Hot Fricking Tip..?

[Revit for Breakfast]

I'm playing around with my template file and just did a test.

I opened up my template in Revit Structure and made a slab filled with Rebar. Close and save.

I then started a new project in revit Architecture and gosh darn I got the structural rebar editing tools in Revit Arch.

So, does this mean I can combine the best tools from each program (arch, str, MEP) and have one super file that runs all the tools regardless of programs?

(I did this with the Ins. command found only in Revit Arch. Put it in my Structure temp. file.)

[Revit for Breakfast]

MEP Stuff isn't working well.

[ronsarlo]

So, does this mean I can combine the best tools from each program (arch, str, MEP) and have one super file that runs all the tools regardless of programs?

I wish.

In the pursuit of simplicity and sucking our dollars dry, AutoDesk has not allowed a lot of cross discipline functionality, which kinda sucks.

The work I do is to break down the discipline lines, and it's quite frustrating to have to use multiple modules.

I just wish they made 1 "Revit Master" suite for us BIM management types.

[Gadget Man]

I wish.

In the pursuit of simplicity and sucking our dollars dry, AutoDesk has not allowed a lot of cross discipline functionality, which kinda sucks.

The work I do is to break down the discipline lines, and it's quite frustrating to have to use multiple modules.

I just wish they made 1 "Revit Master" suite for us BIM management types.


Yeah, when I attended a Revit seminar organized by an acredited Autodesk reseller back in version 5.1 (hence already under Autodesk ownership...), one of their marketing promises was that Revit was the one and only tool (and it was just one Revit then) I would ever need for all my architectural work... That was the whole idea behind it then... But obviously GREED took over, as usual. Yes, yes, I can hear already the worn out tune about shareholders' demands and Company's obligations to them. But that is precisely what comes into my definition of greed... corporate greed.

[dgi]

I guess I haven't been the only one to ask Autodesk for one super Revit...

[tomnewsom]

The product is split completely arbitrarily in order to maximise profits, nothing more, nothing less, and it stinks.

[Revit for Breakfast]

The product is split completely arbitrarily in order to maximise profits, nothing more, nothing less, and it stinks.

Plunder and pillage what you can if you can!!

[patricks]

I may be one of the few but I personally don't WANT all the discipline-specific tools available to those of us who haven't a clue how to use it (i.e. aren't engineers).

A "coordination" version would be nice, so that I could, say, update a model with as-built conditions without having to trouble my engineers to do it (move ductwork slightly here or there, etc), but yeah... having one all-encompassing program with ALL tools available does NOT sound like a good idea to me.

[scowsert]

I may be one of the few but I personally don't WANT all the discipline-specific tools available to those of us who haven't a clue how to use it (i.e. aren't engineers).

A "coordination" version would be nice, so that I could, say, update a model with as-built conditions without having to trouble my engineers to do it (move ductwork slightly here or there, etc), but yeah... having one all-encompassing program with ALL tools available does NOT sound like a good idea to me.


My concept would be one super revit that could do anything but with a workspace for each discipline. "What are you doing today?" If architect, give the front end that you see now, if Engineer, you get the Structural front end etc...

Revit pretty much does that now with the tabs.

Would that work for you?

[iru69]

I do appreciate what you mean - I'd rather not be overwhelmed with tools that I don't need every day either. But I think that would be pretty easy to avoid - simply add Architecture, Structure, MEP to the "User Interface" panel in the View tab. Switch between disciplines on the fly (Architecture would still have its subset of "structural" tools, etc).

More than anything, I just want the modeling tools. For example, I want to easily add major ducts to my models (mostly residential). The mechanical sub's idea of CAD is a red pencil, so no help there.

This whole idea of separating the product into three doesn't make sense from the perspective of most firms (i.e. the customers), there's no reason for it, and it likely sucks up additional development resources keeping them separate products.


I may be one of the few but I personally don't WANT all the discipline-specific tools available to those of us who haven't a clue how to use it (i.e. aren't engineers).

[Craig_L]

The reason they are all left separate is quite practical.

It comes down to the maths engines used in the more complex packages such as structure and MEP.

Do you really want your already file size burdened architectural models bogged down with having to perform structural analysis, or MEP flow calculations?

With the Structural and MEP analytical packages, this analysis happens very frequently, and does take up time. In a large file doing a sprinkler calculation for example can take alot of process power and a few minutes to complete itself, let alone it will then report all the errors to you, and the same goes for the structural packages.

[davidthigpen]

At the very least give subscription users the license to use any of the three products as a part of the suite. How many people using one product are sharing a computer with someone using the other? Very few I'd guess. So if I'm wanting the architecuture program I buy the suite. If I want the structural program I buy the suite. If I want the MEP I buy the suite. Autodesk makes the same amount of money but I have the option of using the tools for MEP or structural when needed.

I asked my resellar if there might be a discount for current Revit subscription users who want to buy the other and there isn't.

[t1.shep]

The reason they are all left separate is quite practical.

It comes down to the maths engines used in the more complex packages such as structure and MEP.

Do you really want your already file size burdened architectural models bogged down with having to perform structural analysis, or MEP flow calculations?

With the Structural and MEP analytical packages, this analysis happens very frequently, and does take up time. In a large file doing a sprinkler calculation for example can take alot of process power and a few minutes to complete itself, let alone it will then report all the errors to you, and the same goes for the structural packages.

My experience with our consultants, is that they don't even use the analysis tools (MEP or Struc) That goes for multiple offices (not just one consultant.) Structural exports out their revit model to another analysis softwares to calculate loads and member sizes then updates their revit model with the reported sizes. MEP essentially does the same thing and in some cases, needs to remodel some elements in another software due to inaccuracies in the Revit model and their analysis software.
Could be that they don't know how to use Revit for their analysis, but I don't know.
I'd settle for just being able to keynote specific elements in linked models.
As far as moving stuff in linked models for as-built or last minute coordination...You can always just open up the consultants model in Revit Arch. As far as I know, you can move their stuff around, delete, and to some extent modify their elements. I think what you lose out on is the modeling and analysis capabilities, but if that needs to be done, most likely, you shouldn't be the one doing it.

[Steve_Stafford]

The reason for separation is primarily market driven, though I'm sure there are actually many subtle reasons that helped support their choice. The majority of firms that will buy the software are separate entities, thus software focused on each discipline's typical grouping in the workplace.

For each person that I've discussed this with there are those who want it all and those who just want their tools. I personally would like to see a Revit Construction or Suite that contains all the tools available in any version of Revit.

From a deployment standpoint three versions in one office is a hassle. From a design standpoint being able to put placeholder MEP/S elements in a architecture model means designers can be more specific about their intentions with real elements instead of faking it with generic model families inefficiently. It isn't about doing someone else's work as much as making some assumptions effectively so that the other members of the team can see what we had in mind sooner.

The reason we don't have a Revit Suite now is that Autodesk doesn't think there is money to be made delivering it or they think that it will erode sales of existing product configurations. Convince them otherwise and we'll have it.

[twiceroadsfool]

The difficulty there, is most people think they should have that, for the same price as what we have now, even though development had to go in to the analysis stuff, in addition to the "modeling tools."

[Steve_Stafford]

I did a POLL (http://revitoped.blogspot.com/2008/09/survey-results-revit-sweet.html) on my BLOG (http://revitoped.blogspot.com/2008/09/revit-building-or-revit-sweet-survey.html) awhile ago about that and I was surprised that a majority wanted to pay the same amount for the initial price but were willing to pay more for subscription to have all the tools. I'd rather pay 2/3 of the full price for three and pay a smaller subscription.

A friend at Autodesk told me that my awesome poll results were biased because of the people that read my blog, I'm not sure if that's a compliment or insult :smile:

[iru69]

The reality is that actual revenue ($) has little to do with it.

The cost of the product is prohibitively expensive to buy multiple disciplines. It's an extremely low percentage of customers who would ever buy multiple disciplines of the product for a single user. So they really don't make any more or less money by splitting it up (well, I'd argue less, but I'll get to that in a minute). Software is not a physical product. It's not like buying a computer and getting a second one for free. If they sell 50 licenses of RAC, 25 of RST and 25 of RME, they've sold 100 licenses. If they sold 100 licenses of Revit Suite (i.e. the three combined at the same price as one), they've sold 100 licenses. It's the same development costs and the same revenue.

By keeping them separate, what Autodesk is missing out on is the marketing potential and customer good will. It's always been the same for Autodesk - the biggest obstacle to their success has always been themselves. Autodesk understands markets. Autodesk does not understand customers. They are two very different things. They are one of the most hated software companies around - not because of their products, but because of the the way they deal with their customers. One of the smartest customer marketing moves they could make would be to combine the Revit products into one suite and sell it for the same price.

Off the top, there are two major reasons why they won't do this:

1. Executive bean counters don't understand "intangible value" - everything either has tangible (marketable) value, or there's no point in it. Let's take computers as an example. I'm the "computer guy" for family, friends, and work. They buy what I tell them to buy. I told them to buy Dells for years because I was a Windows guy and Dell was easy. I got hooked on Apple around the same time I got fed up with Dell, and now I tell them to buy Macs. What am I worth to Dell or Apple? To a Dell bean counter, I'm just "one" lost sale. To an Apple bean counter, I'm ten sales. Which company is losing market share and which one is gaining market share? It works much the same way with software. Think of how Revit Suite would play out in the BIM community. However, to an Executive bean counter, there's no tangible value in Revit Suite... they simply see it as lost sales.

2. Autodesk marketing bean counters don't understand their customers, but they do understand markets, market share, market penetration, etc. Selling 100 copies of Revit Suite doesn't mean anything to the marketing department. How many of those using the product are architects, structural engineers, etc.? Where do they put development resources, how much revenue is being derived from each market? Those questions become much more difficult to answer. Executive bean counters need those answers. Marketing bean counters want to keep their jobs.