Revit 9.0???

[Les Therrien]

It's getting to be that time of year again!
Has anyone heard anything?

[rodneyf]

Les,
I think Revit has been moved to the spring release times along with all other Autodesk products, so we will not hear anything until after the first of the year if anything at all.

[david.kingham]

I believe it is on the same release schedule as all other autodesk products now so I wouldn't expect it until...what is it march, april? The beta program hasn't even started yet.

[aaronrumple]

...yes. Too slow. I expressed my vote for continuing the rapid release cycle when meeting with the adsk reps recently. (I'd prefer monthly updates as long as the bugs were being zapped with the point releases.) Revit had some damn cool development techniques back in the old days. I'm just wondering what's left now....

[BWG]

ADSK doing yearly releases will just give the competition more time to catch up.

[BillyGrey]

Hey guys, I read an "I think", and a "I believe", so I'm wondering if the re is an "I know for a fact"
out there anywhere. Where did you-all hear about this? It is big disappointing news to me, and many others I'm sure.

Thanks,

Bill

[sbrown]

Note there are still point releases inbetween, 8.1 is a major release to me.

[BWG]

8.5 would be a nice christmas present to tie us over until the spring.

[Dean Camlin]

So there's no chance of another release timed to coincide with AU?

[jbalding48677]

Allow me to interject... I like the way it is going now for few reasons

Pros:

Less in the way of training on upgraded functionality
The developers have a full year to implement the preferred functionality (and work out bugs presumably). In other words, they can focus on development and not worry as much deadlines.
I can plan on a release date
Less upgrading of projects to a new release
Cons:

We, as a community, have to wait 6 months or so longer for functionality that we are hoping for.
I am sure there would be more, these are off the top of my head...

[Steve_Stafford]

Since I've been actively using Revit (4.5) there have been two major releases per year with new builds released from time to time. The only thing that has changed since then is when they occur. The delivery has shifted to coincide with other products. There hasn't been monthly updates for several years now, doesn't that delivery model go back to r1-3, maybe 4?

[mibzim]

We had the Autodesk Design Manager for revit from the US in the office yesterday getting some feedback from his aussie users. He said there will only be yearly releases to coincide with the rest of Autodesk releases.

He wouldnt even give us a clue as to what is in v9.0! He did hint that much of nine will be improving existing tools rather than implementing more though.. sadly site tools, jpeg handling and rendering seemed to be for future releases although he made sure to give NOTHING away!

Either way, something to look forward to!

[blads]

It has been hinted strongly... that the next full release will be around April 2006; with point release's, ie 9.1 (if needed) in October 2006 ;-)

[Scott Hopkins]

I am getting sick and tired of Revit's lousy site tools, ****** wall joins and buggy groups!

I want 9.0 by Christmas or else! :evil:

[iru69]

a certain somebody may end up with a piece of coal in their stocking... :p

[Scott Hopkins]

a certain somebody may end up with a piece of coal in their stocking... :pLOL - Sorry I don't know what got into me. Actually, on second thought, I do. Six hours laboriously fussing around with wall joins and groups on a series of town-homes has brought me to a boil. In theory, groups should be simple but Revit turns groups and wall joins into a God-dam Rubik's cube! Just when you think you are getting close something on the other side of the model will inexplicably go out of whack. I feel like test subject in a cruel and inhumane psychological experiment. I want the Factory to fix it. NOW!

[MartyC]

LOL - Sorry I don't know what got into me. Actually, on second thought, I do. Six hours laboriously fussing around with wall joins and groups on a series of town-homes has brought me to a boil. In theory, groups should be simple but Revit turns groups and wall joins into of God-dam Rubik's cube! Just when you think you are getting close something on the other side of the model will inexplicably go out of whack. I feel like test subject in a cruel and inhumane psychological experiment. I want the Factory to fix it. NOW!


I agree every few days re-resolving connections and deleting and re-doing walls. A prod on this side, joint falls apart the other side. When it starts getting like the story of the little boy with his fingers in the dyke, I give up and go have a coffee!!

I would put up with dog excrement in my stocking to have this fixed conclusively (thats if I had stockings??!!)

CheersM

[iru69]

LOL - Sorry I don't know what got into me. Actually, on second thought, I do.
Yeah, I totally understand... I'm actually working on a townhouse project at the moment, and while I'm sure groups should be a better way to do it, I decided to avoid them altogether on this project and save myself the frustration that surely would have followed. Luckily, most of our work doesn't depend on multi-unit plans, otherwise I'm sure I'd be screaming too. I have noticed a lot of mysterious wall join issues where I have to spend a lot of time messing about to get them to work right. Now, I'm sure it's my fault in the Revit universe... but in this universe, it should just work.

My real problem with Revit is the shaded view graphics... and based on an earlier post in this thread, it doesn't sound like that's going to be resolved by 9. For my work, that's terribly frustrating.

I'd be really disappointed if they stop the two release a year cycle and go down to just one. Firms who find two releases a year too complicated to implement can just skip the point releases... but that shouldn't spoil the fun for the rest of us.

[Shaun v Rooyen]

LOL - Sorry I don't know what got into me. Actually, on second thought, I do. Six hours laboriously fussing around with wall joins and groups on a series of town-homes has brought me to a boil. In theory, groups should be simple but Revit turns groups and wall joins into a God-dam Rubik's cube! Just when you think you are getting close something on the other side of the model will inexplicably go out of whack. I feel like test subject in a cruel and inhumane psychological experiment. I want the Factory to fix it. NOW!

Scott I feel your pain man!!
My tip of the day is "Common Walls attach to Common Heights."
We had massive problems on a multistory building with joins. Frustrations of note.
After working for a few days on a single story single level building, and with absolutely no join issues, we came to the conclusion, that it has to do with something with the common heights.
We then sorted out the Multistory building and so far so good. The only problem is now that you have to swing around the 3D model and join geometry of walls to sort out the horrible horizontal lines in elevation.
So, What you gain on the swings you lose on the merry-go-round.


It has been hinted strongly... that the next full release will be around April 2006; with point release's, ie 9.1 (if needed) in October 2006 ;-)

We got the same hint from our resellers! So looks like you need to cross that one off your "List to Father X-mas" Scott.

[Lashers]

I am getting sick and tired of Revit's lousy site tools, ****** wall joins and buggy groups!

I want 9.0 by Christmas or else! :evil:
Me pretending to be Autodesk - Sure, would you prefer that on Christmas Eve or on the day itself! Perhaps we could throw in Viz to ease up your rendering woes . .?? Erk! Sorry I was going through a customer service phase there! ha . . ??

I'm a bit disappointed myself, it was one of those great excitement things about Revit that kept the spirits high around this time of year . . .

Jim, I see your point . . . but that is catering to the needs of a few, being able to upgrade doesn't mean you have to! The bigger firms might prefer the once a year routine, but personally "as a smaller firm" I like the cutting edge bit!

[rhys]

personally "as a smaller firm" I like the cutting edge bit!
Exactly this was why many of us took the risk moving to Revit in the first place,oh v2 seems so long ago. That and monthly subscription, customer service Architects, a direct relationship with the developers and no resellers. We also got a response from support that didn't take a week. But then of course Revit was a less mature product, and didn't have the strength of Autodesk behind it.

[SkiSouth]

the strength of Autodesk behind it.

Or Autodesk's overhead.

[Wes Macaulay]

My tip of the day is "Common Walls attach to Common Heights."
We had massive problems on a multistory building with joins. Frustrations of note.
After working for a few days on a single story single level building, and with absolutely no join issues, we came to the conclusion, that it has to do with something with the common heights.
This is quite true, and in fact what I and many of my colleagues do to ensure joins work, but I've never put those words to it. We also do a lot of disallow joins on butt joined walls -- having it in the right click menu as it came with R8 has made wall joins less troublesome, though I admit they can still be a problem.

[BillyGrey]

While I'm really happy to hear Adesk is finally putting some emphasis on fixing fine tuning the things that act wacky in the prog, a year seems like an awful long time to wait for bug squashes on a release.
I hope they do, at a minimum, some service pack type of fixes between the release cycles.

[BWG]

So, like other ADSK products, new release every year, but nothing worth upgrading to but every two years?!

[Andre Baros]

At least with subscription now you know that you'll get the bug fixes some day. With Autocad you had to buy the new version just to get some bug fixes even if you didn't care about the new features. I don't envy the job of pleasing 50 billion customers.

[Wes Macaulay]

No need for cynicism... I'm with JB on this one. I don't want major releases more than twice a year.

Revit has had only one release per year since Revit 4, with point releases sometime in between. Now personally I find the release of software in the spring a rather boring time of year -- why not release at Christmas? tis the season -- but fine, release then.

But we won't be seeing a reduced frequency of releases, plus, as you all know, bug fixes come in the way of new builds, which the Factory puts out as needed.

[jbalding48677]

To clarify one of my points. Let's say you have one hundred dollars a year to produce Revit. Now there is a known cost to publishing a release, let's say it is 20 dollars (time and money). So, if you publish 2x a year you spend 40 dollars on publishing and 60 on developing. If you publish 1x a year you spend 20 on publishing and 80 on developing. So at the end of the same year you have more of a product, no? I realize this is a rash oversimplification, however, it does have merit. That is why I don't mind waiting, in the long run the product delivered is going to be better for me.

MTC -

[khomburg]

To clarify one of my points. Let's say you have one hundred dollars a year to produce Revit. Now there is a known cost to publishing a release, let's say it is 20 dollars (time and money). So, if you publish 2x a year you spend 40 dollars on publishing and 60 on developing. If you publish 1x a year you spend 20 on publishing and 80 on developing. So at the end of the same year you have more of a product, no? I realize this is a rash oversimplification, however, it does have merit. That is why I don't mind waiting, in the long run the product delivered is going to be better for me.

MTC -

Unless all the buzz from the new features twice a year causes more people to buy Revit licenses and increases the pot of money from $100 to $140.

[barathd]

Jim:

I take your point - I think it is quite a stretch. Publication ??? - firstly virtually no documentation is provided. Secondly Autodesk would spend money irregardless on promoting themselves. I would say - publication to Autodesk would be not much more than a minor hickup.

Enough of the excuses just PLEASE fix the numerous glitches, omissions,etc.
I wonder how forgiving Autodesk would be with their providers if they were thrown into our lot and predicament?

[aaronrumple]

A release a day until groups and the damn elevation symbol are fixed. ;-)

[jbalding48677]

Jim:

I take your point - I think it is quite a stretch. Publication ??? - firstly virtually no documentation is provided. Secondly Autodesk would spend money irregardless on promoting themselves. I would say - publication to Autodesk would be not much more than a minor hickup.

Enough of the excuses just PLEASE fix the numerous glitches, omissions,etc.
I wonder how forgiving Autodesk would be with their providers if they were thrown into our lot and predicament?
Publication was the term I choose for releasing a release. Could have said distribution? The point was that there is an effort to do this. Does that take time and development dollars away from a quality product? If it does, then I say wait. If not, then not. My bottom line is QUALITY. Here are are all ragging on them for wall joins and groups not working properly at the same time pushing for new releases. DON'T GET ME WRONG, if it is broken it has to be fixed, but that does not mean a new release, perhaps a new build?

So to summarize -

1. Quality
2. Broken - fix it

[Les Therrien]

WOW!
I forgot I started this thread. I can't believe how many posts are here. I didn't expect that much.


To clarify one of my points. Let's say you have one hundred dollars a year to produce Revit. Now there is a known cost to publishing a release, let's say it is 20 dollars (time and money). So, if you publish 2x a year you spend 40 dollars on publishing and 60 on developing. If you publish 1x a year you spend 20 on publishing and 80 on developing. So at the end of the same year you have more of a product, no? I realize this is a rash oversimplification, however, it does have merit. That is why I don't mind waiting, in the long run the product delivered is going to be better for me.

MTC -

Now does the money really go to development? or does it get pocketed as profit????

[MartyC]

Pocketed as profit!

[barathd]

Pardon me if I'm wrong I believe Autodesk is the third largest software developer in the world - my guess is Microsoft, Adobe then Autodesk. Really they need to save resources - what have they paid to moth ball competition. Honestly something is lacking here. Enough apologies this is pathetic.

[GuyR]

Does anyone know how big the development team was when Autodesk purchased Revit compared with now?

We know Irwin and Leonid have left and probably a few more casualties from the buyout. Given Autodesks commitment that Revit is the future you would expect it to be significantly larger though?

Guy

[barathd]

Quite an enigma.

[sbrown]

I did not know Irwin and Leomid left. Is this true?

[Steve_Stafford]

I did not know Irwin and Leomid left. Is this true?Yes, Leonid said so in THIS POST (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?p=100891). Irwin hasn't said so in our forum, but I believe it is true.

[Andre Baros]

I heard from a reseller that the development team has more than doubled since Autodesk took over, many of those recently added for a push to systems.

[mmodernc]

The real issue is that by release 8 the bugs should have all been ironed out and it should have had at least the full spectrum of functions of the competition. If we have to wait for release 13 then that is 5 years away.

[DaveP]

Let's say you have one hundred dollars a year to produce Revit.
We know Irwin and Leonid have left and probably a few more casualties from the buyout. Hey, if they were paying me a hundred bucks a year, I'd leave too! :shock:
You guys at the factory are worth WAY more than that!

[Wes Macaulay]

They should give tours of the Revit development team's office in Waltham. It was pretty laid back!

Leonid and Irwin were huge assets to the development of the software, but you can imagine that it would be tough for these guys to tolerate orders coming down from above. Neither of them were worried about the overall quality of Revit -- they feel that they've left it in good hands. Plus the people who manage Revit development now are all hardcore Reviteers; so it's just a matter of waiting for wishes to be met ;-)

[barathd]

Wait ... R10 ... R11 ... R12. Seems to be much more customer dialogue occurring with other Autodesk product development then with Revit? Why? Very little reponse from the "f a c t o r y" about our concerns - very magnanimous of them. My number one problem remains inability to dimension "non orthogonal core elements." No excuse why this has not been fixed.

[BWG]

Publication was the term I choose for releasing a release. Could have said distribution? The point was that there is an effort to do this. Does that take time and development dollars away from a quality product? If it does, then I say wait. If not, then not. My bottom line is QUALITY. Here are are all ragging on them for wall joins and groups not working properly at the same time pushing for new releases. DON'T GET ME WRONG, if it is broken it has to be fixed, but that does not mean a new release, perhaps a new build?

So to summarize -

1. Quality
2. Broken - fix it

I believe the difference here is that most of us are equating a new release with bug fixed from previous releases and new features requested from the wishlist items, not trivial brainstorming. I am OK with yearly number releases as long as they keep the builds coming that fix critical bugs - like a number release, then at least one major point release in between. And, a new feature we have asked for every so often would hurt either.

[trombe]

I am OK with yearly number releases as long as they keep the builds coming that fix critical bugs - like a number release, then at least one major point release in between.
The rumoured strategy of one release per year in the near future would worry me.
I bought into Revit at 4.5 in the belief that the rapid release cycle was a significant factor in the push forward with Revit development.
To date, AD have maintained my faith and delight with the program development.
Perhaps it was naive to think this push and blue sky thing could continue.

Vectorworks 12 is out and I see they are claiming "live sections" now among some other pretty tricks.
Similarly, I have just read an article by the CEO of US Graphisoft on ArchiCAD 9 ( new modeling tools, energy analysis etc...).
These rival programs seem to be developing in closer and closer cycle competition to Revit for feature sets even though the are all different and are loved or hated as the case may be.

As far as value for money goes, I am not convinced that a yearly release will result in the sort of development that Revit has seen to date.
I think it will slow markedly so they can move more resource into their MEP /, Structure programs, and whatever else they have planned for the Revit engine, as opposed to maintaining the pace of new feature addition , bug fixes in build release.

That could easily look like the AutoCAD style of development, and it appears to be headed strongly in that direction.
Casting our minds back the original Revit Technology Corporation document where the founders talked about how AutoCAD ( as a direct typical example of the CAD industry) was pretty poor at meeting objectives and doing what it could / should for the outcomes needed / expected / hoped for, if it is the intention of AD to follow the yearly cycle path as they have with other products, then history would suggest strongly that the outcome will be a Ground Hog Day where the Revit founders original suppositions and mission statements, are locked in another AutoCAD iterative, slowly, moving forward "vertical", - except that it might be more like a horizontal asset product.

The impetus has diverged into Structures and MEP and one could assume that Revit Building was determined before the RTC takeover got near due diligence.
I guess the point is really that its a fait au compli - the technology patent is secured and a Revit user base is established under the new owners so they can slow down now we are hooked up better than a striped marlin off the Poor Knights.
sigh
trombe

[Steve_Stafford]

...The rumoured strategy of one release per year in the near future would worry me...If Geoffrey Moore's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Moore) books Crossing the Chasm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Chasm) and Inside the Tornado (http://www.testing.com/writings/reviews/moore-chasm.html) are to be believed then Revit is on the verge of successfully moving from early adopter to mainstream user, "Crossing the Chasm". They are two completely different types of people and consumers. What is exciting, vibrant and fast to the early adopter is scary, crazy and irresponsible to the mainstream user.

As a young product Revit needed a rapid release cycle to get missing features plugged in quickly, to maintain momentum and to keep people interested. Since Revit has matured such a move shouldn't be unexpected nor is change in staff, leadership. What worked then does not automatically work now.

Fwiw, hasn't Autodesk shifted the AutoCAD family of products to use a yearly upgrade cycle instead of two years or so as in the past? So either subscription has forced this or Revit's delivery methods have contributed to a little rethinking for those products as well, maybe a little of both.

I suspect that some of the things we want Revit to do are testing the original assumptions of Revit's creators and therefore they will need "more time" to revisit these so changes can get done instead of delayed. Revit is about seven years old now. Is every assumption made then as valid today as then? For comparison, can our clients allow us to finish a design for six months let alone seven years without forcing us to revisit some decisions? Can we? :smile:

I don't think such a change would mark the "end", just change...

As for the other products, it is natural for competitors to try to deliver the features that make Revit a pain in their backside. Keeping in sync with what Geoffrey Moore's books say...as time goes by and Revit's growth in the market continues "we" may find ourselves doing the same thing that other software users are doing today, protecting their turf, maintaining the status quo as Revit's position is challenged by either established competitors or a new one.

[SkiSouth]

Okay, I'll jump. Been using Cad since 1983. Seen IBM's FASTDRAFT, Strongly considered a workstation setup from Intergraph (at that time $110,000.00), then went with a little program called AutoCAD. Then Softdesk, Then ADT. What happened to my office was the ADT implementation required a RELEARN of every new release as Autodesk tried to adapt a graphics engine (AutoCAD) into a specific architectural market, with changes in processor technology, speed etc, all requiring rework from the ground up. It got the point where ADT was costing me production time with every new release, and not for a week or two for at least six months. It got the point I DID NOT WANT a new release.

Now to Revit. Almost every release I have experienced (Sorry - history - looked at 4.5 demo, finally jumped I think around 6 not sure when) has made improvements without a learning curve hit. If the point releases would simply address EXISTING bug problems, with or without new features, I think I could easily live with that. Not that I don't want new features. BUT, there are enough unresolved issues that have already been mentioned, that could stand addressing IMMEDIATELY. Yearly releases for ADDED features is reasonable, given Beta time etc. BUG fixes need to be constantly posted. (at least quarterly).

[Roger Evans]

I did not know Irwin and Leomid left. Is this true?

Neither did I know ..(though I got the impression / hint that something had happened)

but considering the times I read this forum I still can't believe that announcement was made a year ago & I missed it ... or (more pertinently) that more wasn't said on it.

I'd still like to have additional info on it though

My best regards go to Leonid & Irwin

[SkiSouth]

I can't remember a more specific reference, but I did find this that I recalled:


To say that was not funny would be an understatement. During my stay with Autodesk I witnessed continuing commitment and investment in Revit. AUGI members are very generous in their readiness to overlook Carl's unfortunate choice of words. However I must say that these words could only qualify as a dumb joke and hopefully Carl now realizes that. Can anyone imagine a GM senior executive quipping to a magazine that Chevrolet might outlive Saturn when GM was trying to establish Saturn in the market place? Nonetheless I see no reason to read any deliberate anti-Revit intentions into Carl's words. Autodesk positions Revit and ADT as products serving different needs of two different market segments. If interested you can read the official Autodesk BIM positioning paper here
__________________
Leonid Raiz
The bold lettering added by me. Note the tense.= past.

[Roger Evans]

Thanks ski yes I do remember that post but did not take the meaning that literally .. my mind probably inserted "have witnessed" ... meant to ask but never got round to it.

[GuyR]

Thanks ski yes I do remember that post but did not take the meaning that literally

For a while his profile included a link to this (http://www.raizlabs.com/) site.Who I think is Leonids son (http://www.raizlabs.com/lit/Gregory_Raiz.asp) !!! Clearly a hugely talented family. It will be interesting to see what these 2 do next... I doubt the 2 of them ever thought they'd be getting the gold watch from autodesk when they retire:-)

Although it's a shame they've left I have total confidence in the Revit development team. I can't say the same for the management. The same management attitude which pulled PDF functionality to force DWF usage are quite capable of delaying or pulling Revit functionality that keeps AutoCAD sales going for a few more years. I doubt they want to ruin the Revit market but they will push it as much as possible keeping the shareholders happy.

Autodesk are only going to listen to the SOM's WATG's of the world so all we can hope is they'll keep Autodesk honest.

Guy

[irwin]

I'd still like to have additional info on it though
It's true. Having accomplished what I set out to do when founding Revit, I have moved on. I left a year and a half ago.

I didn't leave because of any problem within Autodesk. In fact, the exact opposite is true. I left because it became clear that both the Revit product and the Revit organization had reached the point where they would survive and thrive without me. With that done, I didn't see an ongoing role for myself.

The Revit community both inside and outside Autodesk is truly extraordinary, with an amazing commitment to excellence, and it was with great sadness that I decided to leave. I am thankful for the opportunity to remain a part of that community through the AUGI forums.

[Steve_Stafford]

...I am thankful for the opportunity to remain a part of that community through the AUGI forums...I'm glad that you do! I'm sure I'm not alone in this...Thanks! And thanks for starting it all in the first place! :beer:

[Roger Evans]

I'm glad that you do! I'm sure I'm not alone in this...Thanks! And thanks for starting it all in the first place! :beer:

Sadly ditto

[hand471037]

Revit's grown up and gone off to college.

And yeah, sure, us early adopters are a little sad to see it go.

But, on the other hand, I very much doubt that had Revit stayed Revit Inc. or if Autodesk didn't commit to focusing on making Revit a 'platform' and making it 'mature' that we'd see large firms like HOK looking very seriously at it.

As a matter of fact, I'm doing Revit consulting stuff around the Bay Area now. I've been using Revit for five years. In that five years, I've seen it go from me being one of a handful of local people who even knew about it's existence to having large, mature, stable Architecture firms calling me and some of my friends for help on pilot projects or total conversions to Revit. And they are all very, very excited about what they might be able to do with Revit. This wasn't the attitude even a year ago, let alone two years ago.

The first challenge of Revit was to have it work at all for anyone. So there was a lot of stuff that was simply 'punted' for lack of a better term until they could get to it later.

Now the challenge is to make Revit work for large firms. While we all want new features and bug fixes, you'd be hard pressed to say that Revit doesn't work for small-to-midsized firms. It works really, really well within such firms, and more and more are starting to use it.

But, for example, until Revit 8.1's better worksets, a large firm, who commonly 'borrows' labor from their remote branch offices couldn't use Revit and Worksets over a VPN. That's a pretty big deal-breaker there. But now, it's much more possible.

And I'll tell you, a year ago, when I was working for a reseller and talking to a lot of large firms, they thought that Revit was cool, but didn't want to deal with it until it had an API, modules for their consultants to possibly use, and until it matured a little. Now those things are falling into place, and whoa, look at that... lots of big firms are looking at it seriously.

And, actually, it's a very good thing for all of us that Revit is 'maturing'. Yeah, sucks that the problems they are focusing on might not be your problems, but it's a lot better than Revit becoming a 'dead end' altogether...

[knurrebusk]

Revit's grown up and gone off to college.

And, actually, it's a very good thing for all of us that Revit is 'maturing'. Yeah, sucks that the problems they are focusing on might not be your problems, but it's a lot better than Revit becoming a 'dead end' altogether...


Yes!
I,m in the point of no return.
Revit is working perfect for me most of the time.

Still! this makes it hurt so much more when you reach non-Revit territory.
I planned to adapt to Civil 3d as an replacement for the lacking Revit site, but it just is to painful.

[Wes Macaulay]

Perhaps it was naive to think this push and blue sky thing could continue.

Vectorworks 12 is out and I see they are claiming "live sections" now among some other pretty tricks... I guess the point is really that its a fait au compli - the technology patent is secured and a Revit user base is established under the new owners so they can slow down now we are hooked up better than a striped marlin off the Poor Knights.
sigh
I don't blame for people for thinking Autodesk is going to blue-wash away all the vestiges of the RTC way of doing things. But wait: most of the people who were involved in the direct development of Revit are still there. There are some elements of Revit's development style that are counter-cultural with Autodesk's style of doing things, but there's too many people who care about the software to see it getting screwed up.

There's a lot of you who were early adopters of Revit. I saw Revit at 1.0 and 2.0 and said, This is retarded. $199 a month for this? And I can't even own it?? But I kept my eye on the software -- like I did on all the others -- and waited to see what would play out.

And by the time Revit 4.5 came along, Revit was ready for use, sort of. Not until Revit 5 and 6 do I think that the software had really reached some degree of maturity.

Most people don't want the whirlwind pace of development and feature add-ons. I've heard people tell me that new features in those early Revit versions were pretty buggy. If they're writing more thorough code now and adding new feature less frequently that's fine for me.

As for Vectorworks, they're just about up to par with ADT now :mrgreen:

And ArchiCAD's schedules don't even work as far as ArchiCADers are concerned.

I think we can be thankful that we KNOW that we're using the best BIM platform for architecture out there. I think of guys like Lev, Fedor, Tamas (and the rest of the gang in Waltham) and in light of all the hours of code writing and debugging, I have to say: you guys have made my job fun again.

Thank you!

[rod.74246]

I also had the pleasure of sitting down for an hour with David Conant this week. I am very confident that the development cycle will be being pushed along just as hard as it has been to date. The whole purpose of him flying out here to Australia and visiting a whole bunch of firms around the country was to find out what "we" want in terms of future revit development. That to me alone says enough. Furthermore the attitude of getting out here where Revit apparently has the biggest market penetration world wide and finding out what else they could give us is cvery positive.

He was quite clear from the outset he didn't want to know about improvements to trim tools etc and the finicky issues. They were firmly focused on "bigger picture" issues and spent a great deal of time finding out how we worked, how we were using revit and how our workflow could be expanded. I think that all suggests a lot of forward thinking still going on with the development team.

While they were very tightlipped about what was coming up, i can tell you a few things i managed to find out.

1. Release 9.0 is in testing and we should all be getting our Beta invites VERY soon. And yes it is releasing in the new year. And yes it sounded a lot more like functionality improvements, and documentation improvements. (hope that means revisions that are actually useful)
2. Release 10 is already well underway

[mibzim]

David's been a busy guy this week!

Don't know if he was just exhausted or whether his distant and dreamy voice is just a result of being a software developer (i'll put it down to tiredness - there are way too many ppl to offend here!!) - either way, he seemed like a great guy and dedicated to moving revit forward in a big way. Like you said, he used that exact line and wasnt there to hear that the trim tool wasn't great but to look at the B I G issues. They still know where they are heading and what they need to do to get there. (You managed to get more out of him than we did!!)

Reading all the comments here it seems like there are a few nerves and doubts 'bugging' some of the earlier revit users... i wonder if any of their fears are founded? Its the first time in 8 months of using the product that i have heard a lack of belief in the product, and in a way its sad because without having even used the product i was convinced by everyone who had used it that it was the best. And that is one of revit's strengths - peoples' belief in the program...

I guess version 9 will sort things out - it'll be the result of all this change and either confirm or dismiss the fears. Until then i say viva revit! :)

[Lashers]

. . . .Reading all the comments here it seems like there are a few nerves and doubts 'bugging' some of the earlier revit users... i wonder if any of their fears are founded? Its the first time in 8 months of using the product that i have heard a lack of belief in the product, and in a way its sad because without having even used the product i was convinced by everyone who had used it that it was the best. And that is one of revit's strengths - peoples' belief in the program...

I guess version 9 will sort things out - it'll be the result of all this change and either confirm or dismiss the fears. Until then i say viva revit! :)
It is not a nerves or doubts thing with me . . . not sure if I can speak for all . . . but before the buyout we used to have ALOT of direct contact and feedback with the Revit team - at all levels. Now its not so easy to get an idea where things are going, unless you are a big dawg on the user front and get the inside line.

I love Revit and cannot imagine there is someone else out there in their garage, coming up with a better way of working . . . but I do get the nagging feeling that Adesk is trying to "verticalise"(z) Revit. This effort could be spent of improving the workability and letting everyone (from the design team to contractor) benefit from a single smooth product.

For instance - Revit Structural . . . why do that? I am an Architect from a structural background, I would like to know I have the facility available to me as well . . that "I thought," was the root vision of Revit! MEP to follow. Thats what Revit Building should be!

Then there is the pushing of Adesk specific file types . . . not a good move. Fine to add the facility, but, to try and stop the use of PDF as a primary exchange format! Where is the sense in that! It is not the real world consideration that we should expect! At the same time there are primary areas of development that are all over the wish lists - such as 3ds output more directly from Rvt. - I hope to use this in the near future, but the end game of a design is to illustrate it 3D's, CD's, etc. these tools could be developed at a better rate . . but the feeling of detachment from users to controlling the income stream seems to be the overriding factor - I think we will get all these things, but not until the accountants feel that it will optimise the income . . . Revit was supposed to bring us all together - for a while this summer we could not even exchange info between the US and ROTW! for Revit Building . .

Or I could have said - Love Revit, it is the best available at this time . .praying it gets better . .sooner!

[BillyGrey]

Reading all the comments here it seems like there are a few nerves and doubts 'bugging' some of the earlier revit users... i wonder if any of their fears are founded? Its the first time in 8 months of using the product that i have heard a lack of belief in the product

I think it is important to remember that Revit is a software tool provided by a developer that exists for the use of designers/documenters. It is a symbiotic relationship, that benefits both parties greatly

Therefore, it is not unreasonable at all to voice and air our concerns with the program, esp. when the issues at hand are lingering, and appear on the surface to be minor issues that would be easy to fix in many cases, or challenging, well deserved, and long overdo in other cases.

It is a bit disheartening to me to read (no offense meant personally Dave), that he is out on a world-wide tour beating the drum of the future "big picture" benefits of the program.
To read that he is not interested in the "little" things that continue to plague Revit
to me is at once astounding, and perhaps even dismissive. I realize his time is precious, and he has little resources to sit back and engage in rant sessions. Perhaps the rel. 9 team is already handling many of these issues.

I hope my disappointment is moot;

As many, many fine Architects and Designers I have know have said, the Devil is in the Details, or more importantly, Heaven is in the Details.

For many, it is Groups, others, Site.

For me, I will, as Mr. Barath has pointed out, stand by one example of a long standing bug fix as my metaphor for all of the lingering issues. Non-Ortho Dimension to face of core.

Is this bug emblematic of a willingness to blow-off issues that are a hassle, and/or involve resource allocation (which directly affects p/l) in favor of the rush to new features (which directly affects p/l)? My skeptic side tells me that it smacks of putting profits before all else. My simpatico side tells me to hush and wait. But many of us have been waiting for a long time.

Again, I hope my concerns are moot.

I doubt any of the people perceived to have lost our "belief" in the program have done that at all, quite the contrary in fact. We have invested our bank rolls and our futures in Revit.
Please remember that when you jump on the wagon to defend or apologize for the program. Likewise, Adesk should remember that too. Please don't keep us waiting forever.

[iru69]

It is a bit disheartening to me to read (no offense meant personally Dave), that he is out on a world-wide tour beating the drum of the future "big picture" benefits of the program.
To read that he is not interested in the "little" things that continue to plague Revit
to me is at once astounding, and perhaps even dismissive. I realize his time is precious, and he has little resources to sit back and engage in rant sessions. Perhaps the rel. 9 team is already handling many of these issues.
I don't think you should be disheartened by that... of course they're interested in the "little" things... it's just that Dave doesn't need to fly half way around the world to hear about them - he can sit in his office back home and read about them on AUGI.

That's not to say I'm not as frustrated as you are that a lot of these "little" things haven't been addressed yet... but I don't think it's fair to suggest that Dave (or the Factory as a whole) aren't concerned about the little things simply because he stated a different purpose for his visit.

I actually find it reassurring that they get out and observe how architects "really" work (what architects say and what architects do are often two different things), and I think if they did it more, they'd see how a lot of those "little" things fit into the "big picture".

[BillyGrey]

Actually, I think Dave is a really cool dude. I mean, who else but a cool dude would use an avatar such as his, and leave us all wondering "What the hell is he doing in that picture???". Like I said, no offense to Dave Connant.

I never said factory was not concerned in fixing the little things. I also realize that they are. My whole point on that score is that they (including Dave) have their priorities. I infer a deeper issue at work here, and if the un-jaded past is any indication, the "little things" could once again get swept under the rug. As I stated twice, I hope my concerns are moot this time around.

In fact, I hope I eat my words on this issue. Nothing would make allot of us happier :)

Cheers

[sbrown]

No real worries hear. To me it is a shame to see the founders pass the torch, but I have confidence from my experiences with them that they wouldn't have left "their baby" in uncapable hands. I'm a bit of a pesimist (who can't spell) and was almost brought to tears by the merger. Revit made my job fun again. Now like the previous poster, I'm working towards getting larger firms using it. Revit is by far the best tool out their for small to midsize firms. With a little training, I've seen small firms increase their productivity beyond their wildest dreams(almost as fast as handrafting was). Its hilarious to listen to "old timers" who never bought into cadd talk about how the computer has ruined the industry, but now revit has brought them some hope. I'm excited about my future as an architect, and the designs we will see come with the use of BIM. I firmly believe autocad cursed the architecture profession long enough, at least thats what the guys who saw it come and go tell me.

I think sometimes the critisms of revit from "early adopters" , myself included, are more from being spoiled with such a tremendous program that does so much more than we could have imagined, that we focus on the little things it can't do yet. JB once said to me, the honeymoons over, now the work begins. First you fall in love, then you get married, then you find all the little things that annoy you. If your committed, you'll make it work and it gets better and better. Thats how it is with revit.

Anyway, I've never been dissappointed with a release, especially point releases. If 9.0 doesn't excite you, the point release willl contain all the things they almost got done but couldn't and will blow you away, like 8.1 did.

[Exar Kun]

After sitting through David's talk on Friday night at the national Revit conference I've got no concerns at all. Sounds like things are well on track and David answered a great many questions about both the little things and the big picture that certainly eased my mind.

[barathd]

Care to share David's words of reassurance. Been awaiting for them nearly as long as the "second coming". Very anxious to hear what they were.

Regards

Dick Barath

[Exar Kun]

I don't think I could say anything specific without violating NDA (yes, we all had to sign one before David could talk) but rest assured that the future does look bright and Autodesk is putting a lot of resources behind the product.

[Wesley]

Good answer, Michael (unfortunately).

For all those who attended the Australian Conference, do please remember you are under NDA. To get someone like David out to Australia to show us future releases and business directions is a big deal, and I, for one, do not want to see that put in danger.

BillyGrey, you might want to go on a diet, cause it looks like you will have some extra eating to do shortly! :-)

The Revit team is very aware of the little things, and some of the biggest of the littlest have now been dealt with. David's job, however, is the forest; there are other people who look after the trees.

Finally, the number of releases has not actually changed, merely the timing. Two releases per year (.0 and .1) with extra build releases as necessary. For big companies that don't want multiple releases, skip one!

I don't know how much info ADesk will release at AU, but I'm sure there will be enough to keep you salivating.

Cheers,
Wes

[BillyGrey]

Wes, I'm on a see-food diet. I flushed vanity down the tubes long ago... ;)

All good news that there.

Thanks

[Batman]

I don't know how much info ADesk will release at AU, but I'm sure there will be enough to keep you salivating.All good for those that can afford to attend these events. Is there any news of if and when they will be releasing this info to their user base?

I am extremely discontent that it is necessary to pay more money and to have to actually attend a far off event to just stay abreast of latest news. I can't help but feel disadvantaged through the lack of this information. This information not only influences decisions about future purchases of the product but more so about the potential effect on a business.

The fact that the NDA is supposed to keep a lid on the secrets is no reason why a similar method couldn't be used in the digital realm through the subscription programme. If you're a subscribing user and you agree to an NDA you could obtain the info from your subscription login. I'm sure it would be far more cost effective for all involved if the information was available through such a process.

If the information disclosed at these events is so secretive that they need to enact an NDA just how can they stop a competitor or other of similar position from buying Revit attending an event, and doing whatever they want with the info obtained. IMHO the existing process is hurting the smaller operators, the new users and genuine supporters and I don't believe these are minority groups.

I'm not expecting anyone to divulge anything, just letting you know what it feels like from this point of view.

Of course if there is any way of finding out what the future holds for my investment I would appreciate knowing how to.

[GuyR]

Of course if there is any way of finding out what the future holds for my investment I would appreciate knowing how to.

Probably the easiest way will be to sign on for the V9 beta when it becomes available.

Guy

[beegee]

Hi Vince,

I understand that you would like to know more about future releases and that this information is often vital to an organizations future purchasing program. As you rightly say " This information not only influences decisions about future purchases of the product but more so about the potential effect on a business ", hence the legal impediment applicable to any listed company in the US , touting its future prospects

Believe me, if Autodesk could legally openly release this information, they would certainly do so. They do understand how the market works in that area.

One of the best ways to get this information, before release, is to participate in a beta release program. This would be under the umbrella of an NDA of course.

INAL, but I'm fairly sure there could be large legal problems making this sort of "share price sensitive " information available to all subscribers.

[sbrown]

Anything shown at AU will be free game. Last year people were uploading photos of AU during the event itself to this site. By the week after AU you will know everything that happened there just by reading the thread on this site.

[iru69]

Believe me, if Autodesk could legally openly release this information, they would certainly do so. They do understand how the market works in that area...

INAL, but I'm fairly sure there could be large legal problems making this sort of "share price sensitive " information available to all subscribers.
I'm sorry, but this gets brought up every few months or so, like one of those urban legends that just refuses to die.

Disclosing product road maps, beta software, etc. is not a violation of SEC rules. Public companies like Intel, Google and nVidia do it all the time.

I don't know if Autodesk representatives themselves make these kind of generalized statements to get users off their back (i.e. the users won't know better), or whether it just gets repeated over and over on the forum until people just figure it must be true.

Autodesk is entitled to their policies, but shifting the responsibility for them to the SEC, et al, is simply called the blame game.

[Batman]

I don't believe that corporate governance issues would be valid reasons for limiting this information.

This could only be true if any individual and associated entity involved in receiving the latest information (such as from the session discussed in this thread) is either restricted or required to report (to corporation regulators) any trading of that corporations stock.

If this isn't the case then from a future investors or even an existing stock holders point of view it should be deemed that the information provided in these sessions can not effect the share price.

Does the NDA cover issues such as these?

And
Thanks, I'm aware of the Beta programme, the ability to register for participation, considered and perhaps chosen for inclusion. However, the timing of the release of the information through the beta comes at a later stage to that of an exclusive session and would exclude (gauging only from comments within this thread) longer term objectives. I appreciate that some news, albeit second hand, will follow on from AU.

[irwin]

I'm sorry, but this gets brought up every few months or so, like one of those urban legends that just refuses to die.

Disclosing product road maps, beta software, etc. is not a violation of SEC rules. Public companies like Intel, Google and nVidia do it all the time.

I don't know if Autodesk representatives themselves make these kind of generalized statements to get users off their back (i.e. the users won't know better), or whether it just gets repeated over and over on the forum until people just figure it must be true.

Autodesk is entitled to their policies, but shifting the responsibility for them to the SEC, et al, is simply called the blame game.
You are partly right, but not entirely. True, it isn't against the law to release this information. But, it does affect how a public company is required to recognize revenue.

For example, suppose that yesterday Autodesk announced some features in Revit 9.0. Today, someone buys Revit 8.1 and pays for it right away. Autodesk just got some money. But, they can't report that revenue in this quarter. Because they've promised this feature for 9.0 it's possible that the customer only bought 8.1 now because of that promise. So, until Autodesk delivers 9.0 it can't recognize that revenue.

With subscription things get even more complicated. Although you pay a year's worth of subscription up front and are not entitled to a refund, Autodesk must recognize that revenue spread through the year. There are bizarre rules that if Autodesk does certain things during that year (like providing additional services to subscription customers) they have to go and restate their revenue from the previous quarters. After the corporate scandals of the last few years, no public company wants to restate previous earnings, even if it is only a little and for a good reason.

I don't think that the SEC is out there trying to hobble the software industry. It's just that rules designed for a very different kind of business don't really make sense when applied to a software company.

I recall many times at Autodesk when we wanted to do something a certain way, from releasing information to changing subscription policies, and the finance department nixed the idea because of the consequences for revenue recognition. It is an unfortunate reality that some SEC policies impose unnatural constraints on otherwise legitimate behavior by public software companies.

[GuyR]

Thanks for clarifying this Irwin. However why is it Microsoft and others do it all the time and nothing comes of it? Do bugs count in the SEC rules? I still do not understand why Autodesk could not state the following without getting into trouble:

We realise group functionality is important for many of you. We have been working on addressing this issue and you can expect a build addressing this specific issue in the [insert number] weeks.

Guy

[Roger Evans]

Thanks for clarifying this Irwin. However why is it Microsoft and others do it all the time and nothing comes of it? Do bugs count in the SEC rules? I still do not understand why Autodesk could not state the following without getting into trouble:

We realise group functionality is important for many of you. We have been working on addressing this issue and you can expect a build addressing this specific issue in the [insert number] weeks.

Guy
better......insert "we anticipate being able to issue an updated build in .. weeks"

nobody can be called a liar then ... (allegedly)

[iru69]

I appreciate Irwin's response - that explains a little better some of the common misunderstandings (if I read one more comment about stock fluctuations, the gloves come off ;)).

While I understand that companies can't recognize revenue from undelivered goods, "the promised Revit 9 features" would really only count as undelivered goods if Autodesk explicitly made the contract as such (i.e. you're really buying Revit 9 and we're just giving you Revit 8 in the mean time), or I suppose it could be argued if Autodesk actively advertised it as such.

Service contracts (i.e. subscriptions) are also covered in a similar manner. I don't follow that adding or subtracting services, while at the same time not changing the contract fee, would affect recognizable revenue. If the service contract entails undelivered goods - yes, I can appreciate how complex the accounting can get.

While all of this could theoretically be a headache to the accounting department, it all hinges on what would constitute undelivered goods (in which case, the company still has done nothing wrong, but would need to restate revenue).

Furthermore, it would take an incredible chain of events - e.g. a class-action lawsuit of Autodesk customers claiming they were "promised" features that Autodesk failed to deliver.

All that being said, discussion of Revit 9 would be considered a very generous interpretation of what constitutes a promise of undelivered goods. I can appreciate that as a company policy, it's much easier to just say nothing than having to judge every statement. But such a policy is still at the discretion of the company.

David Conant giving a speech at an Autodesk convention where he explicitly states features they plan for Revit 9 - it seems like a really far reach, but I guess I could buy the "he's selling undelivered goods" argument. David Conant discussing, with no promises, features they're working on for future versions of Revit... give me a break.

When it comes to the beta software itself, this is all made moot by the license agreement, the contract you enter with the company that sets the conditions for goods delivered (whether you paid for them or whether they're free). The EULA of Revit 9 Beta simply needs to state that the Beta does not promise included features will be available in future versions (i.e. deliverable goods), etc. This is done all the time, no NDA necessary.

[Wesley]

Quote:
Originally Posted by irusun
Furthermore, it would take an incredible chain of events - e.g. a class-action lawsuit of Autodesk customers claiming they were "promised" features that Autodesk failed to deliver.

All that being said, discussion of Revit 9 would be considered a very generous interpretation of what constitutes a promise of undelivered goods. I can appreciate that as a company policy, it's much easier to just say nothing than having to judge every statement. But such a policy is still at the discretion of the company.

David Conant giving a speech at an Autodesk convention where he explicitly states features they plan for Revit 9 - it seems like a really far reach, but I guess I could buy the "he's selling undelivered goods" argument. David Conant discussing, with no promises, features they're working on for future versions of Revit... give me a break.

-------

This is getting closer to the heart of the matter from the feedback I receive from Autodesk. It is not so much a question of the SEC or other legal matters, but rather a concern over entering into discussions of capabilities that might in the end not make it into the originally proposed release.

It doesn't take a class-action lawsuit, just a bunch of irate users and all the bad publicity they can generate. It seems that Autodesk, and other software companies, have endured major difficulties with their client bases when pulling features that have been previously announced. It has made them very gun-shy of such activities. The NDA is primarily a tool for reminding the signatories that the information is not public, and not yet RELIABLE either. Naturally the further into the future you delve, the less reliable the information becomes. Any company must retain the right to modify their plans as they move forward. No flexibility means no innovation.

I'm sure it is frustrating not to have the information you want, delivered to your door; but such information is nearly always made public through events such as AU, which is dumped straight to web by various attendees, which occur every year. Is access to forward planning information once per year not enough?

Wes

PS. how do you do the proper quote box in here?

[Batman]

I'm sure it is frustrating not to have the information you want, delivered to your door; but such information is nearly always made public through events such as AU, which is dumped straight to web by various attendees, which occur every year. Is access to forward planning information once per year not enough?

Wes

PS. how do you do the proper quote box in here?Firstly, best if you hit the quote button at the bottom right of the message and then cut the bits you don't want within the quote prompts.

I for one don't think the delivery method for the forward planning info is acceptable. There is a better way yet they choose to deliver it in a different fashion which results in increased costs (and perhaps increased profits for themselves) and difficulty.

My point is that I am a supporter of the product, I pay good money for the product and if the product requires issues resolved, which it does, then I want to know what and when and I don't expect to pay for the privlidge of finding out how they are going to do it.

The have small gold mine of information just out of this forum. Many a corporation would pay so dearly to have such close consumer feedback.

[Wesley]

Firstly, best if you hit the quote button at the bottom right of the message and then cut the bits you don't want within the quote prompts.

Ah-hah! That was far too obvious an answer for me to figure it out at this time of the evening (and thanks to skisouth for the same answer)!

Wes

[Wesley]

I guess part of my reaction is that they do such a good job of responding to, and acting on, user feedback as it is, it seems a little harsh to ping them for not telling us, and thereby all of their competitors, what their strategic planning is. I am regularly amazed by how many of the people I deal with have commented over the last year or two about how much more 'human' and 'responsive' the company has become. I blame it on the RTC team... ;-)

Wes

[sbrown]

I can't think of another product I've bought, where I've had input in its development, get to use it before its available for sale, been called by its designer on issues I don't like with it,etc. I think its really asking for a lot to be told what is coming down the pike. We bought what we bought, if you have buyers remorse, stop your subscription. Its not like the presidency where their is a press core waiting outside the developers office to ask them what direction is the product headed today. But then I didn't even want to know what sex my baby was before she was born.

[hand471037]

This is getting closer to the heart of the matter from the feedback I receive from Autodesk. It is not so much a question of the SEC or other legal matters, but rather a concern over entering into discussions of capabilities that might in the end not make it into the originally proposed release.

I'm actually with Autodesk on this one.

There's a firm I used to work at that was on ADT (this all happened prior to my working there). They wanted to do more, so they started looking at Revit and ArchiCAD. This was right about at Revit 5 IIRC. The local ArchiCAD reseller gave them a great deal, and promised the moon and the stars, saying that ArchiCAD 8 would be everything Revit was and then some, and that if they bought into ArchiCAD now they would get 8 really soon. Sounding like a good deal, they went for it, for they hadn't worked with either product so really didn't understand all the issues.

Turns out that the version of ArchiCAD 8 they got was worse than a beta, crashed constantly, and was far, far less than what they were promised. It got so bad they ditched it altogether, went to Revit instead, and are trying to get their money back from the reseller for fraud or something.

At the very least, that firm, and all the firms that saw this happen, certainly won't look at ArchiCAD anytime soon.

I've also worked with a fair number of salespeople, and sadly, some can get out of hand, and start saying some pretty exaggerated claims to make the sale. They are the definate minority, and I've been lucky enough to work with some really great ones, but still it would only take one...

So I know if I was Autodesk I'd do what they do, just to keep my sales force in check.

But then if I was Autodesk things would be a WHOLE lot different. ;-)

[DaveP]

Getting back to the top of this thread (i.e. When's the release coming out & why has AutoDesk messed up the fast releases)

Found this on
http://wiki.tripleddesign.com/index.php/RB_Timeline
Charles River Software founded - October 31, 1997
0.1 1999 11 (Early Adopter 1)
0.2 2000 01 (Early Adopter 2)
Revit Technology Corporation - company renamed
1.0 - 2000 04
2.0 - 2000 08
2.1 - 2000 10
3.0 - 2001 02
3.1 - 2001 06
4.0 - 2001 11
4.1 - 2002 01
Autodesk acquires Revit Technology Corporation - April 1, 2002
4.5 - 2002 05 09
5.0 - 2002 12 17
5.1 - 2003 05
6.0 - 2003 12 22
6.1 - 2004 03 11
7.0 - 2004 12 13
8.0 - 2005 02 26ish
8.1 - 2005 08 23 (Actual release)

So, there pretty much HAS been one major release a year, with a point release in between. As far as I know, that's still AutoDesk's plan.

(Nice Wiki, BTW)

[Andre Baros]

All this talk about what Autodesk is doing with Revit... I'd rather see a thread about what architects are doing with Revit. The software is already sooo far ahead of most other programs and can do more than most architects need.

I saw a Thom Mayne lecture last week and couldn't help thinking, 'hm, Revit could do that, and the sections would be live... but the graphics wouldn't be as flashy' Other than the Freedom Tower, does anyone know of any other high profile projects being done in Revit (large or small)?

[Steve_Stafford]

fwiw, the timeline I put in the wiki is just a reprint from David Conant's reply to a question about Revit's historical timeline, now located here....THIS THREAD (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=20803&highlight=timeline). I have just added more to it since then.

[Batman]

I can't think of another product I've bought, where I've had input in its development, get to use it before its available for sale, been called by its designer on issues I don't like with it,etc. I think its really asking for a lot to be told what is coming down the pike. We bought what we bought, if you have buyers remorse, stop your subscription. Its not like the presidency where their is a press core waiting outside the developers office to ask them what direction is the product headed today. But then I didn't even want to know what sex my baby was before she was born.
One is about having faith in a corporation whose critical aim is increased profits and the other is about having faith in something which is pure, natural and far more important.

[Wesley]

What I find amazing about that timeline is that it shows Autodesk has now had Revit for pretty much exactly half its life...

Wes
(wandering off into the bushes again)

[David Conant]

As usual the AUGI community is a lively place. I'm now back from my tour of Australia and New Zealand. I was greatly impressed by the enthusiasm and commitment to Revit I saw there. If I sounded a bit tired at times, it was only the side effect of visiting 17 firms in 2 countries over 4 days after a 25 hour air journey from Boston.
My mission was to gather information needed to formulate our long term development plans. As a result. I focused all our discussions on high level issues. This doesn't mean that we are ignoring the smaller problems, only that I needed to keep my focus elsewhere during this series of sessions.
The Revit National Conference just added to the success of this trip. I hope it will grow over the years and that we will be able to continue our participation.

[GuyR]

it was only the side effect of visiting 17 firms in 2 countries over 4 days after a 25 hour air journey from Boston.

For various reasons I missed seeing David but a note to Autodesk management:


Having someone of Davids caliber out in our neck of the woods for 4 days and 2 countries is mad. Having a Q&A session possibly a short talk on families etc open to all Revit Users would have been great but you need time. Would doubling the 4 days to 8 have made that much of a difference?

I don't know if this is true but I've also heard on the grapevine Autodesk fly people on these long flights in cattle class!! That is just plain cruel. Expecting someone to function let alone perform in a business sense having flown cattle for >20hrs is mean and cheap. Business class does make a difference and that's why it's called Business class ;-)


Guy

[knurrebusk]

I know most of you don´t really like my drawings.
Revit 9 is just me 2 times, I´ll complain but still be happy.

Revit is freedom in essence, to do difficult stuff.

[david.kingham]

I know most of you don´t really like my drawings.
Revit 9 is just me 2 times, I´ll complain but still be happy.

Revit is freedom in essence, to do difficult stuff.
Did you recently start taking medication? I looked back at your old posts and they seemed very....normal. Your rants in the past week or two have me wondering if you've gone off the deep end. Maybe it's time to see a shrink...or maybe you're just looking for attention....:shrug:

[mibzim]

As usual the AUGI community is a lively place. I'm now back from my tour of Australia and New Zealand.

DAVE C: Now that you're back and listening too all this dave, i'll take the opportunity to say thanks for coming out. It certainly was good to meet one of the men behind the product, and to hear a little about the direction it is taking. Keep up the good work, and hopefully we will see you again soon!


Did you recently start taking medication?

DAVE K: easy tiger =)

[knurrebusk]

Did you recently start taking medication? I looked back at your old posts and they seemed very....normal. Your rants in the past week or two have me wondering if you've gone off the deep end. Maybe it's time to see a shrink...or maybe you're just looking for attention....:shrug:


What´s this talk of ranting all about!
I nag a bit, ok.

But some of this forums members seem to enjoy personal attacks like you just did.
I´m not on medication, not an alcoholic, not insane.

I sometime work several days without sleep, but never offended anyone on this forum I hope.

Stuff that was not important in the pre-Autodesk takeover, may become more important as the user base grows.

If this aggressive type of personal attack is your normal behavior, you need to calm down.
I drop bad words at products, but never meant to offend the hard working people behind Revit.

[david.kingham]

No harm was intended by my post, just givin ya a little *****...your posts lately just seem a little off, just don't make much sense, very rambling and poetic....just want to make sure a fellow revit user isn't going turn postal on us :)

[knurrebusk]

No harm was intended by my post, just givin ya a little *****...your posts lately just seem a little off, just don't make much sense, very rambling and poetic....just want to make sure a fellow revit user isn't going turn postal on us :)


Thank´s :)

I worry enough with my projects, so your response lifted my heart.

Know from advise that long hours is bad for me (epileplisi), but my brain is locked on a 36 hours circle.

[ivsim]

I also had the pleasure of sitting down for an hour with David Conant this week. I am very confident that the development cycle will be being pushed along just as hard as it has been to date. The whole purpose of him flying out here to Australia and visiting a whole bunch of firms around the country was to find out what "we" want in terms of future revit development. That to me alone says enough. Furthermore the attitude of getting out here where Revit apparently has the biggest market penetration world wide and finding out what else they could give us is cvery positive.

He was quite clear from the outset he didn't want to know about improvements to trim tools etc and the finicky issues. They were firmly focused on "bigger picture" issues and spent a great deal of time finding out how we worked, how we were using revit and how our workflow could be expanded. I think that all suggests a lot of forward thinking still going on with the development team.

While they were very tightlipped about what was coming up, i can tell you a few things i managed to find out.

1. Release 9.0 is in testing and we should all be getting our Beta invites VERY soon. And yes it is releasing in the new year. And yes it sounded a lot more like functionality improvements, and documentation improvements. (hope that means revisions that are actually useful)
2. Release 10 is already well underway
I do remember the time when R 8.0 was just about to be released.....I felt as if Santa was coming to town.... and everyone was expecting their long desired presents......I'd like to make a parallel with the new edition of AutoCAD and i.e. 2006. I've long ceased taking any interest in how ACAD develops but looking at the 2006 I am amazed at what wonderful presents ACAD users have received...well most of you are aware that the new ACAD features are the good old Revit features......ACAD has made a revolutionary jump from version to version lately and Revit has made well not that...........since r 7.0 (I remember aaronrumple being....well....somehow disappointed by R8.0). Now, I just waited for someone to start a R 9.0 thread to see what are our presents could look like....Well CD's improvements i.e. quality CD's are smth I've long craved for......well, if ACAD 2007 presents turn out to be more developed than R9, then I shall be forced to think that "Santa" is not real.........I'd like you to know that I shall wait till 12th etc. untill everything's fine with groups, with.........etc....the problem is so many buildings shall have been built by then.....

[knurrebusk]

I'd like you to know that I shall wait till 12th etc. untill everything's fine with groups, with.........etc....the problem is so many buildings shall have been built by then.....


That´s why I start to accept the limits of Revit, buildings are built all the time.
Revit tend to make you feel in control! like never before, still things need to take time.

Better/faster is the goal of humanity, but I understand the need to rest sometimes.
Revit team has done a marathon the last years, I expected this result could improve over again.

Then again! you have the big agenda that needs attention.

[barathd]

With 4500 plus views to date - anticipation of Revit 9 seems to be running at a fever pitch. I believe Revit 9 is going to be an extremely critical release - especially if it is "documentation" oriented. I feel if it turns out to be a "great release" this could be a pivotal point in Revit's acceptance on a broad scale. I hope the "factory" recognizes this and the release lives up to expectation.

[Wes Macaulay]

From a strictly architectural standpoint, we are seeing much more takeup of Revit -- longer-term users are beginning to have good news stories about Revit now and people have had time to regroup after hitting the wall with Revit, figuring out what they ought to have done, and giving it another go. This is without whatever is coming in R9. From a Revit Structure standpoint I can't comment as much on what is needed to make the users happier, but I am not worried about getting a revolutionary release as opposed to an evolutionary release. Progress is progress, and each release is a step even if it is not a quantum leap.

[mtogni]

With 4500 plus views to date - anticipation of Revit 9 seems to be running at a fever pitch. I believe Revit 9 is going to be an extremely critical release - especially if it is "documentation" oriented. I feel if it turns out to be a "great release" this could be a pivotal point in Revit's acceptance on a broad scale. I hope the "factory" recognizes this and the release lives up to expectation.
I totally agree with you. At this point, seeing all the wishlist posted, I think there's no more excuses: users are wating for a "fix&improve" instead a "new functionality" release...

[beegee]

Keep in mind that just about everything that's going to appear in R9.0 has already been selected and is now going through the QA process.

These decisions are made, by necessity, well before the actual release date to allow for the production and testing process.

Sure some things get kicked out and others kicked in their place, but the overall picture is not going to suddenly change now. Autodesk Revit made the " big picture " decisions some months ago. Yes, they would have looked at the AUGI Revit wishlist as well as feedback from their Client Advisories and their reseller network. That would all have been sifted through Development, Marketing and Production and then fed into the loop again.

At this point in time, any feedback is going to influence R10, not R 9.

[mtogni]

My apologies, I didn't want to "force" anything, just say what I feel when I browse this forum... and, ok! if what users are waiting for will not be available on the upcoming release it will be for the next one, here in Italy (or even worldwide...?) we use to say "better later then never"...
Thanks for your replay.

[WolffG]

While anxiously awaiting Release 9.0......what's the latest version of 8.1???

[blads]

While anxiously awaiting Release 9.0......what's the latest version of 8.1???
Build Number: 20051017_2000

[Wes Macaulay]

I don't think people understand the effort and intelligence in programming required to get Revit doing what it currently does. Any of you who have undertaken a thorough analysis of other CAD platforms for AEC out there will find there is really a short list of programs that do collaborative 3D remotely well, and most of them are quite if not insanely complex to use. It really boils down to ArchiCAD and Revit, and Revit's capabilities outstrip ArchiCAD's.

I think groups must represent a challenge to the developers or they'd be "fixed" now. As more features are added the increasing number of code branches means more code management as the software continues its growth.

[beegee]

No apologies required, Michelangelo.

I was just pointing out how complex the process is and that it may not be possible to influence the current release direction at this time.


My apologies, I didn't want to "force" anything, just say what I feel when I browse this forum... and, ok! if what users are waiting for will not be available on the upcoming release it will be for the next one, here in Italy (or even worldwide...?) we use to say "better later then never"...
Thanks for your replay.

[ivsim]

As usual the AUGI community is a lively place. I'm now back from my tour of Australia and New Zealand. I was greatly impressed by the enthusiasm and commitment to Revit I saw there. If I sounded a bit tired at times, it was only the side effect of visiting 17 firms in 2 countries over 4 days after a 25 hour air journey from Boston.
My mission was to gather information needed to formulate our long term development plans. As a result. I focused all our discussions on high level issues. This doesn't mean that we are ignoring the smaller problems, only that I needed to keep my focus elsewhere during this series of sessions.
The Revit National Conference just added to the success of this trip. I hope it will grow over the years and that we will be able to continue our participation.

Dear David, I'd rather suggest you or your teammates should actually pay a longer-term visit to an architectural practice, let's say for a week or two, I am sure you shall get thousands of invitations....I mean, go to a firm, let them give you a real assignment and start doing the job yourself AND you shall, yourself, inevitably experience the burden of everyday tasks on your shoulders. I think this would do much better than meeting more people around the globe for the least possible time and shall give you the right guidelines as to how you should proceed..... All the little things of everyday workflow is what matters first, actually......the big concept comes afterwards...

Respect to you and the mates..... :)

[barathd]

Mix with the peons - yuck sounds too much like work. Seriously damn good idea - get in the trenches and toil in the vomit.

[Scott D Davis]

This is already happening....maybe it's not David C personally, but Autodesk Consulting has been to many firms to help them with their Revit process and projects. The feedback they receive goes right back to the developers. I believe SOM and HOK have been involved in this process.

[Andre Baros]

To say that the big ideas come later is a bit short sighted. Revit is inherently a big idea (esp. when compared to, say, AutoCAD which is just big.) I'm all for fixing the bugs, but I switched to Revit because of the big idea, and I would hate to see the innovation put on hold to fix annoying elevation symbols or text boxes.

[Batman]

I would hate to see the innovation put on hold to fix annoying elevation symbols or text boxes.
We are wanting issues larger than those fixed which, if aren't, blow the big idea. Nice to have a good concept but the devil is always in the detail.

[Wes Macaulay]

What's blowing the big idea for you, Vince?

In my job I get to see a lot of other people's work. So I get to see what the software needs. So far, we need

sloped walls without resorting to massing or in-place families
better architectural modeling tools (helical sweeps, lofting, more XYZ freedom come to mind)
parkade slab modeling tools (specify elevations at corners >> done)
better site modeling tools (roads and such)
a <Beyond> setting for elevations much like we have with plans
Nobody around here needs improved tags or anything else nearly as much.

[Steve_Stafford]

...I'd rather suggest you or your teammates should actually pay a longer-term visit to an architectural practice, let's say for a week or two...They have...and boldly speaking for David...he spent the better part of two decades in the trenches as an architect (and cadd mgmt) so he's intimately aware of what we go through. It is why he got involved with Revit in the first place :smile:

So are many of his cohorts in the factory. They will be the first to tell you that they value the first hand information they get from these visits, they just can't spend so much time at our offices that Revit doesn't attention right? :wink: Who's going to make sure FK is getting his code in on time? :shock: