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
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).
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.
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.
@HVAC-Novice wrote:You basically need Revit to be bought by a better company than Autodesk.
/thread
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Those additional 8% go to development, and the original 100% go to profit ![]()
If someone reports that the entire Revit development team consists of 3 people, I would not be surprised.
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.
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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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).
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.
Sie finden nicht, was Sie suchen? Fragen Sie die Community oder teilen Sie Ihr Wissen mit anderen.