Create a new version of Revit from scratch, with competent developers.

[fruity101079]

Our current PCs are powerhouse machines capable of incredible calculations, yet Revit lags unbearably. No optimization is done, and no performance improvement is possible in the current state of things. The software wallows in its own mediocrity, and Autodesk does nothing to change that.

I always hear the same advice: reduce file sizes, split buildings to use less memory, etc... But actually, no. It’s completely illogical.

Would you tell a video editor to reduce the resolution of their video files so the software can handle them?

Would you ask a graphic designer to use fewer colors because Photoshop is lagging?

Would anyone ask you not to exceed 60 km/h with your new car because it would start stuttering?

A professional software like Revit, which has a monopoly and is so expensive, should work properly. Users shouldn’t have to adapt.

A 1 GB file is nothing exceptional today; we are asked for more and more data, so it’s normal for file sizes to increase.

Here, every day, Revit crashes because it can't convert a slightly too large IFC file, for example.

If I read correctly, the software still runs on a single core while our CPUs have at least 8. The capabilities of graphics cards are completely unused (as proof, it’s often recommended to disable hardware acceleration, which is absurd...). It's still run on DX11.

Should we just keep quiet and accept it?

Maybe a lot more clients should complain to Autodesk because the situation is clearly abnormal—and it has been for decades. We are tired.

We should coordinate, maybe for a week, so that everyone calls the hotline, just to overwhelm their useless customer service and express our dissatisfaction—maybe then they’d finally do something instead of resting on their laurels and cashing in checks. (A competitor is really needed to shake things up.)

[CEdwardsUN5MX]

It's coming up to 25 years since Revit was first released, way back in 2000.

It was bought in 2002 by Autodesk, for $133 Million (2002), which would be $236 million in 2025. Wikipedia's blurb on the subject says "The purchase allowed more research, development and improvement of the software. " 

That may have been the aim, and possibly even true, initially, but beyond the usual marketing BS about 'roadmaps' and so on, it is pretty clear that Autodesk and now engaging in what increasingly is Rent seeking behaviour:

"Rent-seeking is a concept in economics that states that an individual or an entity seeks to increase their own wealth without creating any benefits or wealth to the society."

Autodesk justify this of course, demanding an ever greater a percentage of profits from using its software, from those doing the work, and dismissed the cost as low back in 2020 when numerous firms kicked up a fuss.

We never see of course, what profits are extracted specifically, but the 2024 results filed by Autodesk https://investors.autodesk.com/static-files/c8b18520-59fa-478b-b665-2fb51c45062f indicate the AEC sector of which Revit is a part, had a Net revenue of a mere:

$2,580 Million in 2024

$2,278 million in 2023,

$1,969 million in 2022

Autocad and LT, which have seen far greater progress in development, brought in only:

$1,462 million in 2024,

$1,387 million in 2023, and

1,244 million in 2022.

Total Net Revenue was:

$5,497 million in 2024.

$5,005 million in 2023

$4,386 million in 2022

For comparison, as Operating expenses:

Marketing and sales:

$1, 823 million in 2024

$1,745 in 2023

R&D:

$1,373 million in 2024

$1,219 million in 2023

General and Admin:

$620 million in 2024

$532 million in 2023

The operating margin was

21% in 2024

20% in 2023

14% in 2022

The non 'generally accepted accounting principles' operating margin was

36% in 2024

36% in 2023

32% in 2022

Anyway, it would seem that profits are on the up, Net revenue increased by 13% in the AEC group, between 2023 and 2024, and by 16% between 2023 and 2022.

R&D expense was increased by 13% between 2024 and 2023.

It's pretty clear though, Revit is now a mature software package (such as it is), and is unlikely to get more investment, which is only going to go elsewhere within the company. The major refresh that it increasingly needs, isn't going to happen, when sales are coming along quite nicely, and marketing is very clearly a priority over R&D, outspending it by 32.7% in 2024 and 43.2% in 2023.

Autodesk will continue to get away with token upgrades, and customers will still buy the software, because everyone else in the English speaking world is doing so, and it somewhat integrates with Autodesk's other offerings.

Just expect more marketing nonsense about listening, roadmaps, and so on. It's what the marketing people are paid to do, and paid more to do as a sector of the firm than the R&D sector is, which is what we mere users of it would like to see, but which is simply not going to happen.

[NB, not defending the company, it deserves to be excoriated for its practices in the market in which it holds a near-monopoly]

[Simon_Weel]

Maybe a lot more clients should complain to Autodesk because the situation is clearly abnormal—and it has been for decades.

And they did. See Autodesk AEC customers demand better value - AEC Magazine and OPEN LETTER TO AUTODESK

And Autodesks response: A Reply To Our Customers’ Open Letter On Autodesk Revit | Autodesk News\

IMO Autodesk isn't in the game to please customers but to please stakeholders.

[CEdwardsUN5MX]

"And Autodesks response: A Reply To Our Customers’ Open Letter On Autodesk Revit | Autodesk News\"

Carefully phrased corporate speak there, talking a lot, but promising nothing.

The 'Investment' is rather less than the spend on Marketing, so I guess the response shows how well that works, in that they still have customers complaining, as they still haven't really provided much more than token improvements instead of the functionality users have been begging for.

No doubt Autodesk think they have a problem with 'messaging', still.

[mhiserZFHXS]

Subscription based service is a cancer in the tech-world. Autodesk already had essentially a monopoly on BIM software before. Now they basically get to force us to buy a new version of Revit every year regardless of what updates they provide. They have ZERO incentive to invest any more into their product beyond minimal updates every year. They know we need their product. They know they can charge whatever they want.

The US government needs to do their job and actually apply anti-trust laws to the tech industry. This is not unique to Autodesk and Revit. Doubtful that this happens in the next 4 years, but after that, maybe.

[CEdwardsUN5MX]

@mhiserZFHXS 

https://www.myarchitectai.com/blog/revit-alternative 

[mhiserZFHXS]

I'm not familiar with many of those. I know Archicad. But the fact that they have Rhino listed as an "alternative" makes me question just how valid those other "alternatives" are.

The single best solution to all of this would be to force Autodesk to split into two companies which both have the rights to all of their software as is. It is then up to those companies to set reasonable prices and/or provide actually meaningful updates to their software. They need competition. That is the entire premise of capitalism. The system doesn't work without competition.

[fruity101079]

@CEdwardsUN5MX 

The software listed in your links is mainly intended for architects.

Revit, however, is used by many other technical trades.

[CEdwardsUN5MX]

@fruity101079 

The Mechanical and Electrical teams I work with use it too, but the Piping designers I work with don't use it, they use Plant3D, which doesn't integrate well with Revit (or so I understand), which creates problems with our workflows anyway.

We also work with other Architects, who use Revit but whose methodology doesn't work well with us either.

If everyone waits for the perfect solution, then there is no reason for Autodesk to change from their current approach of 'you'll get what you're given, and like it'.

And that is the problem, there is no competition with Autodesk, so no incentive for Autodesk to change from what is a quite lucrative business model of forced obsolence requiring forced upgrades, paid for by recurring fees, with zero oversight of how that is doing much more than charging an excessive rent in a monopoly situation.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy 

[Krzyszt0f]

A terrific idea, but that has failed to rouse the beast repeatedly. Deaf to complaints, disinterested in innovation or ideas of which these forums are filled, and nothing really changes aside from more tweaks and addon services that only service a niche.

Rebuilding from scratch would break a lot of compatibility, in every aspect. Perhaps the only viable solution lies in developing a rival product.