Revit CAD guys?

[Martin P]

Just out of interest, how many others using Revit are not Architects? Am I in a large minority being an Architectural/CAD technician (if thats what you even call it now??) using Revit? I dont really see Revit as being such a huge change in my job as opposed to Autocad - other than making it easier to make changes to drawings and do them far quicker. Also being more involved ensuring documentation tallies between drawings and specs etc. I know a lot of Autocad users locally in engineering and architectural firms that are (Auto)CAD technicians, I really dont see that role disappearing with Revit? Do you think I am wrong to assume this? will Architects become happy to produce schedules, specs, GA's, Details etc etc because of Revit or do you think the role of the Architect and the technician will both change as opposed to the role of the CAD tech dissapearing - this seems to be the situation in my office, the Architects are getting to (and having to) spend more time on site etc etc than in the office producing drawings and documents - as the drawings and specs etc are coming out far quicker than they ever have before, and more of them. Infact we are probably producing drawings etc far quicker than we can actually get things built. I dont know exactly where that situation is going end, but here we are slowly getting further away from finishing projects on paper than we can get them in the ground. Our problems occur not now in producing drawings, but running things once they are on site and ensuring we keep track of all the diferent projects. We can get lots finished on paper, the time is more of an issue once they are on site, and ensuring all documents are up to date (drawings, specs, drawing issue registers etc,etc) . Is this a similar thing elsewhere? I think the the CAD technician is going to become more of a "document technician" as well as producing the drawings, or is my office different because of its size? (2 architects that draw and go on site , 2 Architects that deal on site only and 2 technicians that produce documents only)

[Griff]

I'm with you Martin. I'm an Architectural Designer but not an architect. I've used Ketiv's Arch-T, and ADT for years. I enjoy my job so much better now that I'm using Revit. I don't see my work cutting back because I'm not a licensed Architect. I've got tons of work to do and it just keeps growing. There is definitely a market for Cad operators in the wonderful world of Revit. I too am curious how many Revit users are not Architects

[mnisbett]

I'm with you guys too. I'd like to know who are Revit CAD technicians also. I'm a teacher using Revit in our CAD program along with AutoCAD, ADT, LDD, VIZ, Inventor, and photoshop. The people graduating from our program are primarily getting jobs as technicians using AutoCAD, or ADT. I personally believe that the Revit technician will be needed more in the near future. Most of the architects I've spoken to say they still don't have the time to do their own drafting, so I think in our area the CAD technician will still be needed for the distant future.
Even though Revit is a great program I think that other programs are still going to be needed to supplement it, such as AutoCAD, VIZ, and photoshop. <and others> This makes it more difficult for architects because they obviously have enough to keep themselves busy. Dedicated technicians are busy as well, but it's part of the job description to keep up to date with the latest and greatest. Keep up the great work!

[Wagurto]

I also agree with you guys. I am not a license architect yet. I provide cad services for several architectural offices here in south Florida. Definitely, architects are only interested in design according to my experience. They do not want to know about CD, reading codes, of worrying to match dealing with spec's and schedules. I think, software, including Revit, are so distant yet of eliminating a cad technician. Maybe in a future programs will read the thought of the architects and visualize them in real time, but for now it is a matter of science fiction.
Long live cad technicians!

[beegee]

I'm an architect and I worry about design, but I also love doing my own drawings using Revit.

Maybe if I only had some other program, I wouldn't want to do that, ... but at the moment I get the best of both worlds using Revit ( as mentioned in this thread (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=11110))

[essdubbya]

I'm not an architect but a landscape designer. I chose Revit to communicate design ideas more effectively. However since purchasing a heap of expensive survey equipment I now find that I am producing base-plans for Revit architects saving them some of that site time and allowing me to turnover jobs far more quickly. No more stroking the egos of Mr and Mrs Smith. Ah - peace at last.

[SCShell]

Hey there,

Put me down with Beegee. I'm an Architect who loves to design; however, I love all of the "other" stuff mentioned above. In fact, I do all of my own CD's, specs, code review, consultant coordination, Development Plans, all zoning related work (which, here in Tucson, is a lot!) and I do a ton of consulting work for other architects, attorneys and developers/owners relating to real estate law, condemnation, site research, variances and zoning violations.

I can tell you this, I hated CAD from time I learned my first program which pre-dated Autodesk. (Back in 1983, Bruning and Graphic Horizon Perq systems were the bomb!) I never ended up using any program when I went on my own in '87. Did it all by hand until I discovered Revit in July '03 with v5.1. I truly believe that Revit will eventually find it's way onto everybody's hard drive who works within the building industry, no matter what they do or what they are called.

Steve Shell
Architect

[tjk0225]

I am an architect, and I enjoy producing my own drawings in Revit.

The biggest change I see is that, with Revit you have to understand how a building goes together. You can't 'fake' anything in 2D like you can in AutoCAD. I have worked with CAD technicians that can crank out plans, sections, schedules, etc. but don't really comprehend what they are drawing - it is just lines on paper. CAD Technicians that understand how buildings go together and communicate the intent on a set of drawings will always have a place in an architect's office.

[narlee]

I'm a residential designer. Prior to that I spent 20 years in (mostly) commercial general contracting, but eventually returned to my first love. If I didn't have 3 kids taking up my time and money, I'd have gotten my license by now. But, in residential you don't need it, so I suspect my acquisition of it with dovetail with a desire to do commercial stuff (but only if it's interesting and/or pays big!!).

Geof Narlee.

[ajayholland]

Just out of interest, how many others using Revit are not Architects?

Just change it to the lower case character! I'm licensed to practice architecture in California. In my experience, many people outside the profession do not differentiate between those with some type of certification and others who play supporting roles in the business (we're all architects).

I've met many people whose abilities I esteem, and who would qualify to be registered or licensed, but whose circumstances led them in other directions. With the increasing complexity of projects, no one person can master all the knowledge that is required for their completion.

I also believe that Revit will become the de facto standard in the profession, in spite of the problems that arose when we went that way with AutoCAD. As Phil Bernstein related, together with the construction industry, our profession must change or sacrifice its role of leadership in the building construction process.

~AJH

[gbrowne]

Martin P! I am an an "Architectural CAD technician" in Glasgow and I agree the role of the tech. is changing, as I regularly use not just Revit, and AutoCAD (for historic established projects), but I also use Illustrator , photoshop, premier, etc etc. In addition to the design software, we are on the brink of implementing Buzzsaw, which will be another thing I will be pretty much running. It would be interesting to hear what people say about that, about its pro's and con's..

I for one welcome this change in workstyle as it makes my day way more interesting. I read this thing one time about if you find one area of your work more interesting than the rest and want to do it more, you should work you *** off at that thing, and sooner or later you will find that you end up doing that thing more. Well thats how I ended up using revit and the other cool software.

Also I work for a building surveying company doing architecture, and have found that they seem far more aware of financial constraints on a project than many architects are. They seemed to have stripped away the "smoke and mirrors" approach to design that architects seem to love, and get the job done. We do a lot of office fit outs and sheds. I agree that its not cutting edge design mostly, but the majority of clients can't afford that anyway..

My tuppence worth.

[blads]

I'm an award winning (refer thread (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=10843)) building designer who loves to design using Revit in addition in doing all the "other stuff" previously mentioned above like, CD's, specs, development plans, solar shading plans, etc predominately in the residential sector.

[Roger Evans]

An opportunity waiting to happen there Blads

For my own part I've worked the full list .. I call myself an Architectural Designer because I am not fully qualified .. it bugs me occasionally .. maybe one day I will find / create the time to qualify but In the meantime I'm just an overloaded one man band doing everything.

I set up in 1992 & had very little inclination to use CAD until Revit (& yes I admit I was a dedicated hand drafter till then) ~ I think I signed on in the 2nd week of using Revit (which should speak for itself). Since then Revit's speed of development has amazed me.
There was an interesting article in this weeks BD "looking into the future"
www.bdonline.co.uk

[Martin P]

Martin P! I am an an "Architectural CAD technician" in Glasgow ...Revit, and AutoCAD (for historic established projects), but I also use Illustrator , photoshop, premier, etc etc....
I for one welcome this change in workstyle as it makes my day way more interesting..... We do a lot of office fit outs and sheds. I agree that its not cutting edge design mostly, but the majority of clients can't afford that anyway..




Glasgow eh? good to know Revit is making it into Scoltand - more opportunities for a Revit CAD Tech :) (which is basically why I started this thread, I want to know if I am in a safe position) - I agree using Photoshop, Autocad, Revit and even things like excel all make for a far more interesting and varied job for technicians. I pretty much set my sights early on that I wanted to be doing a lot of 3D work and photoshopping - which I now do and am very happy to do this. I have spoken at length with my boss about whether to do my degree in Architecture as a distance learning course and we both pretty much came to the conclusion that the job I do right now is the job I want(ed) to be doing. I like to spend my day pretty much focused 100% on the drawings/renderings and the associated work with that - I have no desire at all to spend time at meetings or dealing with clients, or writing specs etc. So I have decided to stick with what I am doing... (Prince Charles should read this thread!!)

Others have pointed out a Revit Technician needs more of an understanding of building construction, which I agree with to a point (I would point out that Revit gives you a better understanding in many circumstances). But as an Autocad technician or even working on boards in my area, you still need a very good understanding of building construction - there isnt really anyone round here who is a draftsman or a tracer, but I dont think there has been for a long time.

[gbrowne]

Ha! Thats funny you mention that about it being not interested in the paperwork, thats exactly the conclusion I arrived at! I like drawing, or modelling now I suppose, I would much rather be doing that than doing minutes for a meeting!

[Chunk]

Hey Martin, in our firm we have 1 architect who is a prinicpal in the partnership, 4 design architects (2 who are associates), 10 architectural technologists, 2 interior designers and 1 interior design tech all using Revit. There is no indication in our experience that Revit will eliminate the technologist position. The most noticeable benefit the architects have seen with Revit is putting the fun back in using digital methods to design and the ease of transfering from design to contract documents.

[Wes Macaulay]

I'm an arch tech myself who didn't have the heart to get the big student loan, get saddled with debt and then become a poorly paid intern. I still plan to get the papers and am still figuring out how I will do this.

It's too early to say around here how Revit will impact employment. It has certainly exposed those firms (predominantly large ones) who have CAD techs with little domain experience, for whom Revit would not be as great a productivity boost -- they have said outright that Revit doesn't work with that scenario. I don't know if I agree or not.

Having been CAD manager at several firms I became quite bored with the job of assembling drawings and chasing my tail for weeks on end trying to get the lot up to snuff. I asked to be taken off drawing and put on writing proposals, which I still enjoy doing.

Revit has given me new enthusiasm with regards to the architects' forte: the design and documentation of a building. Buildings and building design are fascinating subjects, and I've always loved how art and science meet in architecture. The nonsense of CAD almost ended my career, since I became so disillusioned with the process of building documentation. I've never thought I was stupid but the whole notion of assembling a large set of coordinated documents for a building seemed overwhelming, and made me wonder if the effort was worth it.

So with the drawing coordination largely handled by Revit, we can focus on coordinating the specs and the drawings... :banghead:

[Cathy Hadley]

This is an interesting thread... Being a trainer I am asked this question now and then. I think it will depend on what the firms attitude has been towards their drafting staff is. I find that in some offices the attitude is more of ... here draw this as fast as possible... they *say* that they want their drafting to really think about what it is they are drawing, but in reality they are relying on them to *spread lead* as it were... This is just a personal observation mind you, but with revit I think there will be less of a need for that type of position. However I do not feel that this will by any means mean an end to the CAD technician role, but I think it will evolve ... perhaps more into as mentioned above into a document management role, etc...

I think the firms that have the attitude that everyone is a vital part of the building process and the CAD technician who wants to learn about the process of building and not be as focused on the CAD technology of it will have always have a place, and Revit will be the perfect tool.

Personally I am an architect, who has always done everything, but find with Revit I am focusing so much more on the design and less on process of creating documents.

[tjk0225]

with Revit I am focusing so much more on the design and less on process of creating documents.

This is what I keep telling the designers in the office that want to keep using ADT because they have all "been using it so long it will be too hard to learn something new". I say stop thinking about layers, paperspace and pen weights and focus on design.

[adegnan]

I am not a licensed Architect, however I do have my B.Arch degree. I would need to go on for my Master's to get the big "A." But as I do almost exclusively residential, I do not "need" the big A, and I collaborate with an Architect and an Engineer when I do have those needs.

Besides, I'm still primarily a contractor! ;)

[Simon.Whitbread]

NOT an architect.

And probably not a real architectural technician either. I provide in-house support to end users, create families, teach and, occasionally, draw.
My company is in the process of making up its mind.. REVIT / ArchiCAD. Does anyone have some REAL GOOD arguments for REVIT. Not like the 'use us cos A******D is better' stuff that gets shouted out loud on their forum.
Although REVIT is great, the other has an advantage. In NZ it is WAY cheaper (say about 50% per license / annual maintenance)

[Scott D Davis]

Is it really cheaper by the time you buy all the add-ons to make it work?

[beegee]

Is it really cheaper by the time you add on all the training costs that many users find they need ?

[Wes Macaulay]

When people gag on the price of Revit, they need to think that it has a greater effect on what their office can do. The cost of software may be offset by what it can do, and it's almost less than paying wages for more bodies, esp if they're only going to be using AutoCAD.

In terms of Revit vs ArchiCAD, make sure they know that elevations and sections are generated, not live. ArchiCAD is more complicated and harder to learn, but I can't quantify the difference in time or money that it would take to learn ArchiCAD over Revit. Making custom content for ArchiCAD isn't any fun either. On the other hand, I note that making Revit families isn't pure joy to every user, but it is much easier.

Purchase and maintenance cost is an issue, but not the issue...