More ArchiCAD Propaganda

[Scott Hopkins]

Looks like the ArchiCAD gang is using everything they can come up with to convince people to buy ArchiCAD over Revit. The latest argument seems to be that AutoDesk is a flaky company and that you should stay way from their products because you never know what screwball thing they’ll do next. Hmmm… I'll have to think about that one.... :roll:

Also amusing, they are trying to convince us that layers are a good thing! :screwy:

http://www.forthcad.co.uk/Archicad_pages/archicad_revit.html

[beegee]

This certainly sounds like a company running scared.

What about the comment
a company that has changed directions in architectural solutions many times over the past 15 years: remember Softdesk, AutoArchitect, and Architectural Desktop? ADTers will just love that.

And then they're quoting from the ng ! You can get all kinds of wierd stuff if you want to quote from ng's. What credibility does that have ?

[Scott Hopkins]

Actually, now that I think about it, that ArchiCAD reseller probably needed a quote to spice up is article so he planted one himself in the Revit news group. I'll bet that so called "quote" is from alt.cad.revit. I highly doubt that he would have had the temerity to have done so on the Zoog Design Board! :lol:

[Steve_Stafford]

The alt.cad.revit newsgroup has been so spotty regarding holding data that you'd be hard pressed to find a quote from June...never know. I sure don't remember reading it. In fact just did a google search on it and didn't find it...

[beegee]

Its definitely no longer there.

Probably removed by the moderators as "inappropriate content." :lol:

[gregcashen]

The alt.cad.revit newsgroup has been so spotty regarding holding data that you'd be hard pressed to find a quote from June...never know. I sure don't remember reading it. In fact just did a google search on it and didn't find it...

Likewise, I do not remember reading it. In fact I do not remember ever reading a post like that on the newsgroup...with so few grammatical errors, such clear and concise language... :wink:

[MartyC]

Oh, the ignorance of the uninformed!

I for one evaluated them all, and chose Revit as the only truely modern, to-the-point, architectural tool. I originally came from a technician background and understand the production of CD's. I am not fully involved in the BIM concept, however, what I wanted was a fast efficient, accurate and intuitive creative architectural tool, I got it with Revit.

It has been suggested that Revit is too young. Well if Revit can generally outclass all other software as a young product, the future is looking good.

A solution that gives me accurate sections and call-outs with three mouse clicks, apply a drawing to a sheet with one drag-and-drop, and allow me to change anything, anywhere, anytime without stuffing up the overall model is a winner. Linework that consists of thick, medium or thin lines (or anything else I want) cant be too mentally demanding.

Revit is A+B=C folks

I have now got 50% more time to focus on creating spectacular design and not tearing my brain apart trying to find some cryptic work-around or dealing with complex instructions to draw a simple line or shape.

Revit rocks, the others...aah, dont!

Print that in your Archicad promo dudes!

Cheers M

[Steve_Stafford]

In my book, "Freeform" doesn't "make" spectacular...it is just one approach some take to deliver quality design.

Just as using expensive materials won't make a building a "good" design. It's all subjective of course. I gladly take what Revit offers now and will forgo "freeform" shapes, for now. (note I'm the guy asking about tensile roofs in another post, the irony is not lost on me...)

Frankly, if Gehry (oh that's too funny, I just made a "funny") spawns dozens of similarly minded individuals the "fantastic" shapes he creates will seem as hum drum as brick and mortar?

Maybe you can whip up a nice roof for me in inventor so I can import it to my project??

[designer56644]

Balle,

Marty's words are anything but over the top. Me thinks you should get to know the prog real good, then let us know how you feel about the product.

The sections/elevations alone have saved me countless hours, not to mention near zero cross check errors, etc., etc., etc.,etc. Very comforting from a business owner perspective.

As far as conceptual/cyber-procedural modeling or freeform goes, rihno/formz/catia/nurbs in general/bumwad and felt-tip/crumpled paper, anything goes. (How did inventor's feet get into this thread?)

Good luck with the prog.
b

[sbrown]

you could make that roof with the topo surf command in revit however it would be triangles instead of squares. Lets hope 6.0 has something for this style roof.

[Wes Macaulay]

Actually, Balle - in regards to your tensile shell - you can do that sort of thing now using blends, but it's not going to get you a nice hyperbola between the peaks!

[Djordje]

Actually, now that I think about it, that ArchiCAD reseller probably needed a quote to spice up is article so he planted one himself in the Revit news group. I'll bet that so called "quote" is from alt.cad.revit. I highly doubt that he would have had the temerity to have done so on the Zoog Design Board! :lol:

Nope, it is at http://www.rugi.org/cgi-bin/webbbs_config.pl?read=441

Why are you guys scared of ArchiCAD?

IMHO, both ArchiCAD and now Revit are doing a very important job - getting the profession out of the Flatland professional universe. Drawings, drawings, drawings ... duh.

Drop by the ArchiCAD list, and join the discussion on Revit vs ArchiCAD there, if you like ... I am the moderator there and will not delete "inappropriate content" O;)

http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=749

:wink:

[Steve_Stafford]

Not scared of Archicad...don't know the program and my comments personally were attempts at humor. No worries and I agree on the raising the playing field comment.

[Scott D Davis]

Has anyone checked the link posted above bout Revit vs. ArchiCAD? More BS from uninformed users. The same ****: "Revit can't do large projects, CD's must be done in AutoCAD, there are speed issues, there are modelling constraints."

Now the ArchiCAD group is jumping on the fact that Autodesk is bundling Revit and AutoCAD together, assuming that it HAS to be because one must use AutoCAD to finish CD's. WRONG! It's because Autodesk realizes that 95% of the electronic drawings in the world to this point are DWG's! Everyone has a ton of DWG data that must still be used....details, older plans, consultant drawings, etc....

I read their posts, but don't want to jump into their group and turn it into another huge debate. Besides, we already know which product is better! One more thing, if I were using a BIM program that was 20 years old, I would expect it to be a heck of alot better than it is!

[muttlieb]

Hi,

I started the ArchiCad vs. Revit discussion over at the ArchiCad forum. I've also posted some questions here regarding the use of Revit to produce CD's. I currently use ADT, but really use it as a 2D drafting tool. I decided it was time to switch to BIM software and quickly realized it would come down to Revit or ArchiCad. So I've been lurking and posting at both forums for a couple weeks. Obviously it is difficult to get an unbiased opinion at either forum. I've used demos of both programs for several days. The first thing I noticed was the UI. Revit has ArchiCad beat hands sown when it comes to the UI. For me, as a designer, this gives Revit a huge advantage over ArchiCad. Honestly, this fact alone nearly eliminates ArchiCad from consideration. Of course, Revit still needs to produce CD's efficiently, and I can see with my own use of the demo that it can in fact produce CD's without AutoCad's help.

[studio3p]

An office immediately next door to mine is using ArchiCAD pretty regularly. They are also using AutoCAD. They are also using ADT. Isn't that interesting. In fact, they would prefer to not be using AutoCAD at all, but the reality is that they need it because most of their consultants and their larger clients require AutoCAD files for coordination and as record sets. Of course they could manage the translation from ArchiCAD to AutoCAD and back without having AutoCAD loaded on their machines, but for a host of reasons it isn't working out smoothly for them. My point is that they are an office that uses ArchiCAD extensively and they too have decided that AutoCAD is an important fixture on each of their machines. So even ArchiCAD users are susceptible to the juggernaut that is AutoCAD.

I know on this forum, an example such as this is little more than "preaching to the choir", and I think that the argument of "My software is better than your software" is not entirely useful without anything to back up the words. I am in the process of working with my neighboring architects, and another architect in Denver to transition to Revit, and I think that rather than using words exclusively, the best thing we can do to demonstrate the power and flexibility of the software is to regularly post images of what we are producing. I regularly show them what I'm doing and how I'm using software to make my design process flow more smoothly. A picture is worth a thousand words, and more importantly, it may help make the several thousands of dollars for the price of admission easier to swallow. So I'll put my money where my mouth is and post a WIP momentarily.

[muttlieb]

I know on this forum, an example such as this is little more than "preaching to the choir", and I think that the argument of "My software is better than your software" is not entirely useful without anything to back up the words. I am in the process of working with my neighboring architects, and another architect in Denver to transition to Revit, and I think that rather than using words exclusively, the best thing we can do to demonstrate the power and flexibility of the software is to regularly post images of what we are producing. I regularly show them what I'm doing and how I'm using software to make my design process flow more smoothly. A picture is worth a thousand words, and more importantly, it may help make the several thousands of dollars for the price of admission easier to swallow. So I'll put my money where my mouth is and post a WIP momentarily.

Well said. I look forward to seeing the work you are doing. I've requested samples of CD's produced with Revit in another thread. I'm interested in seeing sample images form all phases of the design process. Of course I am interested in projects completed solely in Reivit.

Thanks.

[studio3p]

I've loaded an image in the Gallery.

[Djordje]

I read their posts, but don't want to jump into their group and turn it into another huge debate. Besides, we already know which product is better! One more thing, if I were using a BIM program that was 20 years old, I would expect it to be a heck of alot better than it is!

Scott,

There is no need to begin any huge debate; as you said, the flow of information is not present. People using only Autodesk software have little or no information about anything else until Autodesk buys it, IMHO, and then they "see the light". Or not, as the case may be.

Therefore, I see no problem in a CALM and PROFESSIONAL discussion. Bottom line: we are all professionals, that use the software of our choice to make a living. People who have been stuck in the Flatland too long are looking at options. It is therefore for me and you to present our opinions, with the best information available.

Now, more people that I have heard from using Revit are complaining about the realtions, the (lack of) speed, and that they have to finish off the CDs in AutoCAD. Pilot error, not enough training, software can't do it, what? You live with Revit, I live with ArchiCAD - if you tell me that I cannot save a proper DWG I can only laugh, because I know I can and I know HOW. You will probably laugh if I say that you can't model a ruled surface, for example. Most of the popular misconceptions about any CAD software originate from the people scratching the surface with demos. That is not the right way to obtain an informed opinion about anything ...

Although this sounds compeltely missionary (and I do not want to be eaten) we all should work at converting as many Flatlanders as possible; the choice is always the user's.

Let's BIM,

Djordje

[Djordje]

I've loaded an image in the Gallery.

Where?

[Djordje]

I've loaded an image in the Gallery.

Not bad; I agree with the comments of the people in the Gallery.

BTW - AccuRender can do much better, it is worth time invested. For some WOW AccuRender work check out http://www.ars3d.com/

However, muttlieb asked about CDs, not renderings. What you showed was modeling and AccuRender. That does not build it. Plan, section, elevation, details!

IMHO any real BIM software should not place any special emphasis on the rendering - that is NOT the point, the point is the building of the design and the production of the CDs.

Until the builders wear VR glasses,

Djordje

[christopher.zoog51272]

IMHO any real BIM software should not place any special emphasis on the rendering - that is NOT the point, the point is the building of the design and the production of the CDs.

Until the builders wear VR glasses,

Djordje

Agreed, that is why a good BIM solution must be able to produce CD's. When people say revit can’t produce cd’s without autocad I of course, laugh (like you mentioned earlier) Then I wonder how the dozen or so buildings we have documented with revit were actually built? I used VR of course!!!

Production of fully coordinated Construction doc’s really where revit shines IMHO. It is the C-docs phase where we have seen the biggest reduction of time spent and coordination errors. But, talk is cheap, so they say……

Here are few sheets from different projects we have done over the past 3 years using revit.

[christopher.zoog51272]

BTW, Welcome Djordje!

You can also see a dwf of a project for which we are currently in cdoc's phase here (http://www.zoogdesign.com/forums/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1665)

I may be able to post more later, I need to get permission.

I also agree that Archicad and Revit are the only real BIM's out there. Personally I think revit is the one with the brighter future.

I had looked over that thread on the architalk forum. It's funny, most, if not all of the items David mentioned were addressed in 6.0 due out in a week or two. Spit levels, worksets improvement (we can grab a bunch of stuff edit now too), speed improvements, etc. If i have time I may try to right a few misunderstandings, but I will not spread any misinformation about archicad. I do not pretend to know enough about the program to really critique it.




Z.

[Djordje]

BTW, Welcome Djordje!

Thanks :)


You can also see a dwf of a project for which we are currently in cdoc's phase here (http://www.zoogdesign.com/forums/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1665)

I may be able to post more later, I need to get permission.

Really interested!


I had looked over that thread on the architalk forum. It's funny, most, if not all of the items David mentioned were addressed in 6.0 due out in a week or two. Spit levels, worksets improvement (we can grab a bunch of stuff edit now too), speed improvements, etc. If i have time I may try to right a few misunderstandings, but I will not spread any misinformation about archicad. I do not pretend to know enough about the program to really critique it.

Yes, that is the point - rarely anybody knows ENOUGH of both do give an objective opinion, one or the other prevail (for whatever reason).

Good for you guys that your wishes are granted; they usually are if you yell loud enough :)




Z.[/quote]

[Wes Macaulay]

It's been awhile since I used ArchiCAD (r6.5), but I'm glad to hear that people from both the Revit and ArchiCAD user groups are talking to each other... how cool is that?

There's a few things I could wish for ArchiCAD users: bug fixes and something akin to the family editor. Plotmaker is more integrated into ArchiCAD, but Revit's output methodology is far simpler. Revit's use of categories rather than layers is preferable, and Revit's UI makes the software much easier to learn.

I still think ArchiCAD/Teamwork navigates the multi-user realm better, and ArchiCAD seems to be able to handle large projects with little extra thought.

So here's to ArchiCAD's success: and many more discussions and questions and looking over each other's shoulders. What with the shrinkwrap licensing laws now this might be the only way you can improve your favourite program without getting sued!

I wish to see Revit and ArchiCAD succeed and grow; while I couldn't point someone to AC now unless they're a Mac user, I know competition is good for everyone.

[theguru7remove1746]

Zoog
LOVE the elevations, but should under the stairs be "lattice" and not Lettuce. (I am NOT the best speller, and can't wait for the new spellcheck)

David Thomas

Yeah I caught that too and wondered if anyone else would. One of our draftsmen is Russian, and somtimes things get lost in translation :wink:

This particular sheet did not go out that way :)

[pseletsky1770]

I am dismayed at the childish banter once again being channeled into the user discussion forums over the superiority of one building information product over the other. I am an outspoken proponent of building information modeling as a means toward fostering collaboration within and between the various building trades, in hopes of taking our noble, albeit rather conservative, industry into the twenty-first century. Alas, collaboration should be the primary motivating force behind this movement – NOT superficial user-interface characteristics, which can change over time; nor tired ageism arguments demoting a product for its 20-year old history versus the younger, more energetic, upstart. (Would you castigate your parents for their experience or maturity)?



I like to put my money where my mouth is. To wit, in 2002 I purchased 5 licenses of Revit for my firm (prior to the Autodesk acquisition) based on the feedback from trial usage on a moderate-sized project. To this date, it would be fair to say that my firm has about as much experience as any out there using Revit – up to and including version 5.1. Its intuitive user interface was, and still is, one of the best out there and the company’s thirst for feedback from its user community certainly held a lot of promise for moving forward.



In early 2003, I moved the firm toward an experimentation with ArchiCAD 8.0. Why, you ask? In using Revit on a regular basis it became clear that the workgroup capabilities were not quite up to speed. Like everyone else, I was curious to see if the grass was greener on the other side and to determine whether I had steered the firm in the right direction. If anything, the Autodesk acquisition only verified the validity of what Graphisoft had been doing and espousing for so long. So I pursued my curiosity and thus we began using a 5-user license of ArchiCAD in a similar manner as to how we had proceeded with Revit.



Now, to those of you hoping I’ll point the way to one product over the other I’m sorry to disappoint you. THERE IS NO CORRECT ANSWER. The fact is both products are still relatively 2.5d versus 3D parametric tools (or 4D for those of you so inclined to incorporate scheduling). They both lack the ability to answer to the creative demands of any designer wishing to easily model NURBS shapes - and, yes, some architects do aspire to break their designs out of the squared-off, orthogonal box. No software should dictate how people should think or dream! Yes, ArchiCAD’s user-interface is archaic and awful – I’ve told that to the executives at Graphisoft personally – but the collaborative features definitely held their own against Revit and the software, in general, seemed less buggy – especially in terms of Adobe Illustrator output and model rotation speed.



What’s so important about collaboration, especially to architects, you may ask? The importance of building information modeling – the ‘leap forward’ – is the possibility that architects can actually ‘leap backwards’ and re-establish themselves as the central information-dispensing entity they once were. This can only be achieved by having the single information model shared amongst disciplines. This entails real-time, SYNCHRONOUS, verification of information. The building information model was not intended to be a glorious enhancement of the manual, paper-based, drafting methodology. Its efficiency is derived from its incorporation into an OPEN, SHARED, DATABASE whereby other parties can input and derive energy analysis, structural analysis, and mechanical duct placement. This model was intended to serve as a virtual, digital construction management tool -- providing real-time interference checking and cross-checking and thus preventing mistakes in the field before they happened! This model was also intended to serve as a facilities management tool for building owners so desiring to implement post-construction remodeling or renovation of their properties.



Now, this much I can tell you: What we’ve found in working with Graphisoft is a willingness to provide an open SQL database engine that provides a TWO-WAY, iterative, input/output capability. In plain English, it means whether third parties can develop those analysis packages I mentioned earlier, or any adjacent tools, to work with the core program. Why is this so important? The answer is that you must look further down the road than the wonderful user-interface features you have now and decide whether you want the freedom to choose those analysis tools yourselves or have them chosen for you. What am I implying here? To date, Autodesk has shown no willingness to provide anything other than a one-way database capability into Revit. Yes, you can export data from Revit into an analysis package but not the other way around. Will this change? I’m not so certain because historically Autodesk has decided what they do will serve their interests first, meaning, you’re more likely to see Revit Mechanical, Revit Electrical, and Revit Structural before they’ll allow you to see any third-party programs doing those same things. Indeed, at a recent American Institute of Architects conference held in San Francisco on Building Information Modeling, a top Autodesk official when queried if Autodesk would make Revit IAI-compliant and BLIS-compliant, hemmed and hawed and basically said he didn’t know. [To those of you unfamiliar with the acronyms, the IAI is the International Alliance for Interoperability and BLIS is Building Lifecycle Interoperable Software; both organizations of which are dedicated to facilitating the type of building industry collaboration I’ve mentioned; Autodesk will readily boast that they’re a founding sponsor of IAI to counter any claims of non-interest.] Then again, asking this question of someone at Autodesk is like asking someone at Microsoft whether they’re prepared and willing to interoperate with Linux! Have I given up on Revit, you ask? No not yet but I do want them to listen harder and I do want alternatives.



So, in conclusion, the real debate and the real questions you must all ask yourselves are, ‘Who is providing me with the tools and functionality I need today as well as further down the road? Who is looking after my broader interests, as opposed to perhaps just their shareholders’ interests?’ Let’s be very clear, however, and differentiate that the question is definitely not one of, ‘Who will be left standing?’ because I can almost certainly guarantee you that there will be some new, unknown, entity on the horizon who may turn out to surprise everyone. That’s the beauty of fostering competition and that’s what’s needed the most here at this time.

[Djordje]

It's been awhile since I used ArchiCAD (r6.5), but I'm glad to hear that people from both the Revit and ArchiCAD user groups are talking to each other... how cool is that?

The coolest possible ... reading the EXCELLENT reports from AU (guys, get some sleep!) I see that in the BigA software users community there is still a strong staid current of past time Flatland thinking.

When it comes to concepts, and basic outlook on the profession and the CAD implementation - let's call it BIM, Virtual Building, whatever, you guys know what I am writing about! - we are one.


I wish to see Revit and ArchiCAD succeed and grow; while I couldn't point someone to AC now unless they're a Mac user, I know competition is good for everyone.

Quite true! No other way to grow - and to win the Flatlanders over!

Zoog, thanks for the examples - very cool!. Hope we come to better understanding over time, here and at ArchiCAD Talk.

Djordje

[Wes Macaulay]

Wow - pcell... is that for real? You put that much money into testing both platforms?? I've never heard of such a test!

Developing software is tough. Developing 2D software is one thing; developing 3D software is far tougher! I applaud the efforts in moving us towards IFCs, but trying to build a building out of an industry open format (esp one written in plain English) seems like a monumental task. I will think it a miracle when they finally pull it off, so that ArchiCAD and Revit will talk to each other.

[Djordje]

Developing software is tough. Developing 2D software is one thing; developing 3D software is far tougher! I applaud the efforts in moving us towards IFCs, but trying to build a building out of an industry open format (esp one written in plain English) seems like a monumental task. I will think it a miracle when they finally pull it off, so that ArchiCAD and Revit will talk to each other.

The "only" problem I see for the time being is Autodesk not really working on the IFC, while paying lip service.

Whether IAI or BLIS concept, the non-platform specific exchange of intellignet data is the only way. That is also the only way of engaging all the facets of the industry - for the time being, I still have to meet a HVAC engineer that understands that his ducts are wreaking havoc, mostly because he does NOT think in space!

Expecting a drawing file format to carry all the info across is unrealistic; expecting everybody to use one file format likewise.

I wish that Revit gets IFC ASAP - then the real talking can begin!

Djordje

[GuyR]

Whether IAI or BLIS concept, the non-platform specific exchange of intellignet data is the only way. That is also the only way of engaging all the facets of the industry - for the time being, I still have to meet a HVAC engineer that understands that his ducts are wreaking havoc, mostly because he does NOT think in space!

Stepping back a little what are the reasons for IFC? Probably 2 major reasons (please add more)

Data security - if the company producing the software goes belly up, you at least know the file format for importing into another program.With all the nervousness about security at the moment some countries will probably view this as a positive -eg: linux-Openoffice-Munich.The Singapore IFC project.

Interface to other software - Other software can interface to the data. A good thing for BIM intelligent models. ArchiCAD -Visio, Timberline, FM etc.
No longer is reverse engineering of file formats necessary and companies can keep native file formats proprietary. It also allows associated services access to core geometry data and meta data allowing them to manipulate/ analyse buildings to suit their own requirements.

My interpretations of comments in the past from those in the know (including IFC developers) is that IFC isn't production ready yet. So why does Revit need to do export it now? Autodesk are the dominant player in the market after all. The reality is it would help Autodesks competitors migrate customers more than it would generate business for Autodesk .By Graphisoft appearing to be so 'Open', Autodesk's behaviour looks more monopolistic and Graphisoft can argue to people that will listen that their software is more future proof because of IFC.

In many ways Graphisoft is no more open. If they wanted GDL to grow they'd opensource the GDL code and not charge developers for accessing the API. Were Graphisoft as dominant as Autodesk I doubt they'd be anymore interested in IFC than Autodesk is.

With regard to interfacing to other programs I believe (hope) Revit will favour the Inventor/Solidworks approach, where the UI is seemlessly integrated with the Revit UI. An integrated UI is not possible with the Graphisoft API currently( as I understand it). So they need IFC.
If they do what Graphisoft have done with autocad-GDL, Autodesk could provide viewers/API for accessing revit files without exposing the file format.Thereby not needing an IFC export option.

Ultimately IFC or some open format is what the industry will demand but I'd put money on not seeing Revit-IFC from Autodesk for a long time. Open formats from Autodesk just aren't the Autodesk way of doing things. (Unless it suits their own purposes, like DWF)

Guy

[gregcashen]

it is also a good strategy for other firms to try to "distract" Autodesk from focusing on the core technology that will actually help sell it. We get back to the fact that Revit, in 3 years, has accomplished (arguably?) what Archicad has taken 20 years to achieve. At the current rate, it will not be long before we know the answer to the BIM question. Additionally, Archicad is experiencing a HUGE benefit from Revit currently in that the purchase of Revit by Autodesk validated the premise that BIM is the future. Certainly 20 years of Archicad didn't do that...we'll see...

[GuyR]

Good point Greg,

I really wonder what purpose Djorde has in posting to Zoog other than to try and raise the profile of ArchiCAD for those Autocad-ADT'rs who are looking at moving to Revit.
The theory of BIM is old, the functionality for probably the next 2 releases will be well defined by now for both companies. So talking about who's got what and who's missing what is largely pointless.

The only way you can adequately compare both is to try them for yourself.

When I was looking at swapping from AC to Revit (V3) people on the archiCAD mailing list were dismissive of Revit. Djorde was one of these people. Now suddenly it's it's one of only 2 decent BIM solutions.!! I had a look at the Architalk forum and there doesn't seem to be much debate about BIM. More comparing Revit/ ArchiCAD functionality.

Don't get me wrong, Revit isn't perfect , I so so miss theometrics door window builder. But I'm still considerably more productive/relaxed designing with Revit .

ArchiCAD has got a real problem. They need mindset, they're supporting 2 platforms (AC8 on OSX has had huge problems) and they have a 20 year old product with all the legacy baggage associated with this.Up against a new product on 1 platform with good resources behind it .IMO V7 of ArchiCAD needed to be a major rewrite, it wasn't. Now any major release is going up against a rapidly improving Revit. A much harder sell.

Surely Graphisoft must be looking to consolidate with another major CAD vendor or looking for a major cash injection? My understanding is Autodesk paid for Revit what is Graphisoft market capitalization. If that's true they need resources badly. Particularly if they continue to compete on 2 platforms. Interesting would be Autodesk/Revit/Inventor v's Dassault/ ArchiCAD(Gehry)/ Solidworks/ !! Now there's a thought?.....:-)

Guy

[studio3p]

ArchiCAD has got a real problem. They need mindset, they're supporting 2 platforms (AC8 on OSX has had huge problems) and they have a 20 year old product with all the legacy baggage associated with this.

I am curious how effective Revit will be over time supporting it's own "old" files. In 5 years will I be able to open a 5.1 file in order to check a detail, or to generate a rendering for a potential client? In fact, how are people dealing with this issue now? When 6 is released should we be saving all of our old files as 6 documents?

[hand471037]

And just to make things interesting, I was reading an article last week that was in the New Yorker about how Frank Geary's gonna help IBM market thier specilized version of Catia for Architecture. Up intil now, no Architects used Catia for it wasn't really made accessible to us, after all it was made for the manufacuring/aerospace industry. By taking Geary Office's modifications to the software that make it more Architect-friendly, and extending them farther, IBM is hoping on entering the BIM market with Catia... And IBM is a pretty big dog, that is rather supportive of open source...

Oh my are things gonna get interesting! :)

Oh, and on the issue of future file formats, Jim B. has a house he's been working on since Revit was in *beta*, pre-1.0, that he's still working on in the latest version. The files have migrated without issue. That's been our experance as well, but we've only been using Revit since 3.0 :)

[PeterJ]

I came in at 3.1 and have never had any significant problem updating from version to version, though we have had to send in two or three files for fixing by support.

[Djordje]

Guy,


I really wonder what purpose Djorde has in posting to Zoog other than to try and raise the profile of ArchiCAD for those Autocad-ADT'rs who are looking at moving to Revit.

Wrong ... The original discussion started on the ArchiTalk, one of the users (muttlieb) inquired there, and here ... so it might be his "fault"? Also, except if you are working for Autodesk, in which case I understand you, what is wrong in an Autodesk user choosing ArchiCAD over Revit? Or, except if you are working for Graphisoft, vice versa? Professionals should choose their tools, not follow the brands.

If people were looking for the software that their job can be best done with instead of following brands and stickers around, we would all have much better tools to use and Bill Gates would be much less rich, but that is probably another story?


The only way you can adequately compare both is to try them for yourself.

Fully agreed! One problem, though:

Find me another 24 hours in a day and I will. By trying out I don't mean going through a tutorial, but at least trying to do a project. Sorry, not possible.


When I was looking at swapping from AC to Revit (V3) people on the archiCAD mailing list were dismissive of Revit. Djorde was one of these people. Now suddenly it's it's one of only 2 decent BIM solutions.!!

When it started up, Revit's writeups and explanations were only just different from the Graphisoft texts and brochures from 10 years ago. I still have their ADT-bashing whitepaper somewhere, worse than anything Graphisoft ever did. Not surprising, the BIM (as it is known now since BigA jumped in) concept is nothing revolutionary new. PRO/Reflex (anybody remembers Sonata?) was a good thing conceptually, I had a brief encounter with it once upon a time, but you could not really work in it - the computers were just not powerful enough, and the ones that were were tooo expensive.

Revit looked to me like the extension of that idea and concept, and somewhere I read that a part of the original PRO/Reflex team was/is responsible for Revit. Please correct me if I am wrong. My doubt always were the relationships - however good it sounds, it is bound to put quite a pressure on the hardware resources, and an architectural object is not so determined in all its aspects for every component to be fully dependent on something else.

I also used plain AutoCAD, Softdesk AutoArchitect until R12, and saw what happened when BigA took over. Seems not to be the case here, for now. Revit is the only conceptually 100% BIM software except ArchiCAD, and came to the market 20 years later, of which ArchiCAD spent more than 10 being Mac only, so there might be the answer why are there not more of them around - count the Macs - that is the truth, whether anybody, including me, likes it or not.

People also invest time and effort into learnign something, and they don't want to change. If a threat - perceived or real - appears, the normal reaction is belittling it. Some, on the other hand, try to understand.


I had a look at the Architalk forum and there doesn't seem to be much debate about BIM. More comparing Revit/ ArchiCAD functionality.

The users of ArchiCAD understand the BIM concept and use it for much longer that the average Autodesk user, weaned mostly on AutoCAD, does; by intertia those people now follow the BigA to Revit - good for industry, hard for them. I think you would not disagree that thoughts wise and in organziational sense there is no difference between changing from any flatland software to any BIM software.

Used to a way of working, it is natural that the users want to know how the "other" does it. What is wrong in that?

As beegee advised me in another thread - go to the Wishlist on ArchiCAD Talk and see what people ask for. Conceptually, not only the tools/commands/options. You also have first hand experience, shoul not be hard to follow.

Then again, all of this might be in vain, as all of a sudden, IBM could give a free Catia to each architect on this planet and we could all be Frank Gehry ... wow ... is it so obvious I am typing this in wee hours?

Sorry if I am polluting the software purity of the list. But then, I always hated any kind of discrimination.

All of the above is of course my own, personal opinion.

Let's BIM,

Djordje

[hand471037]

"Sorry if I am polluting the software purity of the list. But then, I always hated any kind of discrimination."

Djordje, WTF? Serously, this ain't no cult here, and neither is ArchiCAD. If you're really honest in your effort to have an open and objective debate, drop the trolling, and lighten up! One of the true strengths of Zoog's site has been the distinct lack of such zelotry.... I mean I was even comparing BOA to Revit last month, others talk about ArchiCAD (and some here are longtime ArchiCAD users), others here chime in about ADT and Revit all the time, no one gets upset...

[muttlieb]

Guy,

[quote:2387d8a649="GuyR"]I really wonder what purpose Djorde has in posting to Zoog other than to try and raise the profile of ArchiCAD for those Autocad-ADT'rs who are looking at moving to Revit.

Wrong ... The original discussion started on the ArchiTalk, one of the users (muttlieb) inquired there, and here ... so it might be his "fault"? Also, except if you are working for Autodesk, in which case I understand you, what is wrong in an Autodesk user choosing ArchiCAD over Revit? Or, except if you are working for Graphisoft, vice versa? Professionals should choose their tools, not follow the brands.
[/quote:2387d8a649]

Ok, I'll take the credit for Djordje's presence here. And so what if he is trying to raise the profile of ArchiCad to people contemplating the switch to BIM? I see nothing wrong with that as long as he doesn't spread misinformation about Revit. It is funny how some people get so defensive about the software they use. I am trying to choose the best BIM solution for MY needs so I've posted questions in both forums. Just because I use ADT now does not mean I will necessarily stick with AutoDesk and choose Revit (although Revit is the frontrunner right now).

[Djordje]

"Sorry if I am polluting the software purity of the list. But then, I always hated any kind of discrimination."

Djordje, WTF? Serously, this ain't no cult here, and neither is ArchiCAD. If you're really honest in your effort to have an open and objective debate, drop the trolling, and lighten up!

Just lit a Winston up ;)

A round on me for being too serious!

[GuyR]

By taking Geary Office's modifications to the software that make it more Architect-friendly, and extending them farther, IBM is hoping on entering the BIM market with Catia..

I think Dassault will be looking to learn more about the 'process' of architecture than selling seats at this stage.If you thought Revit/ArchiCAD were expensive then have a look at CATIA's price!!! The synergies possible between product design - architecture CAD are huge. No more redrawing products. After all a lot of fittings will be designed on Inventor/Soldiworks now. Imagine being able to import these straight into a Revit model?


Also, except if you are working for Autodesk No I'm not.


Find me another 24 hours in a day and I will. By trying out I don't mean going through a tutorial, but at least trying to do a project. Sorry, not possible.

I find this an interesting attitude which I've come across a number of times. AC/Revit cost a lot of money, both up front and training . Is it not vitally important firms MAKE the time to do the evaluation properly?

Moving from 2D to a 3D design environment has longterm implications that need to be planned for, why would you not spend the time.? I once talked to an architect that had purchased 3 licenses of AC instead of ADT and he asked me if he'd made the right decision!!! He'd spent serious money without understanding what he'd purchased. That's not good for AC or ADT.


I still have their ADT-bashing whitepaper somewhere, worse than anything Graphisoft ever did There were many of us who didn't understand Revit's marketing attitude. I also think it would have helped AC's cause more if they had been more positive about Revit when they weren't part of Autodesk.



My doubt always were the relationships - however good it sounds, it is bound to put quite a pressure on the hardware resources, and an architectural object is not so determined in all its aspects for every component to be fully dependent on something else.

I really do not understand this.And this shows how little you have used Revit. One of the first things that attracted me to revit was how I could drag around a wall and others moved with it(if it was connected). Highlight a dimension and type a value. AC you don't have this ability and you have to use all these shortcuts special key selections to move elements in a particular way. So to my mind AC's imposes more constraints on how you model than revit!! And when you do have an element in Revit that you want to move independently all you have to do is use the move tool and click the disjoin button. It's SO easy.

The reality of this intelligence in Revit is you do need serious hardware. I'm running a 3.06Ghz laptop 1GB RAM , lovely. But why is this a bad thing? I always found it strange that AC User's thought it was great they could run AC on cheap hardware when they'd spent SO much money on the software. Revit uses the CHEAP poweful hardware available today to make my live easier and designing more enjoyable. I fail to see why this is a bad thing?


Sorry if I am polluting the software purity of the list. But then, I always hated any kind of discrimination.

I'm not trying to discriminate. I just think AC users need to be more honest about it's shortcomings. As I said Graphisoft have stuck their head in the sand for too long. They need to start utilising the enormous CHEAP horsepower available in a modern PC to make the designers job easier. Sure Revit lacks some big features compared to ArchiCAD but it's already shown it can improve considerably faster than ArchiCAD. As I said Graphisoft needs to pull a big one out of the bag because Revit is going to really start gathering momentum now V6 is out(almost).

Guy

[Wes Macaulay]

We all talk about how Revit and AC utilise the resources of the lowly PC. And this is one thing I'm not clear on, nor do I think any of us users are clear on.

How do these programs handle large projects? I've heard people complain about file sizes in AC and Revit, and others talk about how well or poorly each one handles large projects. As a longtime AutoCAD user, I have a "feel" for HOW AutoCAD handles big jobs with xrefs, demand loading and the like. With both Revit and ArchiCAD this process is more hidden from the user and I'd like to know more about how their file formats and the programs themselves work as the project increases - the technical stuff. Phil Read at Revit talked about the introduction of lazy parsing in Revit 5... a great move. It did wonders for Revit, and I understand it in general terms, but I'd like to hear about it in more detail :D

As these programs grow more and more developed, our understanding of what's going on "under the hood" should also increase as users; I hope both Graphisoft and Autodesk facilitate this process.

[hand471037]

OH, I'm not saying that CATIA is in any way something viable or that it will be cheap. Just that IBM is a pretty big gun, and that they seem friendly to the whole open source thing too. I could be wrong, but I feel like this CATIA thing could be big...

[GuyR]

I agree Jeffrey, it's a company that really understands CAD well, dominates the mech. CAD market particularly automotive in Europe and would have Autodesk sweating hard. They've got a limited window of opportunity though. Revit gets enough momentum and it'll take something pretty special to make people jump again.

Here's another one :sketchup front-end, ArchiCAD back-end :-) That would be interesting.

Guy

ps: Dassault were an early investor in Revit. I never did understand why Dassault didn't continue with this. Integrating the mech world with the architectural world will be nirvana.It seem a partnership made in heaven.

[Wes Macaulay]

ps: Dassault were an early investor in Revit. I never did understand why Dassault didn't continue with this. Integrating the mech world with the architectural world will be nirvana.It seem a partnership made in heaven.
Oh man... I had forgotten that! Man... it could have been a coup for Dassault in the long term... maybe. 'Cause when you think of it, it really will take someone like Autodesk to make Revit successful. They've got the clout, market share and marketing ability to get Revit into people's hands. Like many others, I don't like how Autodesk has become the largest CAD game in town, and I don't like how cash-hungry this cow has become. A public company whose primary goal is grossing a billion bucks in a year is a scary thing. :shock:

Autodesk will only go so far in pissing off their users, nonetheless. If they go too far in the future, people could very well dump Autodesk software, and hopefully people will have good alternatives if that happens.

[gregcashen]

The "only" problem I see for the time being is Autodesk not really working on the IFC, while paying lip service.

I wish that Revit gets IFC ASAP - then the real talking can begin!

Djordje

Read this... (http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/autocad/select/grabowski_au_2003.htm)
Particulary the part about Revit (first paragraph...more specifically, the last sentence in that paragraph)
I had heard this at AU, but it was among talk of some other things I was not sure if I could mention...it all got bundled together in my head under the title "NDA". Since Ralph has outed it, I guess it is fair to mention that support for IFC was mentioned as being in the pipeline for Revit...don't know if it is 6.x or 7.0 or 13.7 :)

Personally, I am more interested in the other stuff in the works that he mentions...as we all know. ;)

[Djordje]

[quote:a39ed86ea8="Djordje"]I wish that Revit gets IFC ASAP - then the real talking can begin!

Read this... (http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/autocad/select/grabowski_au_2003.htm)
Personally, I am more interested in the other stuff in the works that he mentions...as we all know. ;)[/quote:a39ed86ea8]

I did.

NDAs are a b*t*h, aren't they? :)

To answer more than one question why I think IFC is important - we need ONE file format, preferebly not CAD developer-specific, as each of them tends to keep the internal format as closed as possible, that carries ALL the info. Now we have limited capability translation, mostly based on widely spread DXF, DWG and 3DS formats. Legacy all of them, more or less dumb triangles (if we are talking 3D) all of them. Maybe can be used for visualization, but that is mostly all.

Of course you are more interested that your software of choice develops internally :)

[Djordje]

Find me another 24 hours in a day and I will. By trying out I don't mean going through a tutorial, but at least trying to do a project. Sorry, not possible.

I find this an interesting attitude which I've come across a number of times. AC/Revit cost a lot of money, both up front and training . Is it not vitally important firms MAKE the time to do the evaluation properly?

Of course it is; I was speaking about myself :)


Moving from 2D to a 3D design environment has longterm implications that need to be planned for, why would you not spend the time.? I once talked to an architect that had purchased 3 licenses of AC instead of ADT and he asked me if he'd made the right decision!!! He'd spent serious money without understanding what he'd purchased. That's not good for AC or ADT.

Well ... that only shows that people don't REALLY understand what they buy. I agree that it is hardly understandable to shell out tens of thousands for software licenses before you are SURE the thing can be used 120% Then again, a smaller practice can hardly afford lag time of a week, let alone more, to do nothing BUT evaluate - it should trickle from somewhere all the time.



My doubt always were the relationships - however good it sounds, it is bound to put quite a pressure on the hardware resources, and an architectural object is not so determined in all its aspects for every component to be fully dependent on something else.

I really do not understand this.And this shows how little you have used Revit. One of the first things that attracted me to revit was how I could drag around a wall and others moved with it(if it was connected). Highlight a dimension and type a value. AC you don't have this ability and you have to use all these shortcuts special key selections to move elements in a particular way. So to my mind AC's imposes more constraints on how you model than revit!! And when you do have an element in Revit that you want to move independently all you have to do is use the move tool and click the disjoin button. It's SO easy.

The reality of this intelligence in Revit is you do need serious hardware. I'm running a 3.06Ghz laptop 1GB RAM , lovely. But why is this a bad thing? I always found it strange that AC User's thought it was great they could run AC on cheap hardware when they'd spent SO much money on the software. Revit uses the CHEAP poweful hardware available today to make my live easier and designing more enjoyable. I fail to see why this is a bad thing?

The hardware load was what I was not sure about. The relationships are OK, BUT I still prefer controlling what is linked to what (no, I have nor used Revit extensively, so have to take your words for it). I also encountered many warning messages (last demo I have is 4.5) when doing very basic stuff.

As for the hardware - whoever thinks he can run any CAD, let alone BIM apps, on a famous Chinese brand NoName, he is deeply into trouble. In the late 80s/early 90s, the rule of a thumb was that the software and the computer should cost the same. Computers are cheaper now, so let's say half or two thirds of the software price. So, let's say ArchiCAD is US$4000, so the computer should be nothing less than US$2000 - and that buys a lot of assembled PC, not so bad branded one, even not so bad a Mac.

Until 8, it was really possible to run ArchiCAD comfortably on PCs that were not top of range, and older Macs. Now that the OpenGL is in big time, it is POSSIBLE, but not recommended, unless you are immortal or your dedlines are in the 22nd century :). You, on other hand, also have no choice - if you want to work in real time or anything near it, the machine has to have the oomph! Such is the reality of BIM.

Let's BIM,

Djordje

[Djordje]

Here's another one :sketchup front-end, ArchiCAD back-end :-) That would be interesting.

If you want to try it, contact

Ferenc Lazar
Piano Frozen in Time

mailto:welltempered@frozenpiano.com

The translator is in semi-public beta testing for quite some time. In fact, it was started before the one published for ADT now during AU.

Now, I would ask - why was not the logical step done, of doing the SketchUp2Revit transaltor from your side?

[beegee]

Now, I would ask - why was not the logical step done, of doing the SketchUp2Revit transaltor from your side?

Because the translator is still in early testing stages for converting 3D entities.

Migatze wrote
I talked to the @Last people while at AU. Yes, they have an import filter for ADT2004. However, after talking to the people at the booth, my understanding is that it looks for certain characteristics and uses those to determine what a wall is, a floor, a roof, etc. It doesn't always work correctly, but it's probably not bad for a first attempt.

[Djordje]

How do these programs handle large projects? I've heard people complain about file sizes in AC and Revit, and others talk about how well or poorly each one handles large projects.

As one guy said, "define large".

Shall we say a resort development, US$ 50 million?

Done it in 7; the techniques?

1. Think of the organization strategy BEFOREHAND, but keep it flexible so that you can adjust as you go

2. break it up - no machine can handle the whole thing at once

3. Use what you have for breaking up - TeamWork, modules, XRefs, GDL. I used all of it, and it worked. For example: the surveyour's data were Xreffed in, the individual buildings were developed independently, bigger ones were composed out of modules, and all was put together as objects.

You can also check out http://www.graphisoft.com/products/archicad/eureka.html That is the tallest residential building in the world, done in ArchiCAD.


As a longtime AutoCAD user, I have a "feel" for HOW AutoCAD handles big jobs with xrefs, demand loading and the like. With both Revit and ArchiCAD this process is more hidden from the user and I'd like to know more about how their file formats and the programs themselves work as the project increases - the technical stuff.
I would liek to know

I would like to know can you do something like this in Revit - not the building, the system. Do you guys have Xrefs (DWG/DXF), and modules (let's say, a full blown 3D XRef)? Can a whole building be a - you call it Family, right? - a library part? I see that you have something like TeamWork now, and it is essential for the big jobs.


As these programs grow more and more developed, our understanding of what's going on "under the hood" should also increase as users; I hope both Graphisoft and Autodesk facilitate this process.

Well, until they give you an API, that is hard to expect. And, you NEVER can know what is EXACTLY under the hood. NDAs, copyrights, and so on.

Let's BIM,

Djordje

[PeterJ]

A resort would be like a campus I imagine, a series of related but discrete buildings. Revit handles this scenario fairly well through the use of linked files. You would have a single model for the site and then each building would link to that and be a model in its own right.

You need to be careful in such scenaria that each building remains as a project in its own right so that you look after drawing numbers and project references. You also need to look carefully at how detail is shared where there is common detailing through the buildings. In theory large buildings can also be split into parts using the same technique but I think there will always be a join line in such instances. At present you cannot schedule elements from a linked model in a host model. I don't know if this will change after Tuesday.

You can also use workset s effectively to allow people to work on large buildings concurrently. As you said, Djorje, of Archicad, planning is the big issue here. Making sure that what is produced suits the neds of the project. Considering whether the whole things needs to be modelled in close up detail, which is likely to increase model size, or whether no view would come closer than 3 metres, in which case model to that level of view 'need'. You can always work up a little more detail in a separate model, with the main building linked in.

I fell though that I'm failing to get to the real nub of the difference between the packages. If I were a fresh buyer I think I would see little between them other than the fact that were I to buy Archicad they would give me an iPod. It almost becomes a no-brainer.

[Djordje]

[quote:b8b409e578="Djordje"] Now, I would ask - why was not the logical step done, of doing the SketchUp2Revit transaltor from your side?

Because the translator is still in early testing stages for converting 3D entities.[/quote:b8b409e578]

Good.

I feel that initial massing and sketching is not really the BIM operation, as it must not be burdened by all the "technical" stuff. It has to flow, and SketchUp does is prefectly!

Only the paper beats it :shock:

[Wes Macaulay]

I feel though that I'm failing to get to the real nub of the difference between the packages. If I were a fresh buyer I think I would see little between them other than the fact that were I to buy Archicad they would give me an iPod. It almost becomes a no-brainer.
Someone at Autodesk: get this man an I-Pod!

I'm with you Peter - I don't have a feel for the differences between the two platforms and how they perform on large projects. The only ArchiCAD users in our area use Macs and haven't been using Teamwork effectively. In fact, they say they're not even using ArchiCAD effectively (which I find depressing).

We should figure out a way to host a Revit vs. ArchiCAD shoot-out / in-depth demo. In fact, I'm going to post the idea... Run by users who know their software, can answer most of the questions, and don't mind showing the weaknesses of their favourite beast.

[muttlieb]

We should figure out a way to host a Revit vs. ArchiCAD shoot-out / in-depth demo. In fact, I'm going to post the idea... Run by users who know their software, can answer most of the questions, and don't mind showing the weaknesses of their favourite beast.

Great idea!!! I would love to see that.

[PeterJ]

I think that's within Steve Burri's remit, Wes.

On a more serious note, there seems little been the two softwares from a purchaser's perspective, unless you can really get deep down into the nitty gritty use of the software. For the majority of people there are going to be strenghts and weaknesses in both, some stemming from the UI some stemming from real functionality. It's difficult to know how to evaluate the differences when they become so fine.

I suppose for me the defining point, and it worked when I bought into Revit, is the age of the software and how much has been achieved in a relatively short space of time. It rather gave the feeling that the sky was the limit.

[beegee]

I suppose for me the defining point, and it worked when I bought into Revit, is the age of the software and how much has been achieved in a relatively short space of time. It rather gave the feeling that the sky was the limit

When I used to analyse stocks and options, one of the fundamental tools we used was where the company stood in the life cycle of its market segment.

1. the young up and comers, using new technology/ full of ideas and energy. Pick the right one and the biggest profits could be made.

2. The well established dominant market leaders. Using proven technology and with loyal customers and good marketing. Some upside usually there, but a conservative bet.

3. Those companies that had been around too long, couldn't see tha changes coming in time and had become complacent in their market. Sell or go short.

You can insert names of CAD companies against each of those 3 categories. There is no question about which category Revit is in and I'm more than happy with my " investment ".