Yearly Release Cycle causing concerns?

[Scott D Davis]

I have been reading a bunch of stuff on other forums about AutoCAD 2006 coming out. It seems that many of the AutoCAD'rs are having a hard time dealing with new releases every year, while we Revit users relish it and look forward to it.

Is it just the perception that the learning curve is too steep? Is this really beginning to show the true complexity of AutoCAD and the Vertical products? We have never had a problem with the rapid release cycle of Revit, and maybe this is showing how intuitive Revit is: new tools are easily learned and incorporated into the process. What are your thoughts?

[LRaiz]

Scott,
In your post you imply that Revit has a yearly release cycle. You do treat that as a positive and I thank you for tirelessly spreading the Revit gospel. Nonetheless it may be useful to point out that up until now Revit always had at least two releases a year. Historically half of these releases had a point.0 release number while others were point.1 releases. However if we abstract ourselves from pure numbering scheme and focus on the amount of new features, innovation and improvement in each point.1 release then I think you must agree that it is appropriate to recognize that Revit has had two not one release a year.

[Andre Baros]

How much longer can this pace keep up? I have no problem keeping up on the implementation end and still see room for growth, but really, how much better can Revit get (without bloat)?

[BillyGrey]

I'm not sure new features in Revit contribute to bloat, unless those features negatively impact overall performance. Otherwise, those features lay follow until called upon.

As far as other pure CAD products that have been "finished" for a long time, I am not so sure that adding feature sets for the sake of adding feature sets is not bloat. But then again, I no longer use those products, so I don't really know... :)

[Scott D Davis]

oh yes Leonid! Absolutely! I have been amazed at the development cycle of Revit...I don't know how you guys do it!

It is true, every 'release' whether 6.0 or 6.1 or 7.0, has always been a version that is worth installing, because of new features and methods. And now, Revit 7.0 released in Nov-Dec 2004, and Revit 8.0 set for April 2005...that's 4-5 months between "major" releases!

It's obvious why The Factory has become the model for Autodesk.

[Chad Smith]

I have been reading a bunch of stuff on other forums about AutoCAD 2006 coming out. It seems that many of the AutoCAD'rs are having a hard time dealing with new releases every year, while we Revit users relish it and look forward to it.
I find yearly AutoCAD updates too rapid for me, so I tend to upgrade every second release.
If we upgraded every release then I would be forever checking and updating all the custom LISP and VB code that I have written that make up the remaining functions/programs in our ACAD environment.

While I did find not having an API a pain when I first moved over to Revit, it did become a blessing as I had no code to update, and so I still welcome the rapid release cycle of Revit.

[J. Grouchy]

As far as other pure CAD products that have been "finished" for a long time, I am not so sure that adding feature sets for the sake of adding feature sets is not bloat. But then again, I no longer use those products, so I don't really know... :)

From what I've heard, some of the changes in the new ACAD release are true changes to or imrovement to existing features which, ironically enough, are often taking cues from Revit. I think soon enough we will all be looking at architectural firms using straight AutoCAD like we currently do look at those who still do hand drafted documents.

[Joef]

I think that since Revit is not really cut from the same cloth as most CAD programs, it doesn't compare well. Adding to AutoCAD seems to add complexity where adding to Revit seems to add depth. A wall is still a wall and we will still be building with walls and floors in Revit 23. The enhancements to Revit will probably mean that we can get more information into and out of the elements we use in our buildings. A wall can still be a 2x4 with drywall but perhaps in the future we will be able to measure sound transmission through the wall. We are still drawing the same wall but the enhancements have given us a more "intelligent" wall. I don't see frequent release cycles as a problem for Revit users. IMHO

Joe

[bowlingbrad]

...Revit 23...

And just think... Revit 23 is only 6 to 8 years away! ;)

[hand471037]

I've been thinking a lot about this, and I don't think it's too disruptive IMHO. However, what I do see happening, is that the Overhead in learning and adopting the new features is so much larger on the AutoCAD/ADT side that it's still going to be several releases until it's common for people to be using those features. I mean, Sheet Sets just came out last year, and other than the most-savvy firms who's using them on all their projects yet?

Whereas with Revit we all put those features right into production for there is minimal-to-no pain in doing so. ;) I mean, the new Model Group / Detail Group and Shadows and Revision Schedules of Revit 7 were all put into use the *week* Revit 7 came out here...

[Andre Baros]

Hope there wasn't any misunderstanding, but when I said "how much better can Revit get" I meant it as a complement. Sure there are improvements to be made and issues to be ironed out. But the paradigm works. AutoCAD can keep improving for ever and it still won't have the fundamental change engine of Revit. As far as bloat goes, I haven't seen it as much in Revit or AutoCAD so much as Windows etc.

[aaronrumple]

The important thing about Revit is they have the right mindset for rapid release cycles. AutoCAD doesn't.

Revit only takes minutes to setup a network deployment and get going with each release. AutoCAD requires our IT staff for deployment.

All versions of Revit can be on your system at the same time. AutoCAD can't without patching and workarounds.

Revit has a fantastic "What's new" with each release. One lunch hour and I'm up to speed. With AutoCAD you wait for the book to be published.

Revit has few options. What? User name. Keyboard shortcuts. That's about it. With AutoCAD I have to "migrate". Migration is for the birds.

With Revit my old stuff still works. With AutoCAD I need to re-do major procedures such as plotting, menus, and now those damn "tool palettes". Each version of ADT to this point has been pretty much a do-over as far as implementation.

[Les Therrien]

No contest!

AutoCAD is like learning biology. Too many long names and things to remember.
I have no interest in being a CAD expert.
That's like being a builder and saying I can swing a hammer 23095 different ways to hit a nail!

Now let's talk about value rather than abilities.
Out of all the commands and functions that AutoCAD has, how many do most people use? Most of its users do not even know what the software is capable of. That's why we have AutoCAD LT.

Same said with Revit, if you are indeed practicing architecture and using it as a design tool, then chances are that you're using most of the programs abilities. If not on a regular basis, then at some point you may.

Revit was created out of need! AutoCAD had it's need in the day, but most of it's abilities today are simply different ways of drawing lines! Lines are lines and will always only be just that. If there wasn't a need for legacy software compatibility with current software, then CAD would have been dead a long time ago!

As the different flavours of Revit start to evolve and create a larger user base, within time, AutoCAD and it's various products will die a slow death.

[Ron Oldenbeuving]

This is probably out of place, but I use Inventor Series, which includes AutoCAD and MDT as part of the package. I look forward to the yearly releases of Inventor, as the functionality of this program (which has a lovely feel and lacks a lot of AutoCAD's complexity) continues to improve. The only downside seems to be the resulting small decreases in hardware performance. While from one release to the next this is not a significant hit, but add the service packs that invariably follow, and I have to hold out my hand to the financial controller for improved hardware. I am not familiar with Revit, so I don't know if this also holds true for that. I leave these thoughts with you. Regards,

[Wes Macaulay]

Revit has few options. What? User name. Keyboard shortcuts. That's about it. With AutoCAD I have to "migrate". Migration is for the birds.Killing myself laughing, Aaron. 100% correct, too. Autodesk really ought to have asked Leonid and Irwin to run the whole company ;-)

[JamesVan]

Whereas with Revit we all put those features right into production for there is minimal-to-no pain in doing so. ;) I mean, the new Model Group / Detail Group and Shadows and Revision Schedules of Revit 7 were all put into use the *week* Revit 7 came out here...
Yes, but who's using Design Options and Revisions to their fullest extent?...Kidding.

It is particularly hard for a large firm to roll out our 'bread-and-butter' software every year. We're just finishing testing of ADT 2005 and starting deployment while ADT 2006 is right around the corner. It's too much. If we had more projects in Revit, would we be in the same situation? It depends on how critical the new features were to the projects. So far, the new features seem to be just in time for our project teams and their current phases.

[beegee]

>>. So far, the new features seem to be just in time for our project teams and their current phases.
Hmmm, could there be a connection, Watson?

[tatlin]

Hmmm, could there be a connection, Watson?
ducking...:roll:

[hand471037]

It is particularly hard for a large firm to roll out our 'bread-and-butter' software every year. We're just finishing testing of ADT 2005 and starting deployment while ADT 2006 is right around the corner. It's too much. If we had more projects in Revit, would we be in the same situation? It depends on how critical the new features were to the projects. So far, the new features seem to be just in time for our project teams and their current phases.

Yes, the thing to keep in mind is that we're small. I was on a panel last week, an Revit vs. AutoCAD type thing put on by the local Autocad User's Group, and on that Panel was a friend of mine from Gensler and the head CAD Manager from HOK (fav quotes of the night from him: "The Big Elephant in the room no one's willing to point out is the fact that ADT just simply isn't a very good way to work!" & "We would be willing to pay Autodesk to *not* update AutoCAD anymore").

When you scale some of the smaller issues we have with Revit and getting people up to speed with it to the size of a company like those you are left wondering about how well Revit would work in that context. At the very least however the lack of Migration and Recoding and what you'd save using Revit instead of ADT could pay for the cost of training everyone to keep up with the new releases...

[mmodernc]

On past experience Autodesk should get every body they've got from any other software they are working on and and get them to turn Revit into a full BIM with at least the equivalent multi disciplinary scope of Archicad, Microstation, Spirit, etc.NOW. This will save a lot of firms a lot of time and money training for and buying/updating outmoded software and from looking at outmoded alternatives.

[ppelegrin]

Ok,

Not to take one thing away from Revit. But really, AutoCAD is (*bows to Carol*) just an old tired tool, it went past its use by date some time ago (compared to competitors, well maybe not). Unfortunately for Autodesk, from here on in, it won't matter how rapid or slow they bring out a new version of AutoCAD - not one bit.

Many people in this thread have pointed out the things AutoCAD users are NOT using in the later releases, so frustrating, so true.

AutoCAD users have grown too indifferent, although the last 3-4 versions have had some great 'little' tools added, people give a quick cheer, and then its back to the office and Autodesk doesn't listen to us, woe is me, Autodesk this, Autodesk that, I had a flat tyre this morning and where was Autodesk, after handing over all that money? Blah Blah Blah.

Its too late to change. Kinda doesn't matter what is done to AutoCAD, its NEVER going to bring back the magic.

Quite frankly, for the sake of Autodesk's future, they better be looking closely at everything that is good about Revit and I gotta tell ya, that includes the users - their interest, the passion, the future outlook on life. Although I appreciate I am generalising a little here, there are no further opposites in CAD users attitude that an AutoCAD user vs a Revit user.

Lets hope Revit does keep its magic, And I am sure it will for some time to come.


Regards
P Pelegrin

[Wes Macaulay]

There is an atmosphere of general positivity and happiness that drew me to Revit to begin with (after the first releases of Revit repelled me :mrgreen: )... and you're right: that outlook, that attitude is a huge asset to the company.

I really don't know how I feel about Autodesk: they're big... do they care about their users? what are their goals now that they've broken the $1B barrier?

I do mourn that Revit is now an Autodesk product, but they would never have survived without the big A.

[J. Grouchy]

One drawback I've come across recently is working on projects I started in a previous version. I now have to have two versions of Revit on my computer...soon to be a third version...and have to make sure to open the appropriate version first before opening the project. I realize I could upgrade these projects, but I still am hesitant to do so since they are either mostly complete or complete and I don't want any bugs to appear. If I keep going this way I could foresee needing 5 or 6 different versions!

So I suppose I am wondering if I should just upgrade older projects as I access them in later versions or if I should just hang on to older versions of Revit. People have told me "upgrading a full project shouldn't be a problem....but....there is always a chance you could mess something up". Has anyone run into any significant problems upgrading projects?

[Andre Baros]

The only upgrade problems in this neck of the woods was some grid lines which wouldn't budge after the project was upgraded from 6 to 7 and some windows in another that were opaque. Creating new similar were transparent. Both issues were annoying but easily fixed.

[papurajx]

We, 'Revit user' are anxious to know the latest improved funstion in every new release of Revit.
But, AutoCAD users do not care about what the new version can do to them unless the 'reseller support guy' take pain to show them the demo of the new functions. Even then, they are happily working with Autocad 14 and using the key board shortcuts and legacy CAD commands.......unless the management upgrades the software with some lucrative offers from reseller for cross grade/upgrade etc.....

[ppelegrin]

I really don't know how I feel about Autodesk: they're big... do they care about their users? what are their goals now that they've broken the $1B barrier?

I do mourn that Revit is now an Autodesk product, but they would never have survived without the big A.

I suggest that our experience in Australia, with Autodesk has been great. Listening to people, understanding their clients’ requirements, and continuing some of that 'Pre-Autodesk' Revit ethos.

I appreciate this last comment may rub 'certain' people the wrong way - and I apologise in advance (I know it wasn't Autodesk that wrote this original story).

We have had Autodesk Representatives here, some living in Australia for 12 months, specifically with the intention of working directly with many clients, giving feedback to develop team etc - now the last time this happened with AutoCAD (with much larger revenue stream - yes?) was back in..... Let me think, Oh that’s right, it never happened. I work for a Reseller, but I am confident in representing the majority of our clients on this.

Look I agree that Autodesk has some of that 'Microsoft' perception (big, clumsy?, doesn't really care about the little man etc). However credit where credit is due, in this case regarding Revit, there are plenty of positves outweighing the few negatives, it could have turned out a whole other way.....


Regards,
P Pelegrin

[J. Grouchy]

Look I agree that Autodesk has some of that 'Microsoft' perception (big, clumsy?, doesn't really care about the little man etc). However credit where credit is due, in this case regarding Revit, there are plenty of positves outweighing the few negatives, it could have turned out a whole other way

Truth.
AutoDesk made a BIG investment, and hence a big leap, when they bought Revit. They can at least take credit for having the good sense to grab it when they could because they knew BIM was essentially where CAD was headed...at least for Architecture. Such an investment means spreading the word and making it attractive and easy for new users to come aboard. AutoCAD sells itself because it has been the standard for so many years. Revit is still unknown to the majority of designers (or at least is not very well understood). If AutoDesk was to get any return on their investment, they knew they would have to (cliche alert) pound the pavement and spread the word...

[hand471037]

...because they knew BIM was essentially where CAD was headed...at least for Architecture.

Actually, we're one of the last Design areas to catch onto this idea of Modeling instead of Drawing. I talk with my Stepdad, who used to be the head of Cartagraphy for Nevada, and the Database-driven GIS systems do some really neat things and have for a while. Talk to an Industrial Designer and look at what Catia, Pro-E, ect have been doing for a while now.

And A lot of what I think had to do with Autodesk being so eager to buy Revit came from what happened to them with Pro-E; when it came out it was one of the first consumer-grade Parametric Model-based CAD systems for Mechnical Engineers and Industrial Designers. And they kinda ignored it, and pushed AutoCAD and Mechanical Desktop instead, saying that you didn't need Pro-E, didn't need those fancy parametrics. And the market proved them wrong, and Autodesk had to scramble and write an application from scratch to get back into that market (Inventor, which is actually very nice and very Revit-like in ways), and now is no longer the 'standard' within that relm.

While lots of folks out there are still using AutoCAD, and will probably continue to do so, I'd have to say this has been a long time coming, and all it was going to take was someone making a decent modeling & database centered CAD application for the AEC market that worked the same way we did. AutoCAD and ADT, I feel, and a friend of mine who was the guy behind Arch-T (anyone remember that?) felt this way too, have actually done more harm than good in several ways to our industry's use of CAD...

[jim.awe]

... a friend of mine who was the guy behind Arch-T (anyone remember that?) felt this way too, have actually done more harm than good in several ways to our industry's use of CAD...

I was one of the several "guys behind Arch-T", but it sure wasn't me who said that! ;-)

JimA

[Rols]

I have a little concern with Revit's growth cycle. I had just started my project in 6.1 when 7.0 came out. I read that projects with worksets didn't really work well in 7.0, so I have left my project in 6.1. Now, I have another round of projects starting up in 7.0 and Revit 8 is just around the corner. I can easily see me 2 months down the road, running 3 different releases of Revit!
Am I just paranoid about moving full fledged workset projects from one release to the next?? I would certainly hope that any issues with this get solved quickly, if they haven't been already. Project migration is the true key to making a quick Revit release cycle work.

[hand471037]

I was one of the several "guys behind Arch-T", but it sure wasn't me who said that! ;-)

JimA

Yeah, this friend of mine, I don't know if he'd want his name out there over this. You'd know him I'm certain, for the reason I said 'the guy' instead of 'one of the guys' is that he was one of the folks who started it in the first place, and not one of the many great folks that worked to put that together. Should have said 'one of the main guys' instead. ;)

[Steve_Stafford]

...I read that projects with worksets didn't really work well in 7.0, so I have left my project in 6.1...I can't confirm this with our projects. Worksets are better than ever in 7.0

[J. Grouchy]

I can't confirm this with our projects. Worksets are better than ever in 7.0

Unless, apparently, you count this type of error (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=16178) which I'm getting as I try to upgrade a project.

[Steve_Stafford]

Unless, apparently, you count this type of error (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=16178) which I'm getting as I try to upgrade a project.
His comment was about how worksets WORK in 7.0, not about upgrading, at least that was my reading of the post. Any project can have a problem upgrading for many reasons. I doubt worksets are THE problem in your issue.

Replies to that thread should be done there.

[bowlingbrad]

Project migration is the true key to making a quick Revit release cycle work.

This is the best quote yet about the quick release cycle! Much less hassle for us admins

[Rols]

His comment was about how worksets WORK in 7.0, not about upgrading, at least that was my reading of the post. Any project can have a problem upgrading for many reasons. I doubt worksets are THE problem in your issue.

Replies to that thread should be done there.
Actually Steve, that is the issue of which I speak.
The bigger picture is simply this: Any project CAN'T have a problem upgrading from version to version if the quick release cycle is to work for us. My firm's projects usually span longer than Autodesk's 1 year cycle. If I can't upgrade my projects as new releases come along, then I will have to resort to the old Autocad rule and just adopt every even numbered release.

[J. Grouchy]

Actually Steve, that is the issue of which I speak.
The bigger picture is simply this: Any project CAN'T have a problem upgrading from version to version if the quick release cycle is to work for us. My firm's projects usually span longer than Autodesk's 1 year cycle. If I can't upgrade my projects as new releases come along, then I will have to resort to the old Autocad rule and just adopt every even numbered release.

I suppose I should have explained a little more...but that was my intent. I really don't like having to worry whether I will be able to work on my project in a new release...and even if the upgrade appears to go through alright, once in a while I find something tiny that changed that ends up affecting a detail or a schedule, etc. I don't like to think I might be missing some bug or change that occurred with the upgrade.
My specific problem specifically talks about worksets in the first error message but then jumps to talking about a family type that somehow goes missing. Once I get through all the error messages, the upgrade cancels and I'm back to square one. So perhaps it has nothing to do with workset reloading, or perhaps that really is the problem...point is I have no clue. I don't want to go through something like this with every release...so I figured I'd throw my posting in here.
If it really seems like that post doesn't fit...fine...but I've seen far greater digressions in other threads.

[MikeJarosz]

Let me think........ Freedom Tower has nine years to go. Two releases a year. 2 x 9 = 18.

18 + 8 = 26

Looks like we'll be using release 26.0 when the aviation light gets turned on for the first time.

[Scott D Davis]

Wow! Nine years until construction is complete?

[FK]

The invasion of cup-half-empty people again. We will humbly upgrade those files that got messed up by hand, if you remain amazed that thousands of other files upgrade just fine. It is no mean feat, trust me.

[J. Grouchy]

The invasion of cup-half-empty people again. We will humbly upgrade those files that got messed up by hand, if you remain amazed that thousands of other files upgrade just fine. It is no mean feat, trust me.

Whoa! Easy easy! Perhaps I'm just stupid, but I haven't upgraded THOUSANDS of files. I've done it perhaps a total of 3 or 4 projects max...one of which, as you can see, got totally fouled up. So, TO ME, the failure rate is much higher. I'm an Official Card Carrying Member of the Revit Fan Club...but my experience with upgrading entire projects drawn primarily in a previous version of Revit has been disappointing. The only reason I'm attempting to do it is to avoid needing 3 separate versions of Revit installed on my computer. I'm the first to complain about nitpickers...but maybe now you realize my concern.

[Rols]

OK, please forgive me if I am a little paranoid. We are just getting a decent toe-hold with Revit in our office. I certainly don't need any bumps in the road right now.

Anyway, for us the issue is the ability to upgrade files. The learning curve with new releases of Revit really isn't a problem like it is with Autocad.The Factory has done a wonderful job of not over-complicating things and sticking with the original look and feel. I'm able to take my 6.1 users and throw 7.0 at them and they don't even miss a beat. Granted, they may not know all the NEW tools, but they can still function just as they did before and then learn the new stuff as they go.

[FK]

Of course. I meant thousands of files worldwide. My advice is at least to try and make the jump, and rely on Revit support if it fails. That way, you'll get all new features and we'll kill some bugs.

Rols: our aim is transparent upgrade, but bugs happen, and we fix them. Don't worry.

[Steve_Stafford]

Obvious perhaps, but always upgrade a copy of your project(s) first. You can see what errors occur first so you can make an informed decision before committing to the upgrade.

[J. Grouchy]

In my case, it doesn't matter. The upgrade doesn't "take" and I'm back where I started.

[BillyGrey]

grav8e,

Sorry to hear about your trials...

I am on the flip side of this coin. I have been full time, Revit only since 5.1, and have never had a problem. I always upgrade my current projects, as Steve said, via backup when new releases hit the
server. I've done +- 70 projects in that time, and I've probably upgraded 50-60% of those projects at one time or another. Nary a glitch one for me. Admittedly, I have only now started utilizing worksets.

Good luck matey, I hope you get to the bottom of the issue.

Bill

[Andre Baros]

+_ 70 projects?!?! I've been using Revit since 5 and am still on the same 3 projects. (though if you count all the variations of the one I may hit 70...)

[FK]

Send the file to client support already!

[J. Grouchy]

You talkin' to me? What's the process for sending?

[Rols]

Of course. I meant thousands of files worldwide. My advice is at least to try and make the jump, and rely on Revit support if it fails. That way, you'll get all new features and we'll kill some bugs.

Rols: our aim is transparent upgrade, but bugs happen, and we fix them. Don't worry.

Thanks FK, that's all that I ask.
I have a project starting up next week that I'm planning to start in 7.0 and then I think I'll upgrade to 8.0 later when the bugs are worked out.

[FK]

http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=14356 (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=14356)

[gsHoeflinger]

We here are always hesitant of upgrading the models to newer versions.
I have found at least a few times new features that were unavailable to an upgraded model. Off the top of my head the ability to export families (when that feature was added) and a lot of rail/stair controls we not available. And after chatting with support, i was told those features were known not to upgrade.

We do always upgrade a copy first to see how it reacts to a new version of Revit. But we don't always have the time to do a 100% check if anything 'broke' in the upgrade. It is sometimes 2 weeks down the road when an issue is discovered and then it may or may not be too late. What might be helpful, is for the Factory release a list of upgrade issues, per release, if there are any that would help us users decide whether we should upgrade or wait.

Currently, I have a large (400,000SF) project that has already been through 2 upgrades, and I am very hesitant to take through a third, even though I REALLY want the 'improved' schedules.

[David Conant]

The issues you mention (Stairs and exporting families) are examples of new functionality added to existing elements. In cases like that where elements get new properties or abilities, we may not be able to add those abilities to similar elements created in the past without changing your documents. We will then allow such elements to retain their older behavior until you explicitly upgrade them. The project file will still upgrade successfully and all existing elements will work. If we were not to proceed in this manner, we would have to make more drastic choices between proceeding with software improvements and preserving existing projects.

We test upgrade on hundreds of internal and user supplied projects with every addition to the software. Each addition must pass this test. Despite this, we cannot know all the myriad ways you will build your projects. There is no feasible method to guarantee that 100% of all possible projects will upgrade without error. We can only do as good a job as we know how and then help users with the cases we were unable to find in advance.

[Rols]

Thank you, Mr. Conant for your insight. That really eases my concerns.
So far, file upgrades have been the only real issues. Since there is no customization and the program is so intuitive that training isn't much of a problem, quick software releases shouldn't be a problem.
Continue to make the new releases truly worthwhile and I will follow.

[Prodev75]

We here are always hesitant of upgrading the models to newer versions.
I have found at least a few times new features that were unavailable to an upgraded model. Off the top of my head the ability to export families (when that feature was added) and a lot of rail/stair controls we not available. And after chatting with support, i was told those features were known not to upgrade. .....


I feel your pain.
But I have noticed the upgrade to from 6.1 to 7.0 is alot easier vs. 5.0 to 6.1. Not as many errors and not as many families and dimensions getting blown away.

If you haven't figured it out yet. Copy clip the new version of the railing and stairs into your upgraded project. Then transfer project standards for those elements. It seems to work pretty well for most system families.
Be mindful of the overwrite vs. the new only options.

[Chad Smith]

But I have noticed the upgrade to from 6.1 to 7.0 is alot easier vs. 5.0 to 6.1. Not as many errors and not as many families and dimensions getting blown away.
My problems actually went the other way around, with 5.0 - 6.1 being a breeze.

I had, and still do have families that can't be used in 7.0 due to bugs :banghead:
I'm hoping that 8.0 will solve my problems.

[adegnan]

oh yes Leonid! Absolutely! I have been amazed at the development cycle of Revit...I don't know how you guys do it!

It is true, every 'release' whether 6.0 or 6.1 or 7.0, has always been a version that is worth installing, because of new features and methods. And now, Revit 7.0 released in Nov-Dec 2004, and Revit 8.0 set for April 2005...that's 4-5 months between "major" releases!

It's obvious why The Factory has become the model for Autodesk.
And we should all know why it is called "the factory!" YOu guys are a regular production line. Revit 8 looks like a true winner again, of course! :)

[adegnan]

Whoa! Easy easy! Perhaps I'm just stupid, but I haven't upgraded THOUSANDS of files. I've done it perhaps a total of 3 or 4 projects max...one of which, as you can see, got totally fouled up. So, TO ME, the failure rate is much higher. I'm an Official Card Carrying Member of the Revit Fan Club...but my experience with upgrading entire projects drawn primarily in a previous version of Revit has been disappointing. The only reason I'm attempting to do it is to avoid needing 3 separate versions of Revit installed on my computer. I'm the first to complain about nitpickers...but maybe now you realize my concern.
Just today, I pulled out a project last modified in March 2000. What would that be, version 2.x or so? I had only 2 errors in the upgrade. I think the most I've ever had in an upgrade is maybe a dozen, non-critical errors. Now of course, I'm only dealing with 2500 sf homes but I do a _lot_of constraining in my projects. I'm pretty impressed.

[irwin]

Just today, I pulled out a project last modified in March 2000. What would that be, version 2.x or so?
Revit 1.0 was launched at the AIA show in Philadelphia on May 4, 2000. So, if you have a project from March 2000 it was made using a beta version before the first release.

[christopher.zoog51272]

Revit 1.0 was launched at the AIA show in Philadelphia on May 4, 2000. So, if you have a project from March 2000 it was made using a beta version before the first release.
I was actually there that day! Saw the demo, and was instantly convinced that this product will change the way we practice architecture!!!! Signed up in June of 2000, and haven't looked back ;)

-Z

[adegnan]

Revit 1.0 was launched at the AIA show in Philadelphia on May 4, 2000. So, if you have a project from March 2000 it was made using a beta version before the first release.I must have a date wrong then, Irwin! Ah, yes, it was 2001. I started the project at the end of 2000, last revision 3-29-01. Therein lies my confusion! :Oops:

Well, after making a few revisions to it, we've found very few problems. Back in those days, we were just starting compound walls (!) and there was no such thing as a "Core" and I don't even know if there was a "loc line" yet! I think I had just locked the right layer of my compound walls in section... and I found a handful of problems with that, but it could have been bad modeling as well.

Happy to say that the modifications are nearly complete and ready to go back to the client for construction... only 4 years later. :lol: