Between releases... Kudos to the Factory

[Dimitri Harvalias]

At the risk of sounding like a cheerleader...

We are constantly reading in this forum about the limitations of some of the tools in Revit. The topo tools seem to take more than their share of criticism. Revit has set the bar pretty high so, as users, we tend to forget how much it can do and how easily we can accomplish things. You can compare it to watching Gretzky, Jordan or Tiger do their thing. They make it look so easy we overlook just how talented they are and can be too critical when they don't always accomplish the impossible.
The attached screen shot shows a site topo created in Revit. The site is a mountain resort location. I obtained a survey of the property, opened it up in Autocad and removed unwanted information to leave only the contours. The original ACAD file was 26 megs, once cleaned up it was 3.5 megs.
The site is 1.7km x 1.03 km and has a vertical elevation change of about 1500 meters. I can manipulate this site in real time 3D, drop a camera anywhere and check out the view or cut a section anywhere and have it instantly show me what I have. Although I haven't stuck a building on it yet, I can put my project in context and get a rendering to my client. This took me all of ten minutes in Revit. Pretty damn impressive I say!
I am not saying that Revit does not require improvement but what has to be kept in perspective is the fact that some of these tools, in my opinion, are purely a bonus in a CAD package that we now take for granted. Glad to have these tools as a part of the deal, even with their limitations.
I know some of the 'issues' will be addressed as time goes by and, hopefully, whatever they add will have the same Revit ease of use and functionality.
To all the folks at the factory keep 'em coming and keep up the good work. :beer:

My rambling $.02 on a rainy Sunday.

[Joef]

My client is not going to pay me a nickel for a raw site with no roads or driveways. It is great to have this but it doesn't make me any money. The money comes after this and this is where Revit needs to improve. Roads, sidewalks, driveways, curbs. These are the things that I need to produce to make the client happy. Just my .02Cdn

Joe

[Batman]

I agree Dimitri, the tools are fantastic are shouldn't be taken for granted.

The issues we are faced with though are; relativity and what other packages are doing that may rival Revit and, the need to have continued progress develop in our tools to suit our increased requirements.

Each application has its merits. Wouldn't your site analysis be further enhanced if you could drape a satellite image of the actual terrain over the site model similarly to a SketchUP Feature?

I think all in all the demand for improved tools is also an acknowledgment that the existing base tool is of excellence. Not to dismiss the tool in any way but to know what could be possible and to want to see it develop as needed.

It is our wide ranging feedback that will shape the development of those tools.

[jbalding48677]

My client is not going to pay me a nickel for a raw site with no roads or driveways. It is great to have this but it doesn't make me any money. The money comes after this and this is where Revit needs to improve. Roads, sidewalks, driveways, curbs. These are the things that I need to produce to make the client happy. Just my .02Cdn

JoeAll due respect Joef, <RANT ON> but perhaps your client might pay more for a building that sits better on the site OR one that is more balanced (cut and fill - save money during construction those over sized Tonka trucks are expensive to rent and operate) OR has some unobstructed site lines OR perhaps you use this to just understand existing conditions to design a building that works better OR as a reminder of what the site looks like if it is remote OR maybe you can charge more when the client comes back and says I want another "Joef original design" because I think it is the best building for that particular site...

I think the point here is that you can quickly get an idea of how your building looks on a site, where the problem spots are, what the implications of different design options are, etc. etc. Revit is not a civil tool.

Don't get me wrong, I want/need all that stuff too, but don't know what I would sacrifice in Revit Building today to have made time for site development. In fact site tools are rated at the top of the WATG wish list and have moved there because the factory has checked off many of the other, higher priority, items. I think site tools are right below groups and wall joins ;-)

I am not harping on just one person, but I am a little miffed at all the "Revit Sucks" chatter going on in the forums lately. It seems that people have already forgotten the days of working in AutoCAD and how much better Revit is. When I work in AutoCAD, even for 5 minutes I laugh and cry about the difference. It is one thing to say, "You know the site tools are lacking and I am having trouble working out a parking layout with ADA access ramps to my building." And quite another to say, "Revit blows, you can't even to stinkin' site work."

<Rant Off>

Dimitri -

Good job we had a similar project and were able to create some cool, albeit very primitive, views of our site with about 60 sugar cube looking buildings on them. We split some of the faces for the roads and put in some pads for the pool and driving decks. It got the point across. In the end we did not produce full on renderings, but used the views as background for the water color renderer. We also found problem areas on site that saved a ton of time later in the design. The project is now under construction and moving along quite well.

My advice is to keep moving forward and be perfectly clear with the client that this is a design tool and is not intended to be a presentation tool.

Rock on

Yours truly, "Head Cheerleader" -

[Joef]

I agree that it is really a great tool, being able to easily produce a 3d topo of the site. It's fantastic. But this is not a new tool. It has been around for I don't know how many releases. 6.0 anyway. I wouldn't mind the odd improvement here and there.

[Dimitri Harvalias]

Joe,
I just happened to pick the site tool as an example the many tools in Revit.
I understand your point but all I was trying to get across was how easy it was to do what I did, in the time I did it. Remember, this is only ten minutes work. I don't think this basic representation of a site is useless. As Jim said, it gets the building in context and, most of the time
Revit is not a site development application and I don't ever expect to do what someone can do in Land Desktop nor do I want that sort of overhead in my building modeling software. I'm more than happy with being able to divide this site using the base ACAD plan to change materials for roads and landscaping. For instance if I tried to add enough trees to make a realistic representation on a site this large it would would slow my model to a crawl.
I really didn't want to spark a yeah, that's great, but it needs to be better debate. All I was attempting to do is give the factory a little pat on the back and let them know that, even thought it is their job and they are expected to do what they do, I appreciate the quality of their work, so far, and look forward to all they have to offer in future releases.

[GuyR]

I am not harping on just one person, but I am a little miffed at all the "Revit Sucks" chatter going on in the forums lately

It's a double edged sword though isn't it?

1.. Most of us want Revit to develop as an integrated solution and get away from the customisation madhouse that is AutoCAD.

2.. We all appreciated the ease which we can model buildings so other aspects that aren't so easy with the current version stick out like a sore thumb.

3.. As more and more AutoCAD Users move to Revit and we move away from early adopter status these peripheral items become more and more of an issue for a larger portion of the customer base because Revit's so integrated.

4.. Because Revit is such a beautifully integrated 3D solution you can't fudge with a few lines if you want to take advantage of the 3D viewing abilities that Revit encourages. You need to be able to model it.

Which is why I think Autodesk need to have more developers per customer than AutoCAD or ADT if they want to keep people happy in the medium term. If Revit really is the future as Autodesk keep telling us, putting the effort in up front will reap the $$$ rewards.

I don't mind yearly releases as long as a significant portion of the release notes aren't bug fixes (like groups) sold as enhancements. They need to (preferably) put in the extra resources to fill the holes or (PLEASE NO!!!) open the API so external developers can do it for them.

Guy

[Joef]

I think Revit is great. I really do. And I think the factory is doing a wonderful job. I never said Revit sucks. I wouldn't have shelled out 6 grand for a program if I thought it sucked. I actually bought it! I think that gives me the right (and obligation really) to say where the program doesn't completely meet my needs.

Joe

[eldad]

I agree with Joef here and some of you are missing his point... the site tools are great and it's good to have a 3D topo generated to quickly, but... and it's a big but, it is very limited! you guys know this, try to create roads and sidewalks and see how long you go before tearing some hair off...

there is definitely Lot s more work needed to be done to site tools. To have the ability to model roads with given RL's would be a dream come through... :)
we all love Revit, and we all use it every day with the realization that it's the best tool out there, but also knowing there is a long way to go yet... all very exciting really...

[k.armstrong]

I think the topo-surface creation in Revit is great - well thats if you use acad to manipulate the file you want to use. How would you create that site in Revit from an image - i use images with contour lines a lot in preliminary work (before we even own the site) and its a pain to follow contour lines putting in spot levels.

BUT onto the other tools - i love Revit - when I'm working on the building - then when i go outside i don't like it much at all.

It's almost like the factory thinks all architects, building designers etc do is draw buildings in isolation and someone else sorts out where it touches the ground - and the car park and paths and landscape.

well i know i do a lot of that - set outs for car parking areas - walkways etc - and none of these things are ever dead level - they slope one way or another.

I'd like to be able to create an external floor with spot levels - that way i could set out my pavements - and also have the car parks stick to them - as opposed to the wheel stops buried at one end and floating at the other! doesn't look good in elevation.

Ken

[jbalding48677]

Point of clarification...

I did not communicate as well as I could have in my original post, so please allow me to rephrase. I too believe that Revit has many things it could do and do better. What really gets my goat is the way professionals ask for them. I truly believe you will catch more flies with honey... We have a wishlist area and it is quite active. I will tell you that wish list items have been, and will continue to be, prioritized and submitted to the development team. I also know for a fact that they really do listen. I think that is the best venue available to us to improve the software.

Thanks for listening -

[bowlingbrad]

Let's all remember that Revit is only about 5 years old. That is quite young in comparison to AutoCAD's 20 years. I'm not saying that we should wait 15 years for a great product! :wink:

All of the other programs that we use (or used) have their share of workarounds no matter how old or new they are. We either worked around them or write a routine to work around them. I'm sure that Revit will have its share of issues.....always. We will work around them. I remember writing a program for AutoCAD that acted like external references BEFORE THERE WAS SUCH A THING. Just an example....

That's why this forum is so great. We can come here with issues and find 100 ways to work around them. We don't have to pull our hair out trying to figure it out ourselves.

Let's give the development team some credit....They are working very hard to make Revit even better. I'm sure they hear us. Let's just keep wishing on the wish list.

[Batman]

What was it that I heard somewhere;

"We go to the moon not because it is easy but because it is hard."

Never in my life have I seen so much happen in such short time frames.

What used to take me days to design 10 years ago now takes minutes, my food is prepared faster, my cars go faster and more than anything else information and knowledge growth is out pacing light speed.

The problem is frustration, we know it can be done, they have the resources, the knowledge and the reason. Our question is why not soon. Do they want our hard earned money ? If so they need to understand that we as users want things to happen as other things around us are happening, at the rate of relative progress.

Progress is exponential and one simple fact demonstrates this. AutoCAD - 20 years, Revit 5 - years, "?????" - 2 maybe 3 years.

The development team does have our credit, they also have our cash and our valuable honest feedback.