It was the FEW that drove Revit.
Printable View
It was the FEW that drove Revit.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by bladams
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.
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.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve_Bennett
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bclarch
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. ;-)
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...
We might take their claims into consideration it if they were willing to pay a yearly royalty fee for their designs. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by FK
OK everyone, vote for Fedor for CEO of Autodesk.Quote:
Originally Posted by FK
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.