Residential cd's with Revit

[muttlieb]

I am a designer with a small residential remodeling design/build firm. I've been using ADT since its release, currently R3. I have been considering switching over to one of the BIM software solutions and have it narrowed down to ArchiCad and Revit (what else is there?). I've been playing around with the demos of both for the last few days. I definetely prefer the overall user interface and drawing feedback that Revit provides over ArchiCad. ArchiCad just feels very cumbersome to use. My main concern with Revit is its ability to produce construction documents. I've heard that construction docs have to be finished in AutoCad. Ok, I heard this in an ArchiCad forum, but it still causes me some concern. For example, how do you create a roof framing plan in Revit? Would you model each rafter/truss in 3D or would you draw a 2D layout? I like the idea of a complete 3D model but if the software really can't do it, what is the point? In other words, if the software can't really create a complete BIM, why should I switch? Will I still be producing a lot of 2D drawings to complete construction docs? I'd love to see some examples of residential construction docs completed with Revit only.

[Henry D]

I do mainly residential - I also used ADT but started using Revit about 7 months ago. Revit is great for CD's -it's strength is in how the CD's and the model are tied together. Develop the model and you already have the CD elevations, sections, plans, schedules, details, etc. - and it goes both ways: anything you change in the CD's is reflected in the model. It's not perfect as you can see by the posts on the wishlist forum, for instance, it doesn't have a structural framing package, so that is better done as a 2D overlay (or if you are really into framing look at Chief Architect). But Revit is as close to being a complete package as is out there and has so much to offer. It's improved my designs and best of all it changed my perception of work, when I'm on Revit it's play when I'm on ADT it's work.

[beegee]

We do a bit of residential work also, and come from an Archicad background. One of the main things with BIM is that its not always necessary or efficient to model every single thing in 3D. Roof framing is probably a good example as its simple and easier to draw it 2D most of the time. But its not necessary to go back to Autocad for that. Revit has a good range of 2D tools and they will only get better.
Without getting into a Revit v Archicad discussion, ( there's plenty of posts on that elsewhere ) I think its fair to say both programs will do the job and both have their advantages and disadvantages. The fact we now use Revit rather than Archicad, tells you where we stand on that issue.

If you do a bit of remodelling, look at Revit's use of phases and compare that with the Archicad alternative. I think you'll find Revit comes out on top.

[muttlieb]

One of the main things with BIM is that its not always necessary or efficient to model every single thing in 3D. Roof framing is probably a good example as its simple and easier to draw it 2D most of the time.

You really got to the essence of my question. At what point is it not necessary or efficient to model in 3d? I understand it is not necessary to have a 3D model of roof framing members, but I still need to create a detailed roof framing plan. Why not create it in 3D (as smart 3D framing members). If I do that, at least I can create a material take-off, which seems to be the goal of BIM software. I guess the answer is that the software just isn't there yet. But I do see the currrent advantages to switching to something like Revit. One thing I really like about ArchiCad is the sketch rendering engine. But I can achieve similiar results with SketchUp! (a fabulous program!). To me, the ArchiCad user interface and drawing tools are way too cumbersome.

Thanks.

[gregcashen]

I work for a small A/E firm and do all of the engineering and some of the design. We do a little bit of everything, and I will say that, while I was initially disappointed with Revit's lack of 3D framing tools, I chose Revit because it could handle a wide variety of projects, from res. to commercial, to some civil stuff I have done with it. It does not fall apart with certain types of projects, like some of the other packages. I have heard that Archicad is much better for commercial than for residential, but I have nothing to back it up, as I quickly gave up on trying to use it during the demo stages. Simply too cumbersome for my taste. Chief Achitect is a good solution for purely residential work, but I have yet to see a commercial project done in it. If all you need is res., then it deserves a look.

As for Revit needing to be exported to Autocad for CD's, that is pure Archicad propaganda. I do not export to Autocad, as I find it to be a bigger hassle managing the exported drawings than using the linework and detail lines of Revit. In fact, once you get used to them, the way the line tools are set up in Revit actually goes very fast and feels very natural. Lines snap the way they should most of the time and rather than having to "draw" everything, you can pick items and it wil draw a line for you. The grouping and arraying features make roof framing plans easy to layout...I do it with lines, but it coulld just as easily be done with 2D detail components.

Finally, while I am not sure of the timeline, I have it on good authority that the framing tools are being developed in some way and that the structural aspects of Revit will be getting a lot of attention in the coming releases...hopefully we will see a good preview of that in the newest release, which we expect to see this next month.

[beegee]

Why not create it in 3D (as smart 3D framing members). If I do that, at least I can create a material take-off, which seems to be the goal of BIM software. I guess the answer is that the software just isn't there yet.

You can create the framing as 3D in Revit and use the costing module and/or export to ODBC database for costing. I havn't had any experience with that ( Costing is part of the US version only ), but others on the forum have.
There are also other programs available, that will do roof framing and take-offs, but I realise that's not the point.

To answer your question about 3D modelling as a separate issue from material take-offs, if an object appears in more than one view, that's usually the indication to model it as that saves time, generally.

[GuyR]

If you going to model roof elements you need to have a good grasp of families IMO. This is (part of) a recently finished project. Most framing roof hosted families, some in-place.

The builders/engineer seem to like it, the QS guys like it ( I can give them lengths of rafters/purlins etc via ODBC reports or on sheet) , clients can understand more of what they are getting and I don't have to detail most sections I take.

I'm waiting to see what if anything improves in V6 , but I fully expect to be modelling more not less as time goes on. I believe one of the habits you need to get into is recognising the need for a family and taking 10 minutes out to whip up a family instead of fudging it in one view then finding you need it somewhere else. Type catalogues are a must as well IMO.

Guy

[designer56644]

Hey muttlieb:

Everything I see in the user forums that slight revit is FUD.
You only need Revit, and be willing to work with it's styles/capabilities.
If you want roof framing plan, you need to get up to speed so you can execute it. You want CD's. No prob. You just need to set up your system
to your spec.'s.

I do custom residentials exclusively, and I have experienced much frustration, and spent countless hours getting my program put together. But now I sail when producing CD's. I LOVE the section and elevation tools. Those two alone, in my book, are worth the price of addmission.
And unlike some, I do try to model everything when possible. When I cut that section through a kitchen and bath area, it just looks the way it is actually going to look in the real world. No guessing or interpreting.
It kicks total ***. And the scheduling, oh-mannnnnn. Custom door window tags, specialized keynotes, the works. I set up a rough opening tag for my framing plans, and when inserted, it can change the size of the window opening on the fly just by clicking the tag and inserting new text (size).

Good luck

[cphubb]

I'll agree with Beegee on this one. We have been using Revit for almost a year. We started out with the plans, major sections elevations etc. taken directly from the model because it is soooo easy. However since we had not learned to fine tune Revit yet we 2d drafted the details. What we found in the process is that we like drafting in Revit better than Autocad.(It takes some gettng used to). We also found that drawing over an underlayed section/elevation was more valuable than just drawing on the blank Autocad screen. We also found that the import/export to Autocad for non-Revit trained drafters got to be a file management pain since they were also creating new dwg files. We now se Revit for both 2d and 3d drafting and find it more streamlined, faster to plot and easier to arrainge the drawings to our liking.

[beegee]

>> I set up a rough opening tag for my framing plans, and when inserted, it can change the size of the window opening on the fly just by clicking the tag and inserting new text (size).

Hi Bill,

You may like to start a new topic to share this tip with the forum ?

[designer56644]

Hey beegee,
I'm not ignoring you, I got hit with a touch of the
flu and am down for a day or two.
I'll see if I can't get those tags uploaded and a couple others up on Wed.

Thanks,
Bill

[hand471037]

I draw my details mostly in Revit now, even for my AutoCAD projects. It takes some getting used to, for drawing in Revit is more 'shape-based' than 'vector based'- it's almost more like drawing in MacroMedia Flash, than say, Adobe Illistrator.

But the detail compant library, and the fact that Revit at least tries to help you along the way, go a long way once you know how to leverage that. It just takes some getting used to, and in the end it's much faster. Kind like going from a tricycle to a bicycle. ;)

Now whenever it comes to a detail that uses any kind of 'standard' bits, like framing, windows, steel, ect. I tend to turn to Revit first, then export the file to a DWG I cut & paste into my AutoCAD project. This is no prior info in Revit, mind you, this is going to a totally blank Revit project and simply cranking out the detail...

[PeterJ]

That's quite a testimony, Jeffrey.

Jim Balding asked me, separately from the Top Ten thread, what my implementation ideas would be, and one of them, for him to present at AU was to take AutoCAD off the machines of the people using/transferring to Revit. Without that giant step (and I meant it in part as a joke) it is difficult to wean some people away from working with AutoCAD for details etc..

Your comments pretty much prove my view that Revit ultimately offers a better drafting experience than AutoCAD, for the types of details required by construction people. The tools are different, not necessarily better, but the way of working overall gives quicker results.

[bclarch]

The attached section was created entirely in Revit except for the window head and sill which were imported .dwg files from the manufacturer. The drawing is a live section that was dressed up using the linework tool, detail lines, filled regions, edit cut profile, and drafting components.

EDIT: The attachment is not going through. I am working on it with Chris Z.
EDIT: Attachment posted.

[muttlieb]

I'd like to thank everybody for their responses. It is very encouraging to hear that people are producing CD's entirely in Revit. I would not consider switching to Revit (from ADT R3) if I couldn't use it to complete CD's without resorting to AutoCad. I'd love to see more examples of detailed roof or floor framing plans, sections/details, etc.

Here's another question: I've been trying out the 30 day demo for a few days, and I can't figure out how to get a structural beam (above the cut plane) to show up dashed in plan view. It seems to me this ought to be very simple. Maybe I am missing something obvious.

Thanks.

[Paul Monsef]

muttlieb,
You will need to use the 'Linework' tool to change the linestyles or objects.

First... Setup the level above as an underlay to get the Structural Components above to show. Now... Select the linework tool, use the <Overhead> linestyle and pick away!

Hope that helps, There's good info in the help files too.

[muttlieb]

Thanks for the help Paul. That worked, but only if the beam is above level one. What if I have an exposed beam on level one? Top of beam matches top of walls of level one. Unless the beam is above level one, I can't get it to show up in level one view. What am I missing? Thanks for your patience with a newbie :)

[PeterJ]

Revit tends to apply the same rules to the majority of objects. Since you don't want your ceiling to show on plan, nor do you necessarily want rooflights or a decorative cupola to show on a floor plan Revit looks down and shows that which is cut by the defined cut plane only.

There are workarounds that allow a high window or light fitting, for example to be represented on plan and this thread (http://www.zoogdesign.com/forums/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=134&highlight=) describes the relevant techniques. To follow this line of development you do need to hack about with the steel components in the family editor though.

The alternate means are:
[list:b397428c5a]Make an additional level that cuts through the steel and use that level as an underlay to your current view, which will get you close

Alter the cut plane to cut your steel, and use the linework tool to make it show hidden or above or whatever linestyle you favour then reset the cut plane

Use an RCP and switch off everything except the steel and over-ride its appearance using the Visibility/Graphics dialog, so that it shows in a form you favour and then locate that view (with the view name tag switched off) conicidentally over the main view on your drawing sheet (search for Martin P's thought's on transparent filled regions for more on this technique)[/list:u:b397428c5a]

All of the above are workarounds and the right one will be dependent on how much steel framing you actually need to show. For all the above techniques on a resi job I would probably just draft a heavy broken line and say 'Steelwork over refer Structural Engineer's design and detail'.

[muttlieb]

Although I wasn't specific, I was referring to wood beams, not steel. Although I imagine that makes no difference to this discussion. I usually don't need to show a lot of beams, but I don't like the solution of just drawing a heavy broken line to represent the beam. That is one of the reasons I am considering the switch to Revit. If I draw a beam, I want to be able to create a schedule that lists beam sizes, specs, length, etc. The ability to do that with Revit is a major advantage when it comes time for us to do material take-offs.

[PeterJ]

The tips I gave you are not specific to steel, they will work with timber structural elements, or in fact pretty much any element you care to mention so if you did want the rooflight or the decorative cupola I referred to they will all respond to the same techniques.

[beegee]

The pdf attachment to bclarch's earlier post has now been posted.