Autodesk biased to Max development over Revit?

[mark.98140]

Anyone taken a look at the seemingly preferential treatment 3dsmax receives each year? Their list of features and improvements makes Revit's look pathetic in comparison... an entirely new rendering engine in max barely makes a mention compared to the vast array of new features added again this year... Whilst Revit is limited to a comparatively insignificant array of revisions... it almost seems laughable that we have background images listed as a major new feature! If i am not mistaken, we pay a notable subscription fee each year that should put us on par... but clearly we are not... Anyone else feel the same... take a look at 3dsmax's list of new features this year if you are not convinced.. we are definitely the poor cousins it would seem...?

[dzatto]

Anyone taken a look at the seemingly preferential treatment 3dsmax receives each year? Their list of features and improvements makes Revit's look pathetic in comparison... an entirely new rendering engine in max barely makes a mention compared to the vast array of new features added again this year... Whilst Revit is limited to a comparatively insignificant array of revisions... it almost seems laughable that we have background images listed as a major new feature! If i am not mistaken, we pay a notable subscription fee each year that should put us on par... but clearly we are not... Anyone else feel the same... take a look at 3dsmax's list of new features this year if you are not convinced.. we are definitely the poor cousins it would seem...?
Now you know how ACA subscribers feel about you Revit guys. lol

[ronsarlo]

Anyone taken a look at the seemingly preferential treatment 3dsmax receives each year? Their list of features and improvements makes Revit's look pathetic in comparison... an entirely new rendering engine in max barely makes a mention compared to the vast array of new features added again this year... Whilst Revit is limited to a comparatively insignificant array of revisions... it almost seems laughable that we have background images listed as a major new feature! If i am not mistaken, we pay a notable subscription fee each year that should put us on par... but clearly we are not... Anyone else feel the same... take a look at 3dsmax's list of new features this year if you are not convinced.. we are definitely the poor cousins it would seem...?

Doesn't 3dsmax make them more money though? :roll:

[cliff collins]

Using both programs pretty heavily, I'd say this:

1. Max and Revit are two TOTALLY different apps, used by a wide variety of users,
and thus a valid comparison of which one got the most upgrades/improvements is a bit hard to say.

2. Revit's new features are really good--lots of small, but useful ones, like the properties pallette, a much improved ribbon, repeat command, better text tools, etc. as well as some pretty major ones ( like workset control and tagging across links, new realistic view
with maps, ambient lighting and occlusion, Protein 2 materials, FBX Linking to Max,
no more 4 core limit when rendering, just to name a few. ) It's one of the best releases yet--since I've been using it since Release 1 back in '99-2000.

3. 3dsMaxDesign's "new render engine" Quicksilver is really not as great as it was hyped up to be-- but it is a hint of what's to come in future releases for GPU/CPU rendering. It's good for pre-viz real-time like renders when designing scenes, before final render--which is a welcome addition to the workflow. The new Materials editor looks really good.

4. The Toxic Compositor in Max looks very useful--perhaps replacing After Effects
for post work, but that is yet to be seen.

Just my 2 c worth.

cheers

[mark.98140]

I think it is always going to subjective.. but personally if you look on a direct comparative basis, 3dsmax has notably more major feature additions... i think when you look over the features and the scope of each, there is not much comparison... further many of the revit features related such as the new fbx file improvements, protein materials library, drop in backgrounds etc are all either features made to strengthen the case for revit users to pay for max or features handed down or previously handicapped from 3dsmax itself... that is, they are not really features developed for improving revit as much as tying or keeping us users tied to another product and drip feeding features already available with autodesks main platform of interest... 3dsmax...

i can only summize that 3dsmax with its ties to numerous large industries such as film and television, scientific and others fields creates at this point a greater income base... that is not to say revit does not have the potential to add to this base... but with the numerous renderers on tap these days... one might say the competition revit faces is not the same as that 3dsmax faces... however.. does that provide a fair argument to reduce software development budgets for revit whose subscribers pay a similar annual fee to subscribe too? I would argue not...but then if everyone is happy to accept mediocre improvements annually for lack of a viable alternative (archicad? ) and because they are already tied to a heavy investment already made under our annual subscriptions...then perhaps we are truly at the behest of the behemoth that is Autodesk... yes we all love Revit... the software they bought and now control... but one can only imagine where Revit development would be if competition were tighter and the market for Revit more mature and established... I can only muse how the Autocad and Autodesk Architecture products must be draining the overall resources from Revit itself... surely there will have to come a time soon when all of these resources are plied into one? I can only dream!

[twiceroadsfool]

I think it is always going to subjective.. but personally if you look on a direct comparative basis, 3dsmax has notably more major feature additions... i think when you look over the features and the scope of each, there is not much comparison...

Youre right. Revit is an object oriented piece of software, which means everytime they add a feature, they have to take in to account many more implications than they do when they add ina new feature to a program like max. Youre correct, there is no comparison, its way harder to make features to Revit.



further many of the revit features related such as the new fbx file improvements, protein materials library, drop in backgrounds etc are all either features made to strengthen the case for revit users to pay for max or features handed down or previously handicapped from 3dsmax itself... that is, they are not really features developed for improving revit as much as tying or keeping us users tied to another product and drip feeding features already available with autodesks main platform of interest... 3dsmax...

You realize that of all the features you just listed, changes to the FBX export are the only onces that made a BETTER case for buying Max, right? The better materials gave us more procedural options to tweak rendering INSIDE revit, the backgrounds give us better images and renderings INSIDE revit, they REMOVED the 4 core limitation which was one of the HUGE reasons a lot of us were using Max at all, with i7's here were now evaluating just using Revit renderings in cases where its not very high end stuff...) So basically, youre completely off base there.



i can only summize that 3dsmax with its ties to numerous large industries such as film and television, scientific and others fields creates at this point a greater income base... that is not to say revit does not have the potential to add to this base... but with the numerous renderers on tap these days... one might say the competition revit faces is not the same as that 3dsmax faces... however.. does that provide a fair argument to reduce software development budgets for revit whose subscribers pay a similar annual fee to subscribe too? I would argue not...

Um... Money talks. I pay 5 dollars to go watch a divisional competitive HS football game that my friends kids play in. I also pay 5 dollars to go watch his other kid play in the tennis league. Guess what: one brings the district more money. And one gets a new stadium. *I* may think its fair to complain about it, but its not. Money talks.



but then if everyone is happy to accept mediocre improvements annually for lack of a viable alternative (archicad? ) and because they are already tied to a heavy investment already made under our annual subscriptions...then perhaps we are truly at the behest of the behemoth that is Autodesk... yes we all love Revit... the software they bought and now control... but one can only imagine where Revit development would be if competition were tighter and the market for Revit more mature and established... I can only muse how the Autocad and Autodesk Architecture products must be draining the overall resources from Revit itself... surely there will have to come a time soon when all of these resources are plied into one? I can only dream!

Im not even sure what youre TRYING to imply here. 2011 is one of the best releases ive seen with the software. The conceptual massing is getting much better, theyre reducing the rediculousness that existed in the "lack of flow" operating the software (which, btw, existed before that behemoth Autodesk got their hands on it), theyve made steps towards opening up the App itself for more analysis tools, GREATLY enhanced the way Links work together (making Revit virtually limitless in capabilities for scaling). and its starting to slowly knock on the door of using multiple cores for more things.

And FWIW, there is still a tremendous use of AutoCAD and ACA in the marketplace. Just because the vast majority of the industry used them for unintelligent 2D drafting doesnt mean they dont have a use anymore. ACA has some phenominal modeling tools, and is capable of some very interesting collaborative work with Revit, and other applications. We may all run AutoCAD in to the ground, but theres still a lot to be said for that program.

All around, ArchiCAD is a good tool as well. I guess if you dont think you got your moneys worth, you should consider it?

[Scott D Davis]

No comparision...its not apples to apples.

2 totally different applications
2 different development Teams
2 different development cities (Montreal and Waltham/Manchster)
2 different client bases (max is nearly all film/media/entertainment/games, Revit is AEC)

[Steve_Stafford]

One release to one release is like trying to define a baseball player's batting average based on one game, interesting but not all that meaningful. One release might unleash an impressive list of accomplishments because some less visible but difficult work in a previous release(s) paved the way toward cranking out the next releases's features.

[mark.98140]

As i said before, it is subjective... Clearly however you feel otherwise, which is fine, however i wonder if the overtly sarcastic overtones are required? This is a forum where one should be entitled to a counter viewpoint, to that end;


Youre right. Revit is an object oriented piece of software, which means everytime they add a feature, they have to take in to account many more implications than they do when they add ina new feature to a program like max. Youre correct, there is no comparison, its way harder to make features to Revit.

And you would know this how?.. It might be argued equally that Max as a mature platform has its own complexities to introducing new features on the basis of how they interplay with the complexities of the software's existing feature set.


You realize that of all the features you just listed, changes to the FBX export are the only onces that made a BETTER case for buying Max, right? The better materials gave us more procedural options to tweak rendering INSIDE revit, the backgrounds give us better images and renderings INSIDE revit, they REMOVED the 4 core limitation which was one of the HUGE reasons a lot of us were using Max at all, with i7's here were now evaluating just using Revit renderings in cases where its not very high end stuff...) So basically, youre completely off base there.

Or... one could equally say the new materials make the ties TO max more dependent through making workflows to max fbx more fluid (thereby again working to assist max foremost)... as for the cores and background... as i said before, we do receive new features... in drips and drabs.. i never said no features, but I did say relatively lackluster. The additions of background images was a minor feature removed and now reinstated (minor as there are workarounds).. the cores are well overdue and a feature, but hardly a game changer. (hardly way of base)

Um... Money talks. I pay 5 dollars to go watch a divisional competitive HS football game that my friends kids play in. I also pay 5 dollars to go watch his other kid play in the tennis league. Guess what: one brings the district more money. And one gets a new stadium. *I* may think its fair to complain about it, but its not. Money talks.

Clearly so, money talks... exactly my point... thank you! However, my point was it is not something we need be satisfied with personally, especially relative to our subscription fees paid by both software platforms. I think on that basis it is fair to voice an opinion, which is all I was doing.. Autodesk may go with the money... my point.. no reason I can't be annoyed Revit relatively looses out because of this?


Im not even sure what youre TRYING to imply here. 2011 is one of the best releases ive seen with the software. The conceptual massing is getting much better, theyre reducing the rediculousness that existed in the "lack of flow" operating the software (which, btw, existed before that behemoth Autodesk got their hands on it), theyve made steps towards opening up the App itself for more analysis tools, GREATLY enhanced the way Links work together (making Revit virtually limitless in capabilities for scaling). and its starting to slowly knock on the door of using multiple cores for more things.

I never said 2011 was a bad release... just not developing as quickly as it might or should (that is my point and opinion). As for the ridiculous workflows that existed before...One can hardly compare Revit prior to Autodesk where it was a relatively new program at such time and producing MAJOR releases practically every six months.


And FWIW, there is still a tremendous use of AutoCAD and ACA in the marketplace. Just because the vast majority of the industry used them for unintelligent 2D drafting doesnt mean they dont have a use anymore. ACA has some phenominal modeling tools, and is capable of some very interesting collaborative work with Revit, and other applications. We may all run AutoCAD in to the ground, but theres still a lot to be said for that program.

All around, ArchiCAD is a good tool as well. I guess if you dont think you got your moneys worth, you should consider it?

Gosh, i am not sure you are reading what i wrote... again.. yes there is tremendous use of autocad and ACA in the marketplace...I never disputed this ... i did however try to imply that Autodesk has more than 3 major software platforms addressing the AEC market.. which naturally dilutes there annual budget... i simply implied that some rationalization of this toward there platform of stated choice for BIM would perhaps bring development faster and more progressively. Surely ACA could be seen to be doubling up in many aspect on what Revit does... and surely some of the features sets of ACA would greatly benefit Revit? Autocad has gone from being primarily a 2d product to now a 3d product... and again ACA has been developed as a counter choice to Revit for those with whom it is well entrenched with... Do you really think Autodesk releases all 3 on one CD for relatively no extra money to be nice or because they too wish to steer toward rationalization of the platforms... I simply stated imagine what could be done if this was achieved...

In summary... I simply stated an opinion... I can see you have an alternative opinion... though pls keep any sarcasm and aggressive overtones impartial or expect the same back. May i remind you this is a forum and there is no need to take matters personally...

[mark.98140]

By the way... twiceroadfools... your replies were slotted in between your comments.. to many quotes to do otherwise. :)

[mark.98140]

One release to one release is like trying to define a baseball player's batting average based on one game, interesting but not all that meaningful. One release might unleash an impressive list of accomplishments because some less visible but difficult work in a previous release(s) paved the way toward cranking out the next releases's features.

Getting back to a more rationale forum discussion from previous posts. Fair point you make and perhaps you are right in the big picture.

[TroyGates]

Knowing the history of Autodesk products, acquisitions, and development teams, I don't think you can compare 3ds Max to Revit in any capacity. Its like trying to compare Microsoft's development efforts between Windows and XBox. They have so little in common except the company name.

[twiceroadsfool]

Anyone taken a look at the seemingly preferential treatment 3dsmax receives each year? Their list of features and improvements makes Revit's look pathetic in comparison... an entirely new rendering engine in max barely makes a mention compared to the vast array of new features added again this year... Whilst Revit is limited to a comparatively insignificant array of revisions... it almost seems laughable that we have background images listed as a major new feature! If i am not mistaken, we pay a notable subscription fee each year that should put us on par... but clearly we are not... Anyone else feel the same... take a look at 3dsmax's list of new features this year if you are not convinced.. we are definitely the poor cousins it would seem...?

I dont find my remarks sarcastic and or having-taken-personally at all. You submitted what you feel is your opinion on the matter, and i- in fact- did the same thing. :) Actually, i thin ki even went a step further in the right direction and provided what i thought was an explanation for the different issues, contrasting with the original post which used words like "lathetic, insignificant, and laughable" while comparing things that might as well be a Hybrid commuter and an Army Tank.

But co further the discussion, i DO see great value in them keeping AutoCAD/ACA/and Revit all in production. Many firms still use and subscribe to AutoCAD/ACA, and dont have any interest in moving to Revit. So if you discontinue it because "BIM is all i care about" you lose a lot of your market share. If you put them all on a disk for not much else extra money, maybe some of your holdouts pony up a few extra hundred dollars, so they can "check it out" over the course of a year, instead of only getting a 30 day trial. Plus, it lets them ease in to the new software if theyre considering it.

As for grabbing pieces from each and putting them all together, yeah, that would rock the house. Having implemented ACA and Revit side by side in an office concurrently, there sure are a lot of features and functions and configuration items id love to have from ACA, in Revit. But i also know... One is a hybrid commuter developing in to a hybrid race car. And one is.... An army tank. Different engines, different wheels, different body materials. That hybrid may not work to well with that Tank Tread on it.

Lastly, your second post made a host of claims that im not even sure can be substantiated. Are there numbers stipulating to the fact that excessive development of 3dsMax actually REDUCED the software development budget for Revit? Im not even sure numbers like that are released, although ive never looked, because its of little import to me. The other claim that we only get features to keep us tied to 3dsmax, autodesks "Main platform of interest" is (i apologize for saying it) laughable. In 6 years of using Revit for real work, only 2 of the offices ive been in even HAD max, and they all did work in revit seamlessly. Without AutoCAD, and without Max. So the new features certainly arent JUSt to tie users to Max, i can assure you.

It is a forum, and i believe were having a civil and intelligent conversation. I simply gisagree- however- with some of the conjecture and indirect implications that are made in saying things like "They now control" and "if only competition were tighter they would have to make it better." But that might just be that after years of using many of the competitions products, i find they respond pretty favorably to us as a user base.

[Bill McLees]

I made the same point last year.

Max has many more improvements than Revit each release. You have to go back to Revit 7 for this not to be true. Revit 2011 is certainly a far better effort than the abyssmal 2010, but even so, there's more new stuff in Max this year too.

Max has a semi-public game plan (Excalibur) and two very public faces (Ken Pimentel and Shane Griffith). There are a number of Autodesk reps who post about Revit, but other than Scott Davis, none of them posts at AUGI very often. The blogs at area.autodesk.com about Max are far more forth-coming about the future of Max than the corresponding blogs about Revit. In fact, the official Revit blogs linked to David Light's blog for features of Revit 2011. The in-house Revit blogs seem almost scared to post new info for fear that they will offend higher-ups in some manner.

The Revit powers at Autodesk have certainly done a better job of listening to customers in the past year. However, the Revit guys still hide behind NDAs and SEC rules that Max guys seem to have figured out.

Obviously, myself and most readers of this thread use Revit much more than we use Max. We want Revit to improve and to get the same horsepower behind it that Max has. My perception is that this is not the case. If my perception is wrong, it's because Max is doing a lot better PR job than is Revit. The improvements in Revit 2011 are a welcome start. But the Max guys keep moving the bar and I don't see Revit closing the gap.

[mark.98140]

Twiceroadsfool: Unfortunately, I think this posting is losing its direction in tit for tat replies. I certainly feel your mis-quoting my remarks and making inferences outside of what I have said, and clearly you feel the same of me. So, for the sake of sanity, I'll just say we differ on our viewpoints and move on. However, if you really wish to keep the point for point reply going I am more than happy to oblige. :)

[twiceroadsfool]

I think its an interesting discussion, to be honest. Im not sure what direction we had that we lost? You feel the development is lopsided, i feel that the development is as even as can be expected givent the vastly different complexities of the programs, and weve been discussing that. Except what im hearing, is that when i discuss my side, you dont like it. :)

But ive said my piece. I think this is a fantastic release year, across the board. I feel like i got my money out of the subscription already, so im happier for it. :)

[mark.98140]

I certainly am not the fool (pardon the pun).. so I suggest you go back to your first reply an see who didn't like who's comments.. That aside.. I agree with your last comment in part in that we both have a different assessments of the software development cycle and to that end there is no real right or wrong. :)

[twiceroadsfool]

If you knew the story behind the name, youd know there really isnt a fool. :)

Back to Reviting.... Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[cliff collins]

I smell mysterious dots.........