Site Tools

[Wes Macaulay]

Bill, you have no idea about how Revit is developed, or the bright, creative people who are behind the software. Revit's main limitation is manpower and time. It takes time to develop, code and test features, and you rant on about how Autodesk doesn't listen, etc. They test tools exhaustively until they feel they are ready for the rigours of daily use by all the twisted minds that will be using the software.

And if you want to be part of the solution, start a definition of a feature, put it in a wish, and see what the rest of user community thinks. Otherwise you are becoming a sideshow to the rest of the group whose emotions don't get in the way of polite dialog.

[zenomail105021]

Hi Wes,

And I thought I was being a realist. Just making the point that Revit has to take the initiative. Can't do that for them. Statistically, these wishlists don't seem to fire them up. Late in the game, and all that. Really surprised we don't already have good site tools. Bright? Personally I just don't see it although it is a good program. Creative patchwork maybe. No offense, but my definition of bright goes to the original developers. In any case, I apologize for the vitreol if it is interpreted it in that way. Really nothing personal against the personalities behind Revit. Doesn't help us users much but perhaps they are doing a Hurculean job in face of a defiant and entrenched program code. If that's the case we're doomed.


Bill Maddox
Maddox Builders, Inc.

PS Hardly any of the wishes get done anyway. And you are right I don't have any idea how Revit is developed. Not my job. But, I do pay for the program and I expect more than what I feel I am getting at this point in time (decent site tools for instance). I doubt I am singular in this observation. Hopefully things will change for the better. Revit 2008 was an improvement though. Kudos on that.

By the way, I was pretty busy up to a few months ago and really didn't look at these Revit forums much for quite a while. Since getting back (don't worry I'll cool it) I have noticed an increased melancholy in these posts regarding the future of Revit. Just my observation.

[Wes Macaulay]

I am a little surprised that we don't have more site tools, either -- but it's a thorny issue, developing tools for a piece of software for architects, and then the architects unexpected wanting tools used for civil design. I wonder if internally Autodesk is pondering the exposure of architects to liability, plus interoperability with Civil3D -- or maybe how frustrating it would be for civil engineers when Revit's site tools come out and they're so much easier to use than theirs

Any new movements towards the melancholy are the result of new and existing users who don't realise how thankful we deserve to be. Much is missing from Revit, no doubt -- but look what we can do that we could not do a couple of releases ago. Supposing ArchiCAD or Triforma was leaving Revit behind, and it was obvious that development was not keeping up to competitors: then truly we would have reason to be upset. The ranks of Revit users continue to grow as people discover that despite its faults, Revit is the best BIM platform out there.

[zenomail105021]

Wes,

I believe you are right. I think Revit has come along reasonably nicely since (I guess it was 7 when I came on board). It does the job. I'm no lawyer but I don't think it is the business of Revit to determine our liability. That's our problem. Besides, I design and build custom homes and I feel it is a serious obligation on my part to make the building work to the site. Hey, you want a sideshow, you should hear me play the violin. I've been at it 15 years and still can't get it. Just no talent!

Bill Maddox
Maddox Builders, Inc.

[jhstroebel]

Heres the solution... Revit Site or Landscape or Civil...

Gear a product for the landscape architect that looks and works like revit with 3d modeling features for the world that they work in (topography, parking, planting, retaining walls, landscape stairs, simple drainage, curbs, sidewalks/paths, etc.) that is able to integrate with the architect's model as Revit MEP and Revit Structure work now.

Autodesk's Civil products are behind the curve... years ago the manufacturing division transitioned from the AutoCAD based Mechanical Desktop to Inventor (parametric). Now the architecture division is transitioning (the product has been there for awhile, but its really only catching on big time in the last 2 years or so) to parametric/BIM modeling. Civil products still sit on AutoCAD. This is the perfect product to start that shift.

Just a thought... put the civil knowledge from those developers with the knowledge from the Revit developers and pump out a much needed product/set of new features and be able to justify the time and manpower in the bottom line.

[Wes Macaulay]

Revit isn't designed for the huge coordinates of civil engineering projects. There are no plans to ever create a civil engineering flavour of Revit.

[AP23]

Revit isn't designed for the huge coordinates of civil engineering projects. There are no plans to ever create a civil engineering flavour of Revit.

Wes, can you give us a general explenation for what you think Revit Architecture is designed for? This will prevent many frustrations in the future.

[knurrebusk]

Is this a joke!
Revit not intended to deliver site tools at all?

[TroyGates]

Is this a joke!
Revit not intended to deliver site tools at all?

You didn't read what Wes said correctly. He said there will never be an entire separate program called Revit Site (or something similar). This doesn't mean that the site tools won't be improved upon sometime in the future.

[Wes Macaulay]

Wes, can you give us a general explanation for what you think Revit Architecture is designed for? This will prevent many frustrations in the future.

Over the years, reading posts from the developers, it's been clear that Revit is designed for projects within a two-mile diameter of the Project Coordinates origin. That's not to say that you couldn't link larger projects together, but since civil projects may range on for many miles, Revit would not be the right choice.

While Revit is able to create small building components like basic sinks and faucets, it's not designed for objects so "micro" in scale; its focus is more "macro" on the building itself. You'd use Inventor to design a faucet, but Revit will display it. You could design bacteria in AutoCAD -- it can go to such a small scale. Revit is focused on objects larger than a goat and smaller than a planetoid, and obviously designed for buildings. We'll get our loft tool so we can do all buildings in Revit someday. Oh wait, except for those ones requiring NURBS