Revit Structure ships today (June 7, 2005)

[Wes Macaulay]

Ladies and gentlemen, Revit Structure (RS) is out of the gate. Here's some answers to FAQs:

What's different about RS and Revit Building (RB)?
RS is the same application underneath, but presents the user with different features enabled and a different toolset.

Revit Structure: what's the deal?
RS provides modeling and detailing of structure such as structural engineers require. RS works with steel, wood, concrete, etc... it's not limited to any particular form of construction, though it is aimed at the building industry (more so than civil work). Current modeling apps in the field are a chore to model with, and detailing is often done in another app. Revit combines the modeling and detailing in one app. RS provides more connection possibilities than RB, with more detailing in beam connections.

RS will export 3D linework and planes used by analysis platforms for seismic loading and other forms of analysis.

RS won't at this time be used for fabrication detailing (shop drawings), though IFC linking may tighten a connection of some kind in the future.

RS and RB 8.1 users will be able to incorporate and dynamically link shared objects between them through the Coordination Monitor, which will keep track of any shared columns, walls, grids, slabs, etc. so that if one discipline makes a change, the other will be notified once they get a new version of the other's file. Changes can be accepted, rejected, etc. as needed. This means that objects need only be drawn once, and then copied/hotlinked into the other file.

An architect who starts a project hands over their central file to the engineer, who links in the arch central file, then copies elements into their own file. Revit remembers which objects were copied in from the linked file and Coordintion Monitor keeps an eye on them from then on. Then the eng sends back his central file to arch, and the back-and-forth process continues.

It looks brilliant... stay tuned!

[BillyGrey]

Wow!

Good news, and I wish this product great success in the years to come.

bGrey

[J. Grouchy]

RS and RB 8.1 users will be able to incorporate and dynamically link shared objects between them through the Coordination Monitor, which will keep track of any shared columns, walls, grids, slabs, etc. so that if one discipline makes a change, the other will be notified once they get a new version of the other's file. Changes can be accepted, rejected, etc. as needed. This means that objects need only be drawn once, and then copied/hotlinked into the other file.

So when is RB 8.1 released? ( :roll: )

[WolffG]

I'm confused.
Is Revit Structure a separate and different product or is it part of Revit Building?
In other words, do I need to pay separately to get it?

[aaronrumple]

Yes.
And of course...

[Wes Macaulay]

Revit Structure is different from Revit Building - they're both based on the same .exe but they are different products. If you have Revit Building already I don't know how getting Structure would work.

[J. Grouchy]

I'm sure there'd be some sort of package deal if you were interested in getting both...but one never really knows with software.

[Wes Macaulay]

Looks like you can cross-grade to Revit Structure from Revit Building...

[Dimitri Harvalias]

I'm sure it will be heavily discounted for current users of RB. Rewarding loyal customers has always been Autodesk's policy in the past ...

oops, sorry. Entered alternate universe mode there for an instant. :roll:

[GuyR]

If you have Revit Building already I don't know how getting Structure would work.

My understanding is you 'import' a analysis file from Revit.structural which updates your building model.

So you don't need Revit structural to work with Revit structural :-)

Guy

[Andre Baros]

8.1? Where?

Until I get all the engineers we work with to switch, is there anything other than analysis that I can do with Revit Structures that I can't do with Revit Building? For example, is it worth getting a copy for the office just to get beams and columns to act correctly, or will all that come with 8.1?

[Wes Macaulay]

My understanding is you 'import' a analysis file from Revit.structural which updates your building model.

So you don't need Revit structural to work with Revit structural :-)

GuyNo - Revit Building and Structure work together. Everybody works on their own platform...

[Wes Macaulay]

8.1? Where?

Until I get all the engineers we work with to switch, is there anything other than analysis that I can do with Revit Structures that I can't do with Revit Building? For example, is it worth getting a copy for the office just to get beams and columns to act correctly, or will all that come with 8.1?8.1 isn't out yet... it will be out later in the summer and AFAIK you'll need RS to connect to the analysis platforms. So in RB, you'd plop in some beams, then link/import into RS which defines the connections and sizes the members, and exports them for analysis to make sure they'll hold the building up ;-)

RB doesn't do beam connections like RS does...

[ctaho]

Does RB have any features that RS does not?
Thanks

[Wes Macaulay]

Yup. For instance, RS won't do railings or ceiling plans...

[p.vicini]

i'm very curious to see how many REAL difference RS has from RB and viceversa; if yes would be the start of a new commercial age; we will see..anyway here is late on the night......you'll see earlier!!!
God night!!! :-)

[Steve_Stafford]

Wes..take a sec from twainin' and find out if there is going to be a web release?

[J. Grouchy]

Is there word on how many structural firms are on board for the initial release?

[Prodev75]

Revit Building 8.1?

I thought that the Revit 6 or 7 was the last time Autodesk was going to release the product with multiple builds or are my facts inaccurate?
Is Revit 8.1 a minor build? Major build?

Are they just fixes? Or new functionality?

Don't get me wrong I love using the software and I would like all my in house staff to stay current. But...IMHO this is moving a little towards the crazy.

Not to mention the companies that are not involved in the Autodesk Subscription.

[Wes Macaulay]

RB8.1 is a major release. I think it will have Coordination Monitor, and will offer other new features and improvements. The numbers of the product lineup will require some coordination...

Revit Structure is out now, and works with RB8.

Revit Structure 2 will release with...
Revit Building 8.1

Revit Structure 3 will release with...
Revit Building 9
Revit Systems 1

I'm also under the impression that the download page for RS just isn't up yet... I will find out if I can!

[Prodev75]

****The thoughts in my head****

Counting computers in my head…..30,31,32….
Counting computers for the Structural Engineers….7,8,9……
Ok I just convinced management to move all future projects to 8
When 8.1 comes out what happens to Revit Structures, will they work together? Or will a new release of Revit Structures release call Revit Structures 1 1/2 :)

****End Thoughts****


------Getting dizzy-------

[Prodev75]

RB8.1 is a major release. I think it will have Coordination Monitor, and will offer other new features and improvements. The numbers of the product lineup will require some coordination...

Revit Structure is out now, and works with RB8.

Revit Structure 2 will release with...
Revit Building 8.1

Revit Structure 3 will release with...
Revit Building 9
Revit Systems 1

I'm also under the impression that the download page for RS just isn't up yet... I will find out if I can!


Good show my friend

[Wes Macaulay]

I should note that the naming of the programs is unofficial. So Revit Structure 2 is just the second release of the software.

Remember that Revit Series 1 and 2 became Revit Series 8...

[Scott Davis]

I would like to see them keep the same "revision" number...less confusing!

Revit Building 9.0
Revit Structures 9.0
Revit Systems 9.0

That would keep the "what version are you on?" confusion from happening. "So you are on Systems1, and you guys are on Structures 2, so we need to be on Builing 9......"

[J. Grouchy]

I would like to see them keep the same "revision" number...less confusing!

Revit Building 9.0
Revit Structures 9.0
Revit Systems 9.0

That would keep the "what version are you on?" confusion from happening. "So you are on Systems1, and you guys are on Structures 2, so we need to be on Builing 9......"

In that case, perhaps they should just take a cue from ACAD and start calling it "Revit Building 2005"/"Revit Structures 2005"...but then, what would they do for multiple releases in the same year. So I suppose either I just had a good idea or a bad one I just talked myself out of...

[Mr Spot]

I would like to see them keep the same "revision" number...less confusing!

Revit Building 9.0
Revit Structures 9.0
Revit Systems 9.0

That would keep the "what version are you on?" confusion from happening. "So you are on Systems1, and you guys are on Structures 2, so we need to be on Builing 9......"
I agree this would be much easier for co-ordination.

[Wes Macaulay]

This is going to bring up the issue of what version of Revit people use... it will have to be coordinated right from the start.

[Andre Baros]

Or they could just add a save as Revit (insert old version here) function.

[Scott Davis]

Or they could just add a save as Revit (insert old version here) function.
If it were only that easy...."Yeah, just add it in, whats the problem??" :mrgreen:

[Andre Baros]

No, not easy, probably imposible, but maybe easier than getting all the disciplines to use the same version.

[Prodev75]

So what happens when the Structural consultant uses Revit Structures 2(name not official). And the Architectural consultant uses Revit Building 8. The Struct. consultant can't downgrade all his families. The Arch. consultant can use the Struct. file. Ouch!!!!

To make it more interesting....
Both are not on a subscription and each has a (4) man project team. Oh and....there is a lone individual (per the clients request) who will model the a few furniture items.

Does a scenario like this throw a red flag? Could it happen?

Was this a major problem with AutoCAD?

[Chad Smith]

Both are not on a subscription...
My understanding is that subscription is compulsory for Revit so the latest version will be available to all, but whether all choose to use the latest is another thing.

Ed: Autodesk, so where is the download so that we can start checking it out?

[beegee]

Revit Structural will not be available in Australia ( and most other places outside the US ) for a few months at least.

Autodesk are working on the " Get It Right In Cleveland " principle.

Of course, if you really want / need it- you know who to Kontact.


>>Ed: Autodesk, so where is the download so that we can start checking it out?

[Wes Macaulay]

The CDs shipped yeterday, I believe... so someone's getting it pretty soon!

[beegee]

Phil Bernstein said its only for US & Canadian release at present.

RS has not yet been "customised" for other markets.

[p.vicini]

will be possible download it in a testing mode??

[ilya.bass]

will be possible download it in a testing mode??

if you mean "trial mode" then yes, but not yet. within weeks or sooner I would say.

[mmodernc]

is there any reason why the structural detailing and member connectivity cannot be incorporated in ReVIT Building without the analysis package?
Can't there be an all-encompassing REVIT?

[blads]

is there any reason why the structural detailing and member connectivity cannot be incorporated in ReVIT Building without the analysis package?
Can't there be an all-encompassing REVIT?

I'd have to agree with that statement - why can't there be an all-encompassing package? And not only structures... what about energy efficientcy connectivity?

[Wes Macaulay]

I'd have to agree with that statement - why can't there be an all-encompassing package? And not only structures... what about energy efficientcy connectivity?That's an interesting thought - click Settings > General > Discipline and choose what flavour of Revit you'd like to use.

The reality is that few architectural users want to place rebar and very few structural engineers will want to do reflected ceiling plans ;-)

[mmodernc]

It was the FEW that drove Revit.

[Steve_Bennett]

I'd have to agree with that statement - why can't there be an all-encompassing package? And not only structures... what about energy efficientcy connectivity?When you can share one model, what would be purpose of have a monster program that does something for 7 different disciplines? Then you would end up with something like ABS. Do you really want that?

As far as the other fields go, I think we all know this is not something that will be forgotten about by adsk. They're going to tackle the big money major disciplines first to get the ball rolling & then move to the subs.

[bclarch]

When you can share one model, what would be purpose of have a monster program that does something for 7 different disciplines? Then you would end up with something like ABS. Do you really want that?
I think that some of the resistance to having multiple flavors of the program comes from the financial end. Those of us who purchased subscriptions in the pre-Autodesk days did so in part because we were told that our subscription dollars would go toward future development of the program and that we would benefit from this as subscribers. Now we are told that our money has been spent developing a sister program that we cannot use without purchasing it as well. I have no doubt that Autodesk has invested its own development capital into Revit as well, but I can't help but feel that longstanding subscribers are being unfairly treated to a certain degree. Many users have been clamoring for improvements to the site tools. These have been put off for one of two reasons in my opinion: programming time has been spent on the development of Revit structural or because they are holding off on the improvements because there is a Revit Civil in the pipeline that we will have to purchase separately as well. (Please note that the last statement reflects my own cynicism and that I have no actual knowledge of any plans for a Revit Civil.)

I do however agree with your point that an all encompassing version of the software would probably suffer from bloat. I also acknowledge that not every user needs every tool set. Perhaps the answer is a generous "add-on" style pricing program for Revit Building subscribers that would allow them to purchase the new flavors of Revit (whichever ones they might want or need) at substantial discounts. This would more fairly address the financial investment that they have already made in the product line.

[FK]

Now we are told that our money has been spent developing a sister program that we cannot use without purchasing it as well.
If you reuse families, ideas, whatever from Project 1 in Project 2, does Client 1 have any claims on Project 2?

I personally agree that bundling various flavors of Revit should happen with a steep discount, but I don't make prices here. ;-)

[Wes Macaulay]

Truth is guys, RS and RB have shared code. The only difference is UI. I don't know if this is the plan for the future and/or whether Revit Systems will simply add its code into the pot, or have separate code...

[bclarch]

If you reuse families, ideas, whatever from Project 1 in Project 2, does Client 1 have any claims on Project 2?
We might take their claims into consideration it if they were willing to pay a yearly royalty fee for their designs. :)


I personally agree that bundling various flavors of Revit should happen with a steep discount, but I don't make prices here. ;-)

OK everyone, vote for Fedor for CEO of Autodesk.

[BWG]

There was some talk about Revit Structure being Structure plus Building, but after reviewing how much memory they take up in task manager when both are loaded empty, I would say that Revit Building is closer to having Structure than the other way around(90k (RB) versus 20k (RS). I am glad they came out with this, now if we could get our engineers on board. Personally, I don't see any need an architect would use Structure for, unless you like modeling rebar in your concrete or you want to do some architectural engineering on something small, but this can be accomplished in RB without analysis.