Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
70% + U.S. architecture firms are 10 people or less. We are NOT using LT to transition ACAD to BIM. $260 per month price increase to full Revit is a problem. Nothing about project, or firm size, affects the need for rendering, analysis, design options, and streamlining repetitive processes.
I’m tired of watching videos on issue solving, only to realize “N/A to LT”, especially when the answer is a plug-in. I’ve seen comments from 2016 asking for API in Revit LT. The following specifically bothers me:
Advanced modeling: Per Autodesk website Global parameters “are specific to a single project file” and “leverage the power of Revit to bring improved efficiency and predictability to your project”. Sole proprietors need improved efficiency too.
Presentation and visualization: Why are In-Product Rendering, Decals, and Ray trace excluded?
Analyisis: Solar Studies, Lighting - so important for design and energy use for every project type & size
API: Without the API, we can't use the manufacturer family and material plug-ins from Bimstore. We can’t explore Dynamo.
Documentation: View filters. We need our templates to be consistent and customizable.
If cost is the concern, come up with a price between LT and full, and unlock some functions. Vectorworks is $128 per month & allows plug-ins for Lumion and Enscape. If the answer is software design, tell us so we fully understand the issues.
I’ve focused on architecture, but there are small firms in every discipline. A structural firm might need slanted columns or trusses but not rendering. Please survey your users. How we use the software & what functionality / flexibility each discipline needs might surprise you.
Autodesk could not give a hoot that you have trouble with your work-flow due to the restrictions of Revit LT. I am sure they roll their hands and enjoy the prospect that you will either go out of business or eventually buy full Revit. I think there needs to be more discussion about the work-arounds we are using to overcome these matters and where there is no work-around, lets talk about the alternative products and prices that rival the tortuous restrictions of Revit LT?
For me, its photoshop and revit LT cloud rendering? An increasingly sub-standard end-result without an excessive amount of time to polish the image in PS.
What about Revit LT to Sketch UP to VRay? What about ArchiCAD?
I’m with everyone else on this. The company I work for typically does not use Revit, but Acad. I am the sole employee that uses Revit. Therefore, I am required to purchase my own license. If I am going to use Revit. Buying the full version is out of my price range, but I can swing the Revit Lt fee and do just about everything I need but would love to have addin options. My previous employer used the full Revit so I got used to some much needed addins.
As a small practice that focuses his efforts on residential (anything from a sunroom to a pair of 8-unit buildings), it just isn't practical to have the whole suite of hyper-functional Revit products; it isn't feasible from a costings perspective, nor would I ever properly utilize even a fraction of what Revit really has to offer (*Looking at you MEP*).
I have seen other software vendors offer purchasable "node" / add-on slots to enable specific features of the users choosing which to me is great as it would generate slightly more revenue for the company and encourage retention and flexibility for their subscribers.
Think: you could have "tiers" for how "significant" the node would cost. A simple Datasmith Exporter (or equivalent real-time rendering engine sync) slot could cost +$75 / year with your subscription whereas Revit's more powerful Massing package could be +$300. The subscriber could opt for 1-year commitments (at the time of their base renewal) for each node to provide selective functionality for their specific needs and not be gold-plated with all the MEP functionality that would otherwise go unused.
My recent run-ins with Revit and Unreal Engine (UE) had me disheartened. UE prefers you use Datasmith to *both* export and import your Revit data, but because there's no online utility for Datasmith to convert your files, and that one is not natively supported in Revit, you're forced to go the *.fbx route meaning (especially with railing families) you're contending with tens of thousands of primitives which are dubious, at best to deal with.
I understand a company needs to maintain profitability and accountability to their shareholders. But having such an inflexible, and VASTLY different toolset for such a different cost doesn't seem sustainable. Many colleagues in the field who I have chatted with have all (begrudgingly) had to seek out alternatives like BricsCAD or AchiCAD to maintain survival.
I think Revit is a a great software and the LT bundle delivers (mostly) everything a small firm needs, but perhaps considering an nodal functionality could be the next best way to make a few extra bucks--it's either I stay on LT and do things the hard way (for the base price), or Autodesk generates (albeit a little) more revenue for their smaller businesses.
I don't think it's completely out of the question as Autodesk generously offers indie licenses for 3DS Max which is appreciated, so maybe a similar "qualification" could be put in place (ie: project value, firm income, etc.). Just some thoughts.
Thank you all to those that read this, and here's hoping this might gain some traction!
This would be a game changer in so many ways for a one man/small operation. I have no need for the structural and mep tools - I engage engeers for this.
LT would be perfect if I could use environment and enscape. BIMcollab pro should be baked into all Revits for seemless coordination with the engineers I work with.
I believe a bunch of people would make the move to Revit if this happened.
I completely agree with what has been said. Revit LT is more than sufficient in terms of functionality and cost-effectiveness for small structures. However, for the LT version, allowing the most commonly used plugins would be a minimum requirement. In France, Revit LT costs €630/year, while Revit is €3,396/year. For a single plugin (Twinmotion in our case), we cannot afford to pay €2,766 more! Integrating this plugin would significantly improve our productivity and efficiency. Do other users share this frustration?
Je suis tout à fait d'accord avec ce qui est dit. Revit LT est amplement suffisant en termes de fonctionnalités et de rapport qualité/prix pour des petites structures. Cependant, pour la version LT, autoriser les plugins les plus couramment utilisés serait un minimum. En France, Revit LT coûte 630 €/an, tandis que Revit est à 3 396 €/an. Pour un simple plugin comme Twinmotion, nous ne pouvons pas nous permettre de payer 2 766 € de plus ! L'intégration de ce plugin améliorerait considérablement notre productivité et notre efficacité. D'autres utilisateurs partagent-ils cette frustration ?
I totally agree with this, as the jump to the full version is not justifiable for just this. A more modest increase for a new LT+ would be snapped up by many. You could even restrict the number of plugins that could be registered to two or three.
