The New Excuse

[antman]

Funny how times change. The justification that I am hearing from the resistance now is, "Revit is great for making CDs, but it is horrible as a design tool." Wasn't it not too long ago that the statement would have been the other way around? For reference, this is in comparison to AutoCAD and Sketchup. I keep contending that Revit *is* a great design tool, but I'm not getting through. Any ideas?

[Dimitri Harvalias]

"Revit is only for large projects" ---------"Revit is only for small projects"
"Revit is only for large firms"-------------"Revit is only for small firms"
"Revit is only good for architects"--------"Revit is only good for full blown BIM"

Let's see.. did I miss any? The fact of the matter is people will hear what they want to hear and interpret the way that best suits their needs.
Just the fact that we can get quotes from various sources to support any of these arguments should be enough to make people realize that it's just a tool and it can be made to satisfy pretty much every required outcome if you do it right and give it a chance. Should be enough... but it won't be enough :banghead:

[damon.sidel]

Revit is a great design tool... IF
(a) you are just as fluent with it as you are whatever other tool you like using,
(b) you're willing to adjust your process. It's not a better or worse process, just different!

I have to say there are times when I'm designing that I just don't like the way the Revit tools work. That said, as a long-time Autocad, SketchUp, and Rhino user as well, I can say the same thing about each of those other tools, too. My personal preference for schematic design process: all of them together! We have some really excellent workflows from Grasshopper in Rhino to Revit and back again. I've used SketchUp imported into Revit families and in-place masses quite successfully. I also have been trying to work on some workflows that rely on using multiple platforms in parallel. My office likes using Rhino and Autocad to design, so I say create building masses in Rhino, link them into Revit and use mass floor areas for your gross area calculations.

It all really depends on the project and the staff... I often try to steer the conversation away from pitting software programs against each other and towards training and staffing issues. In my experience and opinion, when you really get down to it, all the excuses are only founded on training and staffing.

[MikeJarosz]

Project Vasari was created to address the complaints from designers about conceptual design in Revit. I've not used it, but have seen demonstrations at the NY user group. One intriguing aspect of it is that it can be programmed interpretively in Python, just like VBA in Acad. That may sound like a mouthful, but much of the complaining is coming from the designers who want to do algorithmic design. Programming comes naturally to that crowd.

Incidently, Revit itself can now be programmed with Python. Even more interesting, Jeremy Tammikfrom the factory recently announced in his Revit blog that someone has managed to get Ruby Rails running with Revit. http://thebuildingcoder.typepad.com/

[damon.sidel]

much of the complaining is coming from the designers who want to do algorithmic design.

I wasn't even thinking in those terms, even though I used the Grasshopper example. Those developments in Revit are pretty cool.

I'd be surprised if Anthony's colleagues are in that particular camp, though, since they are using Autocad and SketchUp (not that you can't script in those programs, just that they don't seem to be the preferred platforms for scripting/algorithmic design/etc). Thus my emphasis on area calculations. No matter what project you are designing, you have to do boring area calculations and Revit is really good at that. If you can translate your work from SketchUp or Rhino into Revit just for areas, you've (a) saved yourself some time and tedium and (b) started your Revit model earlier. The more you put in now, the higher the payoff later, right?

[antman]

Exactly, Damon. We are in the camp of quickly rearranging floor plans in AutoCAD, and quickly making decent exterior architecture in Sketchup. Certainly stuff that could be done in Revit with the appropriate training. The hurdle I see is that when a person goes into a learning process already convinced that it's not going to improve anything, not much learning happens...

[damon.sidel]

Exactly, Damon. We are in the camp of quickly rearranging floor plans in AutoCAD, and quickly making decent exterior architecture in Sketchup. Certainly stuff that could be done in Revit with the appropriate training. The hurdle I see is that when a person goes into a learning process already convinced that it's not going to improve anything, not much learning happens...

I hear you. I encourage people (usually the slightly less resistant) to do SOMETHING in Revit. In your case, why not do JUST the floor plans in Revit to start? It doesn't take very long to become adept at creating walls, doors, windows in Revit. For some things people aren't comfortable with, they can use detail lines ("No, not detail lines!"). There can be multiple levels, but no attention paid to elevations or sections or 3D anything. They can export DWG plans to import to SketchUp just as they probably already do. As they get more familiar and comfortable with Revit in this limited capacity, and see the benefits of the simple things like color plans and area calculations, then they might be more receptive to learning more.

The building manager at the office where I worked years ago was an old guy who'd seen a lot in his life. He used to say "Now you go slow." Words to live by.

[SCShell]

"Revit is not for blondes"....."Revit is....ummm, huuuuuuummmmm, damn, I forgot!"
Steven