K8

I don't know much about programming besides having an appreciation that it is harder than a regular person may think.

 

But after seeing the disaster of ACC that was developed by Autodesk I have zero faith that company could make a good product. At least Revit was developed by a different company and one product. that way Autodesk couldn't screw it up. 

 

If you don't know ACC, it is multiple modules (cost, build etc.) and each developed by different teams. It is a very fuzzy UI and if you do one function developed by one team, it will be completely different than the rest of ACC. and if you think Revit has some loose ends and "not yet working" features, you should see the ACC features that totally not work at all, or only work on certain devices. And their server/network infrastructure is horribly slow and not always reliable. So yes, Autodesk should not be in charge of a Revit 2.0 or a Revit in a cloud-based manner. 

Revit version: R2025.4
Nachricht 10 von 25
tnievesP53K8
als Antwort auf: HVAC-Novice

I agree. (And haven’t realized those ACC issues but we are moving fully to
ACC soon so that sounds fun…)

In all honesty I agree. I think Autodesk isn’t the company to really
revolutionize on revit and I can’t imagine it working well in the cloud
because again, I feel like its infrastructure is too outdated and I’ve only
ever seen it run buttery smooth on a 4k desktop…

The problem is how can anyone compete? In general I find architects are
super reluctant to technology change. Even getting them to update revit
versions can be tough. No large enough company has the desire to compete
and no small startup that might be ambitious enough (which I’ve seen a
couple) has the notability and money. Competitors like archicad, chief
architect or microstation can’t compete unless maybe they all combined to
one and made something that was more industry wide.

I’d say maybe a big kickstarter, but even then… Architects only make
aggressively medium income and combine that with reluctance to change,
(even if many designers are always frustrated with revit) it would likely
flop. However, I can’t help but see a ton of potential that could have
major impacts on workflows. So I feel like it needs to happen somehow, but
how?
Nachricht 11 von 25
HVAC-Novice
als Antwort auf: tnievesP53K8

In design software used in an industry that requires collaboration between companies, the incumbent is King. 

 

If one company always does 100% of the design with their own staff, they could switch. But that is rare. Most designers outsource some of the design (MEP, structural etc.).

 

It would be very impractical to change. The alternative product would have to be very excellent and inexpensive and easy to learn right out of the gate. 

 

A hypothetical Revit 2.0 should be web based and always be on the most recent version for everyone. That would remove part of the pain with different versions, and different platforms (Macintosh etc.).  I'm not sure if there are browser limits to have all the tools that an "installed" software has. 

 

 

Revit version: R2025.4
Nachricht 12 von 25
mhiserZFHXS
als Antwort auf: tnievesP53K8

I dunno, getting an email from our Autodesk reseller yesterday that subscription prices are going up nearly 8% makes this seem like a justifiable ask! Do we get it? Doubt it. Does that 8% go towards improving Autodesk's development teams? Doubt it.

Nachricht 13 von 25
HVAC-Novice
als Antwort auf: mhiserZFHXS

Those additional 8% go to development, and the original 100% go to profit :leicht_lächelndes_Gesicht:

 

If someone reports that the entire Revit development team consists of 3 people, I would not be surprised. 

Revit version: R2025.4
Nachricht 14 von 25
mhiserZFHXS
als Antwort auf: HVAC-Novice

I can't remember what the number was, but someone from Autodesk said they have some number of development teams with some number of team members dedicated to Revit, and that number seemed very high for the lack of improvements Revit gets.

Nachricht 15 von 25
HVAC-Novice
als Antwort auf: mhiserZFHXS

They probably add the 997 marketing people to the 3 programmers to come up with a 1000 person team. 

 

I'm curious, does anyone know how many users/subscribers there are? That would give us a clue how much they could actually do. The thing with software is that user base really matters since developing a product for one person cost as much as for a million people and "production" cost of additional licenses is near zero. 

 

That is why I think a competing product would require tons of capital upfront because you need it to be very good right away to attract a very large user base right away. Probably won't be profitable for years. A new competitor couldn't do it like Autodesk did with ACC to start with an unfinished product but already rake in subscription fees for years before actually finishing the product.

Revit version: R2025.4
Nachricht 16 von 25
mhiserZFHXS
als Antwort auf: HVAC-Novice


@HVAC-Novice wrote:

 

That is why I think a competing product would require tons of capital upfront because you need it to be very good right away to attract a very large user base right away. Probably won't be profitable for years. A new competitor couldn't do it like Autodesk did with ACC to start with an unfinished product but already rake in subscription fees for years before actually finishing the product.


The best thing that could happen would be for the US government to actually do its job and break up all of these big tech companies. Split Autodesk into at least two companies and both have full rights and access to their core programs. Whoever develops it more at a better price point gets the customers. The competition would theoretically drive the advancement of the software while keeping prices manageable.

Nachricht 17 von 25
blank...
als Antwort auf: mhiserZFHXS


@mhiserZFHXS wrote:

I dunno, getting an email from our Autodesk reseller yesterday that subscription prices are going up nearly 8% makes this seem like a justifiable ask! Do we get it? Doubt it. Does that 8% go towards improving Autodesk's development teams? Doubt it.


Time to vote with money? Archicad was once top dog of the industry, no reason it can't be again.

Nachricht 18 von 25
mhiserZFHXS
als Antwort auf: blank...


@blank... wrote:

@mhiserZFHXS wrote:

I dunno, getting an email from our Autodesk reseller yesterday that subscription prices are going up nearly 8% makes this seem like a justifiable ask! Do we get it? Doubt it. Does that 8% go towards improving Autodesk's development teams? Doubt it.


Time to vote with money? Archicad was once top dog of the industry, no reason it can't be again.



Switching to a program in the hopes that it might begin to approach the capabilities of Revit would be foolish for a business. Revit has the market share because its the best. But the profits that come with that go toward profits rather than the improvement of the program. So its been largely stagnant for years.

 

So as I said before, these monster tech companies need to start getting split up. That is the only thing that will save those who rely on these companies from exploiting us with predatory practices like subscription based services for things that have no business being a subscription.

Nachricht 19 von 25
blank...
als Antwort auf: mhiserZFHXS


@mhiserZFHXS wrote:
Revit has the market share because its the best.

Do you work in Archicad also? If yes, what do you find is lacking compared to Revit?

While I have no experience with Archicad, I have no difficulties doubting that it's the best. In Europe Revit and Archicad are basically at a draw, so I'm guessing one is not all that much better than the other. Also, that was the conclusion of every Revit vs. Archicad Youtube video I've watched.

And another guess, that Revit industry standard position has a lot more to do with Autodesks position in the industry, marketing, "tradition" (going from Autocad to Revit).

Nachricht 20 von 25
Mike.FORM
als Antwort auf: tnievesP53K8

Apply to the Revit Preview Program. There are 100s of users who actively give feedback and input into the current development items and give direct suggestions to the Autodesk development team. You have access to monthly Revit Preview Builds to test the features being worked on and give feedback based on the experience.

https://feedback.autodesk.com/key/LHMJFVHGJK085G2M

Sie finden nicht, was Sie suchen? Fragen Sie die Community oder teilen Sie Ihr Wissen mit anderen.

In Foren veröffentlichen  

Autodesk Design & Make Report