How and when to use revit?

[AP23]

I have asked previously if revit was meant for high end architecture. I think I should rephrase the question. Is revit an appropriate tool for high end architecture in the initial phase?

Everyone knows that cad/bim is just a tool to help you in the design process. Like any other tool it does its jobs like a hammer. However you need more than a hammer to build a house. Sure you can make cd’s with Formz or blob architecture in autocad, but it is as close as committing suicide. I’ve played around with revit the last couple of days, but noticed that I spend a lot of time either in the family editor or creating new shapes in place. I heard this joke the other day that the reason why the freedom tower looks so ******, unattractive and dull is because revit can’t even do a simple task of changing the angle of mullions in a curtain wall individually as the original Libeskind design was intended. Let alone produce complex forms like calatrava’s train station. I hope for revit sake no one associate the building with revit, cause people tend to mix up design quality and software.

Do you see revit just as a tool like a hammer or a complete toolbox? Do you have any additional software to jump start the design process or renderer to produce photorealistic renderings? What would be your typical workflow using revit form the initial design phase to producing cd’s? I hope it’s not too much questions at once. To learn to work with revit, I noticed it is not only learning the software, but learning a new way of thinking and designing.

[mikefields27]

I think it really depends how you design and what you consider the initial phase. I would never sit down to any program, tabla rasa, and just start drawing. [Nothing compares to sketching things out by hand for proportion and soul] For me Revit is a complete toolbox, but you need know which tool in that box to use. The "smart"aspects of Revit really makes drawing fast, but you will definitely find yourself in the family editor when you get into custom and you can add 'smart' elements to the families. While something like FormZ gives you a lot of playdough options, you are stuck with the lump at some point and moving into CDs you have a lot of wasted effort. Because so many things in Revit are so easy, the knowledge gap to the custom makes it seem harder than it is. The good stuff takes time.

[MikeJarosz]

I heard this joke the other day that the reason why the freedom tower looks so ******, unattractive and dull is because revit can’t even do a simple task of changing the angle of mullions in a curtain wall individually as the original Libeskind design was intended.

First, some fact. Daniel Liebeskind is not involved in the redesign of the tower that is currently under way. You must therefore be referring to the original torqued design that was rejected by the NY Police department at the 11th hour.

The curtain wall of that design was originally modeled in Autocad. The geometry was rigorously described as a mathematical formula so complex we actually debated having t-shirts made of it. One of our especially talented team members wrote a lisp routine for this formula that allowed the designers to specify angles, lengths and distances to study differing options for the pleated appearance of the original curtain wall. When you consider that every single floor of this tower was unique because of the horizontal torque and the vertical taper, we had amazing control over mullion angles. Daniel Libeskind had nothing to do with any of this.

About this time, Carl Galioto, a partner of SOM, made the decision to model the below grade portion of the project in 3D because of the extraordinary complexity of the elements. This is when Revit entered the picture. I was one of the architects to work on that model. I was swept away by Revit, an emotion many of you out there know well.

One day Carl said "Do you think we should keep going on to the tower?" I answered: why not?

We needed assurances that we would be able to do in Revit what we already were doing in ACAD, so we challenged Waltham to reproduce the same results in native Revit that we were getting from the complex lisp routine.

To our amazement (and I think their own) they did it. We then continued the tower right up to the aviation lights. I challenge your assertion that Revit cannot change mullion angles. I have seen it do so with my own eyes.

Incidentally, most of the images of that original tower you have seen were not created in Revit. So the [expletive deleted] design you ridicule is a reflection of the abilities or inabilities of ACAD, 3D studio and a bunch of other software, but not Revit.

The Freedom Tower has been one of the most difficult design challenges of modern times. I have posted many replies to this forum about this project over the last couple of years. You might want to review some of them before posting your vitriol. And check out Liebeskind's, "From the ground up" for his version of it all.

[hand471037]

I have asked previously if revit was meant for high end architecture. I think I should rephrase the question. Is revit an appropriate tool for high end architecture in the initial phase?

Yes.


I heard this joke the other day that the reason why the freedom tower looks so ******, unattractive and dull is because revit can’t even do a simple task of changing the angle of mullions in a curtain wall individually as the original Libeskind design was intended.

Huh. Sounds like someone's been hanging around the ArchiCAD forums or something. It's not like one of the people responsible for that project posts here on AUGI and hasn't ever mentioned something along those lines. What a load of garbage.


Let alone produce complex forms like calatrava’s train station.

Which one? Send me a pic, I'd like to see what you're talking about. Sorry to be frank, but you don't know much about Revit just yet, so do you think you really know if something is or isn't capable within Revit? You seem to assume that it's not, without asking those of us who have done a lot of complex work within Revit...


I hope for revit sake no one associate the building with revit, cause people tend to mix up design quality and software.

The only people I know who do that are pretty short-sighted.


Do you see revit just as a tool like a hammer or a complete toolbox?

It's a toolbox.


Do you have any additional software to jump start the design process or renderer to produce photorealistic renderings?

I sometimes use other software for rendering or image creation because I can't get the look I'm going for with Revit alone.


What would be your typical workflow using revit form the initial design phase to producing cd’s?

I could write books. But in a nutshell, I start in Revit, and draw and think a lot too, and then I stay in Revit until the ribbon is cut on the door of the building, occasionally using other rendering software and/or photoshop if I need an image I can't make with Revit.


I hope it’s not too much questions at once. To learn to work with revit, I noticed it is not only learning the software, but learning a new way of thinking and designing.

I know that asking these kinds of questions are just one way to understand more about how one works with Revit. But I just have to say that you should just spend more time working with Revit so that you really understand what it's good for. I can't type enough (no one can) to really answer these questions you're throwing out. Just get some experance with the tool, and most of these questions you're trapping yourself in (and wasting engery on) will largely fall away...

Yup. But again it's just a tool.

I was talking with the head of a major firm about Revit the other day, and he did the thing that older (always male) Architects seem to love to do when challenged with new technology: hold up a pencil, and tout it as the 'best tool made yet for Architecture'. I always want to (but never do, because I don't wanna be a jerk) reply that I think our minds and eyes and hands are the best tools made yet for Architecture, and everything else is secondary.

[cosmickingpin]

Calatrava's tower was modeled in Revit by a user.
http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=11451&page=1&pp=10&highlight=Calatrava
Now were I perhaps more suspecting of folks I might think you were trolling. Revit works great, better than Archicad ever will, for anything! Notice how you have been able to "fool around" with revit, try casual fooling around in archicad and share what you have learned to the group. In terms of usability, Revit wins that hands down. You need an advanced degree in computer programing to make archicad do anything. Revit is the toolbox in which all other tools will someday fit (and I do mean ALL)- for right now it works pretty good for architects.



I have asked previously if revit was meant for high end architecture. I think I should rephrase the question. Is revit an appropriate tool for high end architecture in the initial phase?

Everyone knows that cad/bim is just a tool to help you in the design process. Like any other tool it does its jobs like a hammer. However you need more than a hammer to build a house. Sure you can make cd’s with Formz or blob architecture in autocad, but it is as close as committing suicide. I’ve played around with revit the last couple of days, but noticed that I spend a lot of time either in the family editor or creating new shapes in place. I heard this joke the other day that the reason why the freedom tower looks so ******, unattractive and dull is because revit can’t even do a simple task of changing the angle of mullions in a curtain wall individually as the original Libeskind design was intended. Let alone produce complex forms like calatrava’s train station. I hope for revit sake no one associate the building with revit, cause people tend to mix up design quality and software.

[AP23]

I started doing the tutorials last week and I am really enjoying myself every time, especially when I see new possibilities, that other programs can't do. Normally it would be weeks of pain to learn other 3d apps, but revit is really fun. Each time I think I found something revit can’t do, I check out this forum to look for away to work around, but many times it can be solved in revit without converting to other software. As I get to know more about revit, somethings just seem impossible to do completely in revit without 3d party plug-ins or software. For instance, I just saw a cool documentary on discovery about the Olympic buildings in China. They showed the Olympic stadium (the bird nest) designed by Herzog and De Meuron, de aquatic center made out of high tech bubble glass, the national theater and the basketball arena. I don’t have any doubts that revit isn’t powerful enough to produce cd’s, but I can imagine that to create such buildings with all the calculations, curvatures etc just using one software would not be very efficient. So if you would use Revit, I can imagine that it will only come in the process at the end when everything has been tweaked and calculated in other software. I may be very wrong, but sometimes my toolbox is not enough and a big bulldozers is needed.


Here are some images of the projects in China

http://archrecord.construction.com/china/1_projects/images/NatGrand-1.jpg
http://www.bjghw.gov.cn/forNationalStadium/b11/xiaoguo/303.jpg
http://www.bjghw.gov.cn/forNationalStadium/b11/xiaoguo/305.jpg
http://www.bjghw.gov.cn/forNationalStadium/b11/xiaoguo/301.jpg
http://www.artandjobmagazine.com/eventi/1651_1.jpg
http://images.china.cn/images/85371.jpg


Here some images of Ground Zero…..check out the random mullion angles
http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/press/middle/September_11_Place.jpg
http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/press/middle/ChurchStreet.jpg
http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/press/middle/450PerformingArtsCenter_mil.jpg



And here are some images of forms and shapes
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.digischool.nl/ckv2/ckv3/kunstentechniek/lynn/greg_lynn_Embriological_Housing.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.digischool.nl/ckv2/ckv3/kunstentechniek/lynn/greglynn.htm&h=706&w=1268&sz=49&tbnid=6dVDymEb0n0J:&tbnh=83&tbnw=150&hl=nl&start=2&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgreg%2Blynn%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dnl%26lr%3D%26rls%3DGGLG,GGLG:2005-44,GGLG:en%26sa%3DG

http://www.arch.mcgill.ca/prof/mellin/arch671/winter2004/student/Trahey/pics/imageC19.jpg

http://www.a4a.info/artc/imag/a-000591g.jpg

[AP23]

Calatrava's tower was modeled in Revit by a user.
http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=11451&page=1&pp=10&highlight=Calatrava
Now were I perhaps more suspecting of folks I might think you were trolling. Revit works great, better than Archicad ever will, for anything! Notice how you have been able to "fool around" with revit, try casual fooling around in archicad and share what you have learned to the group. In terms of usability, Revit wins that hands down. You need an advanced degree in computer programing to make archicad do anything. Revit is the toolbox in which all other tools will someday fit (and I do mean ALL)- for right now it works pretty good for architects.


I tried archicad and it has indeed a huge learning curve. But for the record, doesn't archicad have a Maxonform plugin that makes deformation in your modeling a snap?

[sbrown]

First question, What type of architecture do you do? The firm I work for WATG does mainly high end resorts, casinos and master planning. We use dozens of applications during the life cycle of a project. We use Revit from day one on some of the most difficult projects to understand the site and start massing and laying out the buildings on the island or wherever they are. We use it to model / study difficult design problems in Schematics and continue to use it through production drawings. Not to mention programing, you can use Revit to keep track of your program from before you even start to draw a line. So I would say in some cases its used before pencil hits paper. It all depends on the project and what the deliverables are and how proficient you are with the software.

[AP23]

First question, What type of architecture do you do? .

I am a student experimenting with different architecture styles and software. At my school we only have acad and maya. We use these two programs because (according to the professor in charge with cadsoftware) these are the only software that doesn't limit you in creating drawings. I came across revit by accident when i was searching for a new software that works on a G5. Archicad was an option untill i discovered Revit. So, now i'm just exploring the possibilties and all the respones i've got, i can conclude that what the professor is saying is very misleading. In either case, i got revit, loving it day by day, and exploring its limits to see how far i can take it.

[cosmickingpin]

You highlight one of my key frustration with Autodesk. I was told by an ADesk Rep, not a reseller, that the focus was put on developing engineering apps for Revit and not 3d shape morphing, as ADesk already has several product lines that service this need. So to some extent Revit is development is restrained by ADesk's market strategy and pricing package gimmicks. One can see that were Revit to have Morph capability it would unduly strain other ADesk product line's markets, like it or not that is the reality for the time being. It does work well with lots of platforms through, and its horizontal compatibility is only beginning to develop.


I tried archicad and it has indeed a huge learning curve. But for the record, doesn't archicad have a Maxonform plugin that makes deformation in your modeling a snap?

[Merlin]

I tried archicad and it has indeed a huge learning curve. But for the record, doesn't archicad have a Maxonform plugin that makes deformation in your modeling a snap?

Mate,
I'm a student as well, and just completed a very "out there" design for a curtain wall on a hotel for a Uni project....Easy as pie with the Massing tools...E-A-S-Y!...no plug-in necessary!
John Mc

[Shaun v Rooyen]

.............

Do you see revit just as a tool like a hammer or a complete toolbox? Do you have any additional software to jump start the design process or renderer to produce photorealistic renderings? What would be your typical workflow using revit form the initial design phase to producing cd’s? I hope it’s not too much questions at once. To learn to work with revit, I noticed it is not only learning the software, but learning a new way of thinking and designing.

Like with most things in life it depends on your willingness to accept change. Your attitude toward a new way of thinking is an important factor.
Revit creates a complete shift in mindset. The sooner you come to grips with the logic that surrounds BIM, the sooner you get it. And it is about that, You have to get it to work it successfully.

Revit is our complete tool box from design to CD's. The art stuff is handled by our graphics department who use a number of Apps to produce various results.

Our design and documentation department is totally Revit based. It's Revit or nothing.
We also don't mess around when it comes to project sizes. We have done everything from Large Luxury Homes to Massive Hospitals. It makes no sense to split the project up into design and documentation. Why would you want to loose the Intelligence of the database.
All or nothing philosophy!

[ejburrell67787]

There are some other questions you could be asking about modelling building like you have posted also. Such as, do you want the mullions / structure to actually be random / abetrary or do you want it to appear complex but still conform to a mathematical relationship that can be described? In each case a different method of design and working can be used and different software might be more appropriate.

[jhuynh]

Before knowing Revit, I used FormZ and AutoCADD interchangeably to built my models and created CD. I am telling you that it was a pain the neck to do that. I tried ADT a few times and it was equally painful.

As for me, once I go Revit, I ditch other modeling programs. I have so much fun and being productive with Revit.

[Martin P]

Very organic shapes are not going to be easy to model in Revit. Thats not to say you cant model them outside Revit and import the mass. where's the problem?

Nobody seems to have an issue with this?.... There is software out there designed specifically with these shapes mind - I have no desire at all for oodles of development time to be wasted on adding this type of thing to Revit, its not something that I nor the vast majority of people are going to be working on. If you are involved in building things that have these type of shapes - then I am more than certain that your fees should be enough to cover buying a separate application to model organic shapes ;).......

Re mixing up design quality and software......
there is a phrase about bad workmen and blaming tools.....

If your posts are an exercise getting quotes from Revit users to post elsewhere, I do hope you will quote the entire post.

[Steve_Stafford]

From the links that you provide there were no building forms that could not be modeled in Revit. The "ice cube" sort of looking building would be most awkward because the surface shape is mottled and it would be very time consuming to carve away the surface.

Surface deformation is much easier in surface modelers like Hexagon for example but the resulting surface won't be very easy for your contractor to build no matter what software you use :wink:

When it comes time to build it there will be incredible pressure to normalize such a design into a regular assortment of pieces assembled to appear random so they can build it in a predictable fashion. This might "ruin" the original design...but it might actually get built? Unless the client has no budget limits :wink:?

[Wes Macaulay]

You highlight one of my key frustration with Autodesk. I was told by an ADesk Rep, not a reseller, that the focus was put on developing engineering apps for Revit and not 3d shape morphing, as ADesk already has several product lines that service this need. So to some extent Revit is development is restrained by ADesk's market strategy and pricing package gimmicks. One can see that were Revit to have Morph capability it would unduly strain other ADesk product line's markets, like it or not that is the reality for the time being. It does work well with lots of platforms through, and its horizontal compatibility is only beginning to develop.If this is the case, I'm going to start a riot right here on the Revit forums...

Revit needs to have this capability. Why the **** should we have to go out and buy another app when Revit SHOULD handle this area of need? Autodesk MUST encourage the development of superior modeling tools in Revit -- not hamstring this process!
Revit CAN have this capability. The programmers are more than up for this task -- they can do it, and they would relish doing it
If on the one hand... Adesk is focusing on other tools for Revit in the short-term because that's what the market really needs, fine... but once those tools are developed, I expect their attention to turn towards the kinds of modeling tools present in Viz and 3D Studio which are sorely absent from Revit.

However... if they are deliberately NOT developing these tools inside Revit, then they are deliberately robbing the software of its potential -- for the purpose of selling other programs. These programs are not relevant to the core business of an architect: creating documents for constructing buildings. Revit must be able to do it all. That means NURBS, that means lofting, that means anything VIZ and 3D Studio can now handle geometrically.

[AP23]

well, it's actually being built for the 2008 Olympics in Being. As a matter of fact, it was an engineer that designed it. Even he admitted that if it was not for the software he would be calculating each bubble manually up to his retirement and not be finished by that time. The surface bubbles you see are actually 3 dimensional with helium air in closed. Its true that the budgets are massive. The venues are the most expensive ever build. Just the new television stations cost more than 8 hundred million.

[Steve_Stafford]

...well, it's actually being built for the 2008 Olympics in Being...I was writing in general terms not about the specific building. Mankind has been building complex forms since long before Revit or computers. I find it amusing when articles say that such and such would have been impossible without computers. I wonder how Gaudi would feel about that? (poor example?) I daresay not impossible, just a heck of a lot harder or take 800 years to finish? :smile:

[AP23]

If this is the case, I'm going to start a riot right here on the Revit forums...

Revit needs to have this capability. Why the **** should we have to go out and buy another app when Revit SHOULD handle this area of need? Autodesk MUST encourage the development of superior modeling tools in Revit -- not hamstring this process!
Revit CAN have this capability. The programmers are more than up for this task -- they can do it, and they would relish doing it
If on the one hand... Adesk is focusing on other tools for Revit in the short-term because that's what the market really needs, fine... but once those tools are developed, I expect their attention to turn towards the kinds of modeling tools present in Viz and 3D Studio which are sorely absent from Revit.

However... if they are deliberately NOT developing these tools inside Revit, then they are deliberately robbing the software of its potential -- for the purpose of selling other programs. These programs are not relevant to the core business of an architect: creating documents for constructing buildings. Revit must be able to do it all. That means NURBS, that means lofting, that means anything VIZ and 3D Studio can now handle geometrically.


Isn't the succes of an app in the specialization? For example, what makes Rhino so great is it's the ease, the speciality in Nurbs and the ability to read digitized surfaces and exports seamlessly to Catia which on his term is a powerful parametric modeler. Maya on the other hand is an excellent surface modeler. Formz like Rhino is very precise and excels in solids.(solid works too, but that's another story) 3ds max has by far the best animation and in combination with brazil the best rendering tools. I prefer to see revit specialize in what they do best and make the import and export more diverse. Of course, this is just an opinion, not facts.

[cosmickingpin]

The impression I was left with was, " a little of column A and a little of column B" It can't be that hard, I mean if CavemanCadd can do it, why not Revit? Revit modeling has two major weaknesses as I see it, one being no "Morph" and no "Multi Vector sweeps." That accounts for a lot of "non-linear" design which is sometimes mistaken as interchangeable with "high-end" architecture in certain cases ;) .
I have said it before, but ADesk (to some extent you can't blame them) development efforts remain primarily market driven. While its not just to force us to buy additional programs, it certainly enters the equation, and does put other thing ahead of making Revit a "full 3D package". I guess then where do you draw the line? What about animating object like door swings in Revit in your walk through timeline, that would be nice, but it would wipe Viz off the face of the earth. So the solutions are, "make Revit standalone" or focus on making Revit and Viz far more inoperable, perhaps even replacing Accurender. It will be interesting to see which way they go, personally I am inclined to think they will elect the latter position, but don't hold your breath.


If this is the case, I'm going to start a riot right here on the Revit forums...

Revit needs to have this capability. Why the **** should we have to go out and buy another app when Revit SHOULD handle this area of need? Autodesk MUST encourage the development of superior modeling tools in Revit -- not hamstring this process!
Revit CAN have this capability. The programmers are more than up for this task -- they can do it, and they would relish doing it
If on the one hand... Adesk is focusing on other tools for Revit in the short-term because that's what the market really needs, fine... but once those tools are developed, I expect their attention to turn towards the kinds of modeling tools present in Viz and 3D Studio which are sorely absent from Revit.

However... if they are deliberately NOT developing these tools inside Revit, then they are deliberately robbing the software of its potential -- for the purpose of selling other programs. These programs are not relevant to the core business of an architect: creating documents for constructing buildings. Revit must be able to do it all. That means NURBS, that means lofting, that means anything VIZ and 3D Studio can now handle geometrically.

[AP23]

From the links that you provide there were no building forms that could not be modeled in Revit. The "ice cube" sort of looking building would be most awkward because the surface shape is mottled and it would be very time consuming to carve away the surface.

Surface deformation is much easier in surface modelers like Hexagon for example but the resulting surface won't be very easy for your contractor to build no matter what software you use :wink:

When it comes time to build it there will be incredible pressure to normalize such a design into a regular assortment of pieces assembled to appear random so they can build it in a predictable fashion. This might "ruin" the original design...but it might actually get built? Unless the client has no budget limits :wink:?


A late reply, but just for the record, the ice cube was done in Microstation. Micorstation also has BIM and parametric capabilities, so I predict in the near future that the ice cube can also be modeled in Revit.

ftp://ftp2.bentley.com/dist/collateral/User_20Story_3A_20Arup_20_2D_20Water_20Cube_2C_20Low_20Respdflo.pdf

[ejburrell67787]

I was writing in general terms not about the specific building. Mankind has been building complex forms since long before Revit or computers. I find it amusing when articles say that such and such would have been impossible without computers. I wonder how Gaudi would feel about that? (poor example?) I daresay not impossible, just a heck of a lot harder or take 800 years to finish? :smile:
Gaudi is an excellent example... except that it should read "Gaudi's work would not have been possible without Gaudi" ;) The team that have been working on completing the Sagrada Familiar since the '70s probably couldn't do what they do without computers though! They only have a few bits of models and a bunch of photos of models to work from... and of course all the built work to base assumptions on. They (Prof Mark Burry (http://www.sial.rmit.edu.au/People/Professor_Mark_Burry.php) primarily) were modeling parts of the building a few years ago (when I knew Mark Burry) and rendering it to compare the light / shadow effects with the photos they had to see if the geometry was correct. They would then perform a number of iterative tweaks and re-render each time to compare. From memory the software used was CADDS 5. (parametric, realtime rendering etc)

[snurresprett9]

I'm a full time Revit user, and I must say that the responses from other die-hard Revit-users are ridiculous! In my opinion Revit needs vast improvement in the areas the thread starter mentioned. For example; you cant trim a spline!!(?) The massing tools work in some way, but there are many shapes that cant be done (and it should). Turning complex masses into objects is also a hassle, and sometimes just dont work. If i make a house from masses that have some non-vertical walls, the areas wont measure. The non-vertical walls cant be made room-bounding? Of course I can draw room-separation lines, but I should not have to. The roofs-made with massing cant be edited without doing changes to the mass. For example if I want to increase the roof overhang, I must change the mass and update the roof, and then the walls wont meet the roof in a correct way.

I made a thread in the gallery section, where I wanted people to post their wildest work done in Revit, almost nothing! The ones that is posted is mostly done with lots of in place families.

Revit is very good for the type of (boring) work I myself do. Thats why I use Revit, and is satisfied with it.

[AP23]

Good point. I think that that is the reason why most starchitects and student don't use revit or archicad for that matter. It would be ridiculous to settle with out of the box components, because revit can't make certain shapes. Or if it can, it would take countless frustrating hours in the (in place) family editor to get something done. You might as well just do it in other app. that will save you lots of time.

But in all fairness, revit never claimed to be a software for the entrepreneurs. So whose to blame them.

[BillyGrey]

Ummm, Revit is a tool for Architects that design for the real world, and it does a superlative job at that. To dismiss the possitive responders as ridiculous is irresponsible at best.

[sfaust]

I'm a full time Revit user, and I must say that the responses from other die-hard Revit-users are ridiculous! In my opinion Revit needs vast improvement in the areas the thread starter mentioned. For example; you cant trim a spline!!(?) The massing tools work in some way, but there are many shapes that cant be done (and it should). Turning complex masses into objects is also a hassle, and sometimes just dont work. If i make a house from masses that have some non-vertical walls, the areas wont measure. The non-vertical walls cant be made room-bounding? Of course I can draw room-separation lines, but I should not have to. The roofs-made with massing cant be edited without doing changes to the mass. For example if I want to increase the roof overhang, I must change the mass and update the roof, and then the walls wont meet the roof in a correct way.

I made a thread in the gallery section, where I wanted people to post their wildest work done in Revit, almost nothing! The ones that is posted is mostly done with lots of in place families.

Revit is very good for the type of (boring) work I myself do. Thats why I use Revit, and is satisfied with it.
I don't entirely disagree with you, but there is part of this thread that I hear quite a bit that I'm not sure I understand. Before continuing, I do not mean this in any way as a rant or as a response to one individual, just as healthy debate.

People like to compalain about Revit's inability to do more organic or funky shapes without having to create in place families. To me that's similar to complaining that you can't pound a nail without getting out a hammer. The ability to do in place families is there so that you can create any organic, free form, or funky shape that you like. And before anyone jumps all over me, I'm not saying that it wouldn't be better if we could do nurbs or dual-shape lofts, or dual-path lofts, or any of that other stuff that VIZ/Max, FormZ, Rhino, or whatever can do, but as evidenced by some postings here, you can do a lot of "non-standard" geometry.

Seocondly, it's a little bit of comparing apples to oranges with some of the comparisons made. For instance, would it be nice if Revit could define a room boundary by an in-place wall? Sure it would, and I'm all for creating that ability whenever the developers get to it. However, will max or maya or rhino define a room boundary by one of their organic shapes? No, because they don't even know what a room is, so they can't calculate the area, can't tag the space, can't produce any cd's from that at all. Revit then inherently has a problem there to deal with that's not even an issue with the other programs. Where on the wall do you take the boundary line? at the floor? at the cut plane? User defined? For now, it's basically user defined since you just draw in the room separation line where you want it.

Lastly, there is no other BIM program out there that I know of (but I don't claim to know all of them by any means) that you can just create a funky organic building without some good knowledge of the program and some work. Well it is getting easier with BIM, that kind of architecture just takes a lot of skill both to design and to build no matter how you do it.

[cstarr]

Being an active member of the Real World...

Revit does exactly what 90% of the 'Generica' work Architects put out these days. I see alot of gas stations and 2 story houses on this forum and wonder "Why DO you need organic shapes?" When are the majority of you going to be given both the opportunity AND client to design and draw a Ghery paviliion or a Calatrava Train station. To sit here and complain about the one or two things Revit CAN'T do is a waste of time.

FACT...not everyone is a designer, but everyone wants to be.

Let's all go model some strip malls!

[AP23]

I think Revit should not try to become an all in one modeler nor a high end render, but it needs to work on its interoperability. That way you have the option to import calatravarish buildings made in another app if you chose to. Like has been said before in this discussion, no 3d software can do it all. And no starhitect uses just one software. But to say that revit should not be for the blobbers is not wise for autodesk. Catia was not even made for buildings let alone organic buildings. Revit will be non exiting in 10 years if it stays on a tiny island. The success of other apps was the seamless integration between software. Rhino, Catia, Autocad all work well together, not to mention the competitors at Graphisoft that gone on board with sketchup and cd4.

What would you do if a client wants a house in a shape of an apple? Would you send him to gehry because your software can cut it?

[Wes Macaulay]

I insist that Revit needs to become a higher-end modeler. Why?

to place itself as the flagship product for the Autodesk AEC lineup
to give the product better credibility with the architectural community
to make our lives easier. 3D data translation between platforms is often messy.
Revit's programming team can do it -- so why not let them get to it?
Interoperability is great, but Revit is hamstrung until it can model these forms on its own. I concede that the need for high-end rendering is less important.

I am in the real world, and the absence of these tools from Revit is hampering us on current projects. Large projects. Being-built projects.

[cosmickingpin]

So the question that I keep coming back to is "why would it be so hard for Revit to have these features?" There must be something they- ADe$k- aren't telling us, I mean if it were possible, why wouldn't they have done it by now, especially with all those platforms under the same roof? The only thing I can come up with is COLD CASH MONEY! I do think the way they will want to move is towards horziontal-interoperability with various ADe$k platforms. There will be all sorts of bundeling gimmicks, and scalable options available, operators are standing by, but the key motivation will be cash flow, and for that reason, vision will be tempered by market share. Sure there is a vision of Revit being the "total" package, but it will depened on which way the money is blowing to decide how and when that will take place. You know they have products and pricing gimmicks already in the warehouse, all ready to ship, but releases are schedulded according to Profit plans and market analysis. So don't expect bold and awe inspiring moves. Infact the Revit development team might have already "done it." but we have to wait for ADT and other patforms to get their lions share of the carcass, revit must wait in line and its not at the head of the line clearly.




I insist that Revit needs to become a higher-end modeler. Why?

to place itself as the flagship product for the Autodesk AEC lineup
to give the product better credibility with the architectural community
to make our lives easier. 3D data translation between platforms is often messy.
Revit's programming team can do it -- so why not let them get to it?
Interoperability is great, but Revit is hamstrung until it can model these forms on its own. I concede that the need for high-end rendering is less important.

I am in the real world, and the absence of these tools from Revit is hampering us on current projects. Large projects. Being-built projects.

[Wes Macaulay]

There is a possibility that better modeling tools for Revit are in the pipe somewhere -- after we get better detailing tools, etc. or whatever the project managers at Waltham have been told needs to be added to the software.

However, as Revit's user base grows, the assumption that 90% of all built forms out there can be modeled in Revit won't wash -- we're going to hear more of those 10% for which importing from Viz or whatever is what will have to happen. And they won't buy it (pun intended). They'll want to do it all in Revit, and they damn well ought to have the option, and do it better and more easily than in <name that platform>. Because that, ladies and gentlemen, is what Revit is all about. Doing it better, and doing it more easily, than anyone else.

I lean away from thinking that Revit's geometrical capabilities are being hamstrung on purpose. I lean towards the idea that other items have been deemed to be more important by someone, someone who didn't talk to me first ;-)

What needs to happen is that MaxonForm needs to be built right into ArchiCAD so that Autodesk will have to get on the ball with improving Revit's modeling capabilities.

[Wes Macaulay]

The geometry was rigorously described as a mathematical formula so complex we actually debated having t-shirts made of it. Mike, I want one of these t-shirts. I think it's a great idea. Would you be willing to divulge the equation? I'd put together a few designs people could print off on their bubble jet printers (you can buy homemade t-shirt paper kits that take your image and apply it from the paper onto a cotton t-shirt).

[AP23]

What was the reason we left AutoCAD in the first place? Even though Revit is trying to fill the gap between AutoCAD, AutoCAD will remain the leading drafting package. To some, it may be the most primitive drafting tool but every type op building can be drafted in AutoCAD. So we are talking about 100% of buildings and not 90%. No matter what 3d app. Gehry, FOA, Asymptote, Lynn, Moss, Hadid, Calatrava are using, they all turn to AutoCAD for their 2d drafting and detailing. Maybe if Revit would have been develop from scratch throught Autodesk like AutoCAD and inventor, Revit would have been the best BIM solution. Autodesk can't really change an existing application that has been taken over.

[snurresprett9]

Ummm, Revit is a tool for Architects that design for the real world, and it does a superlative job at that. To dismiss the possitive responders as ridiculous is irresponsible at best.

Well, it is ridiculous to axe down the opinions of a person who thinks this software needs improvement in some areas. We dont owe Autodesk this over-positive promotion, but they owe us to come up with functions that make our job easier no matter what type of buildings we design.

[hand471037]

What was the reason we left AutoCAD in the first place? Even though Revit is trying to fill the gap between AutoCAD, AutoCAD will remain the leading drafting package. To some, it may be the most primitive drafting tool but every type op building can be drafted in AutoCAD. So we are talking about 100% of buildings and not 90%. No matter what 3d app. Gehry, FOA, Asymptote, Lynn, Moss, Hadid, Calatrava are using, they all turn to AutoCAD for their 2d drafting and detailing. Maybe if Revit would have been develop from scratch throught Autodesk like AutoCAD and inventor, Revit would have been the best BIM solution. Autodesk can't really change an existing application that has been taken over.

What a load of trash. Autodesk bought Revit BECAUSE they couldn't make something like it on their own. It certainly wasn't because of the marketshare or users. And they have taken ownership of it, and have changed it a great deal over the years (for the better).

AutoCAD is a horrible drafting tool. It's pathetic. There's so much it can't or doesn't do. The only reason all those folks turn to it is that it's the industry standard. Lots of those high end folks hire out for CD's anyways.

So then what's your point? That it's better to work in AutoCAD? That because AutoCAD has the most marketshare it must obviously be the best? That just because none of the names you drop use Revit (yet) it must be worthless? That just because in the past most of these same folks turned to AutoCAD for CD's that AutoCAD's abilities had anything to do with that?

[snurresprett9]

What a load of trash. Autodesk bought Revit BECAUSE they couldn't make something like it on their own. It certainly wasn't because of the marketshare or users. And they have taken ownership of it, and have changed it a great deal over the years (for the better).

AutoCAD is a horrible drafting tool. It's pathetic. There's so much it can't or doesn't do. The only reason all those folks turn to it is that it's the industry standard. Lots of those high end folks hire out for CD's anyways.

So then what's your point? That it's better to work in AutoCAD? That because AutoCAD has the most marketshare it must obviously be the best? That just because none of the names you drop use Revit (yet) it must be worthless? That just because in the past most of these same folks turned to AutoCAD for CD's that AutoCAD's abilities had anything to do with that?

Why this aggressiveness? Autocad is a good drafting tool for 2D work and 3D to some degree, but its not BIM and its not trying to. The 2006 version is really smooth. I think Revit could learn a thing or two from Autocad. The text command in Autocad forexample is far superior to Revit's awkward text function. Didn't Revit "steal" the object-snap from Autocad btw?

Do you not want Revit to be closer to a perfect tool?

[cosmickingpin]

I don't know but maybe if you didn't sound like the villian in a Dickens novel people would be "less agressive." It certainly seems silly to be to be a little pushy then call foul when someone answers back in similar fashion. You really can't have it both ways, if you get ever so slightly pushy (and calling people ridiculous is just ever so pushy in most non-canibal societies), you can't turn around and act all innocent "where is all this agression coming from?". If you wanna bring it, then bring it, but if you want to have a civilized discussion be careful who you call ridiculous (it comes off as dissmissive and arrogant in cyberspace where we don't have the luxury of sitting face to face), and don't act like you don't remember doing so.


Why this aggressiveness? Autocad is a good drafting tool for 2D work and 3D to some degree, but its not BIM and its not trying to. The 2006 version is really smooth. I think Revit could learn a thing or two from Autocad. The text command in Autocad forexample is far superior to Revit's awkward text function. Didn't Revit "steal" the object-snap from Autocad btw?

Do you not want Revit to be closer to a perfect tool?

[MikeJarosz]

Mike, I want one of these t-shirts. I think it's a great idea.

I think James Vandezande has a slide of it somewhere on his laptop. We actually had to use MathCad to solve for x.

If you're at AU, look us up.

[hand471037]

Why this aggressiveness? Autocad is a good drafting tool for 2D work and 3D to some degree, but its not BIM and its not trying to. The 2006 version is really smooth. I think Revit could learn a thing or two from Autocad. The text command in Autocad forexample is far superior to Revit's awkward text function. Didn't Revit "steal" the object-snap from Autocad btw?

Sorry to come off harsh, but it boils down to two things:

1. I don't agree with you that AutoCAD is a good drafting tool. I think it's a terrible tool, actually, and if you were to introduce it today it would utterly fail. Theres many basic things that it doesn't do. I think it's that it's been around so long and is such a standard that many, many people don't stop and think and see that it's actually a horrible way to be working. Even for just basic drafting. Now, I know that I'm probably the minority opinion here on that topic, but I just see folks say over and over how 'AutoCAD is the best 2D drafting tool' without ever saying why they think so other than maybe saying that 'everyone uses it'. Everyone uses Windows to, it doesn't make it the best OS ever, either.

2. The comment above I felt was insulting, actually. Saying that Revit would have been better if Autodesk would have just made it from the start is really just trolling. I rose to the bait, so I'm not much better, but I just felt that it's nessary to point out how incredibly stupid it is to think such a thing. Autodesk had to buy Revit because it couldn't make something like it in a million years, and Revit will (probably) succeed in spite of Autodesk- for it seems that most of the company really, really doesn't yet understand what it is they bought back in April '02...


Do you not want Revit to be closer to a perfect tool?

I do. Oh how I do. Probably even more than you do, for I now work for myself, and my fate is for now tied to Revit's. If Revit doesn't get better, it directly hurts me. If Revit gets better, I can work faster, and make more money. Or at least not starve.

If you took the time to look at any of my other posts, you'd see that there are many things I'd like to see from AutoCAD and Viz and other programs brought into Revit. However, I still think those other programs are largely horrible. It's not about the features, it's about the workflow and the value. Who cares that I might be able to model complex surfaces faster in Rhino, if by using Rhino it takes me a lot longer to arrive at a real Building? Who cares if the selection toolset in Viz is better, if modeling my building in Viz is a bad idea to begin with? But would I like to see the ability to model complex surfaces be brought into Revit? Heck yeah. Would I like to see Viz's Selection toolset brought into Revit? Oh heck yeah again. And I've bugged Autodesk about these very things, too.

[hand471037]

If you wanna bring it, then bring it, but if you want to have a civilized discussion be careful who you call ridiculous

Whoa there cowboy. We're all just Revit dorks here. And it's just a silly web forum. A sometime helpful one, yes, but still...

[knurrebusk]

Would I like to see Viz's Selection toolset brought into Revit? Oh heck yeah again. And I've bugged Autodesk about these very things, too.


Autodesk is a grown up company, and can make Revit do whatever is technically possible.

Economically!
Things work different, and if a unified platform is the future I´ll be ranting for a long time on my own issue .

[cosmickingpin]

Well I guess my point is if he wants to get tough and flame, then fine, but if he wants to be polite, then others will be polite too. It seems like he really doesn't understand how he comes across or is simply being manipulative. I intended "come bring it" in a rhetorical sense, not in the hip hop sense despite my Flava avatar.



Whoa there cowboy. We're all just Revit dorks here. And it's just a silly web forum. A sometime helpful one, yes, but still...

[hand471037]

I intended "come bring it" in a rhetorical sense, not in the hip hop sense despite my Flava avatar.

Sorry. Living in West Oakland as I do, I'm a bit jumpy. :D

[cosmickingpin]

That's kool g rap... Like I said its easy to get offended and give offense here in cyberspace.
But I do agree AutoCad is a terible tool and in a lot of way Revit is a superior drafting too to autocad with its stupid *** color coding lineweights, that's so 1987. It just has too much legacy in obscure commands and functions. You can tell the age of a drafter by how they use autocad. Old schoolers type everything like they are writing a novel (and they are usually so proud of how many obscure commands they know. Anybody like myself who learned post r14 tend to use icons, especially if you did any modeling. Although many revit users tend to detail in cad it tends to be a comfort issue and I don't know anybody besides our 19th century workhouse for boys headmaster ;) here who thinks Acad outstrips Revit. Revit needs a content manager badly, especialy when more enginering platforms come on line. But give me a white screen over that Cad rainbow **** any day. Cad is a living fossil, and the "Borrowing" actually seems to be in the reverse direction than our esteemed victorian gentleman claims.



Sorry. Living in West Oakland as I do, I'm a bit jumpy. :D

[Joef]

I use Revit and I use AutoCAD. I very much prefer Revit but sometimes I end up on a job that was started in AutoCAD. AutoCAD works great. It is a really great drafting tool and AutoCAD 2006 is the best AutoCAD ever. I find even when I am working in Revit I need AutoCAD (just try to do an unprotected openings calculation in Revit) and when I am working in AutoCAD I need Revit (quick stair sections for instance). Revit Series was a brilliant concept and I am really glad I took advantage of it.

Joe

[AP23]

Architects never had a real tool of their own until Archicad, VW and Revit popped up. Before that and still now, most architects are using tools meant for other purposes. Maybe it is in our nature to settle with anything that has been trown to us. Just look at the wages we make. Not something to be proud of and definitely very uncommon in other fields with the same educational length and background. So it's a bit obvious that cad manufacturers don;t have the urge to make 100% architectural tools. They can make way more money providing tools in other fields. If i was an owner of an cad company I'll probably do the same. Car manufactures are going to spend much more money on software and updates than architects.

3ds max, Maya, CD4 were made for the gaming and film industry with its superb rendering and animation capabilities. Rhino was made for boot and industrial designers. Autocad is a pure 100% raw cad tool and not necessarily built for architects. Inventor was made for mechanical engineers. Catia was made for aircraft design. We all adapted our workflow on these tool and everyone created their own procedures and libraries.

As for now, Revit is a very powerfull tool explicitly made for architecture, but has its downsides. 3D's max has its downsides too, but for what it was made for, it's pretty much flawless. So my suggetsions is, keep on complaining and keep writing those letters to autodesk. And remember one thing, Boeing or Airbus are not going to use revit to design there aircraft so why should we use their software.

[MartyC]

Ya know what, in the three or four years I have been using revit, I reckon I have got pretty good at most stuff. In fact, I would have a go at anything really, and most of my work is pretty much unconventional in many ways. So doing a house like an apple for some sick-arse client might be difficult as someone suggested earlier. Frankly if someone came and asked for something like like that I would tell them to bugger off since I design Architecture, mate!

Actually, I think the reason that some 'starchitects' might fall back to acad is because they just dont know anything else, simple as that. Zaha Hadid probably isnt a computer wizz, and probably most of the people that do her computer drawings are probably dinosoars anyway. They just dont know the power of Revit cos they are peeing around doing other stuff and not learning it!

ACad is just an electronic drawing board, nothing else, just line after line, colour after colour, layer after layer neccessary otherwise the whole mess of stuff would be impossible to understand or use. Acad just holds it together, nothing else, there is no sense to it, vague logic behind the desperate attempts to distinguish one mess of line from another. Acad will never be an Architects tool, unfortunately it is a hacks tool at best, and it has effectively reduced many able people to hack status. I have seen so many offices where rows of people are sweating over cryptic **** on their screens, the stuff we all know, silly cryptic typed instructions and weird backward communication in the interface is that creative, no way!

The whingers and winers that get in here and complain about this and that are so often whining about something that can be quite routinely done with Revit, they just havent learnt the tool properly. If Acad is so bloody good, bugger off and use it, knock yerselves out, pat yourselves on the back, and dont come back.

Revit rocks, even if it wasnt developed any more I would be happy cos it is still miles better than enything else out there, period. it has transformed by practice, my business and my enjoyment of my work. if someone came to me and said 'hey I want a train station, you know and like what that Calatrava guy does'....I would say...Cool! Then I would learn how to do it with Revit, I would learn my tool some more, because to hit a wall and winge and whine is only to relent to ones own failings!!

Adesk does has to keep off its arse to keep ahead of the rest of the industry, and it has to be honest about its intentions, the users in our profession that use Revit are not stupid, nooo, they are not, and they can see when corporate shenanigans are afoot putting simple profit (GREED) ahead of progress and user satisfaction. It is not just the shareholders that keep them in business, it is the users, and it would be very foolish to stifle release of better solutions in the interests of profit manipulation. See Acad is developing a strong almost cult-like following with Revit, the vitality of this forum is an indication, there is more at stake here than profit, it is a developing culture..

Revit is wild and groovy design tool, an outstanding drawing tool, a fantastic tool for the production of CD's. Anyone who suggests it isnt the full package, and still uses Acad to supplement it is just plain....inexperienced! Sorry if you dont like that.

Keep the cool revit stuff coming adesk! (and bugger off you whiners, you know who you are!) Come and ask questions about how to do things, and how to get better, and be better designers.We are after all flame-proof here because we are better, ha! ;)

Ok back to work on a Saturday night..............

CheersM

[Andre Baros]

While I am enjoying some of the wandering of this thread, I wanted to try to come back to the beginning.

I use Revit from start to finish and only leave to render in Max and/or Maxwell, but have the luxury of long time lines so I have the time to draw it right, build it right, etc. Regardless of how much I draw in Revit, most of my design occurs with a pen, a marker, or an X-acto blade. I would love to see more advanced modeling tools to make Revit faster, but so far have managed using the tools already there, you may need to two blends in Revit instead of one loft in Max but in the end the added flexibility of Revit far outways the hassle of linking, exporting, importing, etc. It comes up here a lot, but draw it the way you build it and you can draw anything. Every building can be broken down to some component scale, draw those pieces and then let Revit help you put them together. Bilbao wasn't drawn in a day in Catia but it would take a day less to draw in Revit, and then, you could change it in a day.

[zanzibarbob7]

Marty C,

I haven't got much time to respond but your post made my day. Loved it. You are the kind of guy I would like working with.

[Joef]

Revit is wild and groovy design tool, an outstanding drawing tool, a fantastic tool for the production of CD's. Anyone who suggests it isnt the full package, and still uses Acad to supplement it is just plain....inexperienced! Sorry if you dont like that.


Ok back to work on a Saturday night..............

CheersM
Great post Marty, but I still challenge you to do an unprotected opening calculation in Revit. I like Revit as much as the next guy but I am also not blinded by my enthusiasm to its shortcomings. I haven't time to sit around figuring out clever ways to do stuff in Revit when I can do it fast and easy in AutoCAD. Maybe that's inexperience but I'm not interested in dogma, just getting the job done fast.

Joe

[blads]

Bloody great post Marty - spot on! I love your style!

[knurrebusk]

Bloody great post Marty - spot on! I love your style!

Are you guys in another universe?

Show the result of your talk, or just shut up.

[Prodev75]

Why this aggressiveness? Autocad is a good drafting tool for 2D work and 3D to some degree, but its not BIM and its not trying to. The 2006 version is really smooth. I think Revit could learn a thing or two from Autocad. The text command in Autocad forexample is far superior to Revit's awkward text function. Didn't Revit "steal" the object-snap from Autocad btw?

Do you not want Revit to be closer to a perfect tool?

I believe this door swings both ways. Both development teams borrowing code and ideas.
When some of the most powerful design, media, drafting and engineering tools are under your name. You can do that.



Autodesk is a grown up company, and can make Revit do whatever is technically possible.

Economically!
Things work different, and if a unified platform is the future I´ll be ranting for a long time on my own issue .


Technically possible is probably true. Then again they probably have things on deck. You know....things that might soak up so much memory on your computer you'd want to drive to their corp. office and give them a piece of you mind.





...................... Revit needs a content manager badly, especialy when more enginering platforms come on line. But give me a white screen over that Cad rainbow **** any day. Cad is a living fossil, and the "Borrowing" actually seems to be in the reverse direction than our esteemed victorian gentleman claims.

I couldn't agree with you more. Revit Building To Revit Structures and now.......well...will see. Those of use who have a truck load of families on our servers would like a way of sorting things out. I had to develop my own rough way of managing the info.

[blads]

Are you guys in another universe?

Show the result of your talk, or just shut up. I have used Revit exclusively since 2003... in fact I was the first in South Australia to do so. I absolutely love Revit and I'm constant singing its praises. Like MartyC has quoted...

Revit rocks, even if it wasnt developed any more I would be happy cos it is still miles better than enything else out there, period. and I couldn't agree more...

Once again, I'm actually enjoying designing - Revit has made it pleasurable again - not just a chore. Revit does everything I want to do & them some, and I'm still learning new things....

Regardless of others comments & corncerns, IMHO it just keeps getting better & better.

[cosmickingpin]

Are you guys in another universe?
I guess that might be possible. But we have to wait for some scientist to prove that.
Multiverse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
A multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes, including the observable universe, which comprise the whole of physical reality. The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it and the relationship between the various constituent universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis considered.
Multiverses have been hypothesized in physics, philosophy; and fiction, particularly in science fiction. In these contexts, terms such as "alternate universes" or "parallel universes" or "parallel worlds" may often be used. The possibility of many universes raises many scientific, philosophical, and theological questions.



Show the result of your talk, or just shut up.

If only we had a spot on this forum where we could show our work... Hmm, maybe we could have a, well I don't know, a "Revit Gallery" of some kind. We could call it "Revit Gallery" or something like that; and we could then post our work and evidence of our sucess in Revit. I know its just a crazy and wild idea, but it might actually work, who knows, it might even catch on, and people might regularly post examples of their work in there.
Hey Forum Managers, could we get a "REVIT GALLERY" put in somewhere? It seems like Knurrbusk thinks this might be a good idea, I certainly can't take credit for coming up with it. If we don't have a "Revit Gallery" or some kind, then we all have to "shut up," so that's why we need it, ok?

[Prodev75]

Some one please correct me if I'm wrong. I also hear that those complex nurbs and things soak up memory.


As for software functionality...Why in the heck can't I detail a wall section in Maya, VIz/MAx. I would like to see those in the next release. &%!##%^11..sh..!!# t. Those should be the most powerful applications for design because they render so.......aww never mind I just can bring myself to say it. Why beat around the bush those are media/visualization tools. <<<<I know I'm gonna get it for this one.

Keep in mind those foundations have been secured for awhile also. I guess I could compare it to ripping out the guts of AutoCAD to add a new platform and interface. On the other hand we have a new application that we are starting to see improvements in functionality with every release(and yes bugs to go with it) but thats the computer world we live in.

For now is Revit at the top of the food chain for Building Information Modeling? <<<key word right there

[MartyC]

Are you guys in another universe?


Ummm.........yes!

Cosmick.... hehehe:)

CheersM

[snurresprett9]

...Ya know what, in the three or four years I have been using revit, I reckon I have got pretty good at most stuff. In fact, I would have a go at anything really, and most of my work is pretty much unconventional in many ways. So doing a house like an apple for some sick-arse client might be difficult as someone suggested earlier. Frankly if someone came and asked for something like like that I would tell them to bugger off since I design Architecture, mate!...You are an embarrassment to other Revit users!

[MartyC]

You are an embarrassment to other Revit users!


Cool!

I say it as I see it, it doesnt really worry me if you dont agree.

CheersM

[cosmickingpin]

What is up with all these Victorian Dandies lately? Somebody isn't getting enough "masterpiece theater" and "great performances". Look, if I have told you people once I have told you a million times, you have to call during pledge drive and support you local public television station, otherwise don't take it out on us if you get jammed with re-runs of "are you being served." Haven't you got an antique show to be at already?

I for one am embrassed by marty but not because he's an ozzie (well not just because- Marty I joke because I care damnit ;) )but mainly because he is such a killer with the ladies, often overtips good wait staff can dance a tango better than marlon brando ever did. But Marty has never embrassed anyone for being a Revit user.


You are an embarrassment to other Revit users!

[iru69]

Look, if I have told you people once I have told you a million times, you have to call during pledge drive and support you local public television station, otherwise don't take it out on us if you get jammed with re-runs of "are you being served."
Yeah, why do they keep re-running that show? It's an embarassment to Rev..., err, I mean the BBC!

[snurresprett9]

I guess that might be possible. But we have to wait for some scientist to prove that.
Multiverse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
A multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes, including the observable universe, which comprise the whole of physical reality. The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it and the relationship between the various constituent universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis considered.
Multiverses have been hypothesized in physics, philosophy; and fiction, particularly in science fiction. In these contexts, terms such as "alternate universes" or "parallel universes" or "parallel worlds" may often be used. The possibility of many universes raises many scientific, philosophical, and theological questions.




If only we had a spot on this forum where we could show our work... Hmm, maybe we could have a, well I don't know, a "Revit Gallery" of some kind. We could call it "Revit Gallery" or something like that; and we could then post our work and evidence of our sucess in Revit. I know its just a crazy and wild idea, but it might actually work, who knows, it might even catch on, and people might regularly post examples of their work in there.
Hey Forum Managers, could we get a "REVIT GALLERY" put in somewhere? It seems like Knurrbusk thinks this might be a good idea, I certainly can't take credit for coming up with it. If we don't have a "Revit Gallery" or some kind, then we all have to "shut up," so that's why we need it, ok?
The gallery is only filled with American suburb homes with dormers, fake roman collums, roofs with returns here and there. Where is the architecture?

[snurresprett9]

Cool!

I say it as I see it, it doesnt really worry me if you dont agree.

CheersM

Maybe you hate Autocad because you dont know how to use it properly? Thats your response to people who dont see Revit as the only or the best Architectural software on the planet. How dare someone ask for improvements to the app you have mastered to the full extent?

[cosmickingpin]

So you like hanging out under bridges do you. There are several reasons why there is a focus on single family homes in the gallery. First, that is the vast majority of projects built in the US, so by sheer numbers they tend to dominate. secondly those of us who do work on real architecture (BTW I would love to see your work- or lack thereof) are not at liberty to post in gallery. Where I work, all public releases must go through our marketing department, and clients must be notified, and that is typical for those of us working on large and "real" architecture as you put it.

So the work that show up there is representive of the ratio that exists in the world, and those who post complelling work tend to be their own bosses (thus tends to be smaller scale projects) and don't have corporate directives to follow. I would love to show you my stuff but I can't, so let's see your amazing techincolor buildings you do there mr. rock star! In fact the less you know about me the better. Infact you are going on my ignore list so don't bother responding to me, I won't see your posts. Anybody responding to you is just feeding the troll.


The gallery is only filled with American suburb homes with dormers, fake roman collums, roofs with returns here and there. Where is the architecture?

[cosmickingpin]

Is this guy a wanker or what? Marty doesn't know cad, haha...
"How dare" No sir how dare you! This guy is funny, imagine him at McDonalds. "I require firstly that thou dost bring hither a number 2 value meal complete with medium drink and fries, and two, I say 2 chicken McNugget happy meals, and all beverages shall be of a Sprite nature lest folly doth reign supreme, and I expect it shall be done promptly lest I speak to the mananger of this establishment forthwith"

Its like he is the love child of Basil Rathburn and Darth Vader. Everytime he writes I nearly wet myself. I do think he actually means it though and isn't just tring to make us all laugh, which makes it even funnier.


Maybe you hate Autocad because you dont know how to use it properly? Thats your response to people who dont see Revit as the only or the best Architectural software on the planet. How dare someone ask for improvements to the app you have mastered to the full extent?

[Scott D Davis]

The gallery is only filled with American suburb homes with dormers, fake roman collums, roofs with returns here and there. Where is the architecture?
Pretty bold of you (and downright disrepectful) to imply that someone's designs are not 'architecture', residential or not.

[snurresprett9]

Pretty bold of you (and downright disrepectful) to imply that someone's designs are not 'architecture', residential or not.

Well, most of the American homes I've seen are insanely ugly. Disrespectful or not...

[Scott D Davis]

Well, most of the American homes I've seen are insanely ugly. Disrespectful or not...
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". What you consider "good" architecture may be **** in the minds of others. You are entitled to an opinion, but you must also show some respect here. Are you willing to post some examples of your "excellent" architecture?

[cosmickingpin]

Well said Scott, its about respecting other people's dignity, and if you don't then people like me will clown you. Not every building needs to be "a monument to the greatness of humankind" or have high minded rhetoric behind it, but if you insist on treating others like peons and carry about with lordly manners, don't be suprised when people don't take you seariously.


"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". What you consider "good" architecture may be **** in the minds of others. You are entitled to an opinion, but you must also show some respect here. Are you willing to post some examples of your "excellent" architecture?

[snurresprett9]

Well said Scott, its about respecting other people's dignity, and if you don't then people like me will clown you. Not every building needs to be "a monument to the greatness of humankind" or have high minded rhetoric behind it, but if you insist on treating others like peons and carry about with lordly manners, don't be suprised when people don't take you seariously.

Okey, architecture does not HAVE to be a great, therefore we can settle with Revit?

[beegee]

Or Autocad. Or ADT. Or Archicad.

Point being ...?

[cosmickingpin]

Ok world famous master architect, big time cad pimp, let's see your award winning designs. See there are those of us who do architecture and those who can't and just talk about it. Yeah, let's see your work and not some **** you saw in a magazine once. Yeah its a challenge so fish or cut bait already. Call it a hunch but I have a feeling we won't be seeing any of your "work" will we, that's ok, we believe you when you say its real.


Okey, architecture does not HAVE to be a great, therefore we can settle with Revit?
EDIT: minor edit as advised.BG.

[Merlin]

This is a forum about a great piece of software and it's applications. EVERYONE has an importance to their own applications and should be respected for that. It is not about arguing what is and isn't good architecture. That is a debate that never can/will be agreed upon. That being said I strongly resent anyone's denigrating another forum member's abilities as a professional. That is just plain wrong.
John Mc

[snurresprett9]

Ok world famous master architect, big time cad pimp, let's see your award winning designs. See there are those of us who do architecture and those who can't and just talk about it. Yeah, let's see your work and not some **** you saw in a magazine once. Yeah its a challenge so fish or cut bait already. Call it a hunch but I have a feeling we won't be seeing any of your "work" will we, that's ok, we believe you when you say its real.


EDIT: minor edit as advised.BG.

You dont get it do you? Your defense for Revit's lack of advanced modeling features is that advanced modeling is stupid and not for the real world.

Here is something I did. Im not saying I do great stuff, but I would at least be able to try, without having limitasions because of the software I use. Get it?

[BillyGrey]

I'm always amazed at the prejiduce that says anything with a hip or gable is ****** american architecture. I mean, so what, throw a shed or flat roof on a house and call it "modern".
Funeeeee. They all bleed the same color on the inside.

That's not a bad image snurresprett9, but it does not rise so far above the pale here as to warrant
your critiques of others.

[snurresprett9]

I'm always amazed at the prejiduce that says anything with a hip or gable is ****** american architecture. I mean, so what, throw a shed or flat roof on a house and call it "modern".
Funeeeee. They all bleed the same color on the inside.

That's not a bad image snurresprett9, but it does not rise so far above the pale here as to warrant
your critiques of others.

I have never claimed that I do something great, I actually think I called my own designs a bit boring ;) I dont like the typical North American buildings though.

[BillyGrey]

Think of them in terms of places that take you away from the cold angles, concrete, glass and steel of the workplace. I think that's why our houses turn their backs on that vocabulary.
For the average client, it's where the heart is.

[cosmickingpin]

oh my holy god... I am going to need a little time before I respond...


You dont get it do you? Your defense for Revit's lack of advanced modeling features is that advanced modeling is stupid and not for the real world.

Here is something I did. Im not saying I do great stuff, but I would at least be able to try, without having limitasions because of the software I use. Get it?

[snurresprett9]

oh my holy god... I am going to need a little time before I respond...

I'm looking forward to it!

[hand471037]

I have never claimed that I do something great, I actually think I called my own designs a bit boring ;) I dont like the typical North American buildings though.

Hey, why don't you start a new thread where you upload that Project (it's done in Revit, yes?) and let us all take a crack at it. Some of us here can do and have done some very cuvry and 'modern' Architecture with Revit. We could all modify it to be a crazy as possible, and post the results. 'Cause man, I think a lot of what you want to do can be done with Revit, it's just that you don't know how. If you posted the Project, and saw what others do with it, and asked questions, you'd learn a lot more than by complaining about stuff.

What do you say? I'm game. Heck, once I'm all wrapped up with AU stuff, it would be a fun thing to do on the plane ride out to the east coast...and then to Florida... and back... and back (you can tell I'm looking forward to the ride :P)

[sultarc]

I guess my stuff would really be boring. After all they call me "King of hip".

[mibzim]

oh my ----- ... I am going to need a little time before I respond...



I'm looking forward to it!

maybe you guys should take this somewhere else

[cosmickingpin]

I am sorry but who are you again? Aint nobody even talking to you.
If you don't like it use your ignore list. That is what it is there for.



maybe you guys should take this somewhere else

[cosmickingpin]

Well yes you are correct, it is by no means compelling architecture (one could even say it is somewhat derivative, but so is ALL architecture, as it exist in a historical context, its even unavoidable), but see that every day and you will get tired of shed roofs just like hips and gables. What you see depends on what you have seen. People come in here posting "how the heck do you model this in Revit" and there are a few times Revit can't do it. Now I am all for launching attacks on Revit and pointing out its shortcomings. All that is fine, but when you start putting people down you leave yourself open to rude behavior. Now I could come on here and rip up you little house, but I am getting very bored with that (besides there are like a hundred architects in here whose work you called **** who no doubt willl take shots at you shortly)..
Nobody in here has said "revit's modeling system is perfect". everyone in here is somewhat ****** and wants more from ADe$k in Revit development. That isn't what you were even talking about. I think in the past few weeks I have made some fairly strong statements on the subject, but you'll notice I did most of it with out calling anybody's work **** and putting them down (well mostly right ;) ).
Nobody has made any defense of revit's lack of modeling features. I read what you write and I have no idea where you are getting this stuff. I have little patience with narrow views of what is architecture, that's so Albert Speer. I read Foucault, and Derrida, but that has nothing to with Architecture. calling your scheme a "schema" doesn't make it sophisticated. Its all hype, we are in the business of illusion and artifice, none of it really means anything and none of it really changes the world. All that junk is just make up jazz to to sell magazine subscriptions. Architecture is a lot of smoke and mirrors sometimes.
I am jealous you get all those red boxes, every time I try for some I get these lousy green ones instead.
If you want to do something and don't know how, post a image of a napkin sketch; there is a lot of experience here, and good will in here.


You dont get it do you? Your defense for Revit's lack of advanced modeling features is that advanced modeling is stupid and not for the real world.

Here is something I did. Im not saying I do great stuff, but I would at least be able to try, without having limitasions because of the software I use. Get it?

[ejburrell67787]

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". What you consider "good" architecture may be **** in the minds of others. You are entitled to an opinion, but you must also show some respect here. Are you willing to post some examples of your "excellent" architecture?
here's a nice (slightly off-topic) story:


A Pile of Dry Sh.t

One day a famous government officer met a highly respected edlerly master. Being conceited, he wanted to prove that he was the superior person.

As their conversation drew on, he asked the master, "Old monk, do you know what I think of you and the things you said?"

The master replied, "I don't care what you think of me. You are entitled to have your own opinion."

The officer snorted, "Well, I will tell you what I think anyway. In my eyes, you are just like a pile of dry sh.t!"

The master simply smiled and stayed quiet.

Seeing that his insult had fallen into deaf ears, he asked curiously, "And what do you think of me?"

The master said, "In my eyes, you are just like the Buddha."

Hearing this remark, the officer left happily and bragged to his wife about the incident.
His wife said to him, "You conceited fool! When a person has a heart like a pile of dry sh.t, he sees everyone in that light. The elderly master has a heart like that of the Buddha, and that is why in his eyes, everyone, including you, is like the Buddha!"

From here (http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/story/).

[MartyC]

Good Architecture follows proven principals, no matter what the genre.

Palladianism and Modernism follow the same disciplines and principals but just in parallel universes. Post Modernism and Decoconstructivism were contradictions but created order out of chaos to end up with the same level of discipline and principal. Architecture is about order, new Architecture is about the order achieved out of a chaotic birth.

Good Architecture can be seen, felt, is the product of discipline. Bad Architecture is just like bad food put together badly, it just tastes bad.

The relevance of 19th century Architectural responses to a 21st century problem may be a bit questionable to the point of asking why? but is it really less relevant? The correct answer is that it has been executed well, with the apparent skill of a master. If so then it can be enjoyed like fine food, it tastes good all the way down.

Thats my take anyway.

CheersM

[jpolding]

I have never claimed that I do something great, I actually think I called my own designs a bit boring ;) I dont like the typical North American buildings though.
I'm sorry to say this but there are plenty of houses like yours in North America. A select group of avant-guard builders were producing stuff like that from about 1978 until 1989 (when the huge housing recession started.)

[sultarc]

In my mind, good architecture should not necessarily be judged by your peer but by the end users. I get my thrill by just standing by while the users experience the building. If they are delighted and feel good about the building and the space within, then I feel I've succeeded. The projects that win awards are sometimes not good at all.

Case in point, a high end ladies shoe store in a local retail center here won accolades and an AIA award for its design. It was minimalist and very white and cubist inside, actually a very small place. I frankly didn't get it. Short story, hardly anyone shops there. They hardly even have much product displayed hoping I guess people would be drawn by " Its good architecture". Sometimes I think all that is necessary for the awards is having the correct name attached to it.

I think back to the competition for the WTC site and I was not thrilled with any of the designs from some of the most prominent firms in the world.

[cosmickingpin]

You know I sometimes like to look at the history of architecture as a process of biological evolution. The development of the built environment has a lot of similarities with current theories regarding micro biological development, such as buildings developing the ability to heat and cool themselves as being analogous with primitive cells acquiring mitochondria through symbiotic relations for with simpler bio forms. (a theory that I find of particular interest holds that our mitochondria- with its own DNA independent of the 32 chromosomes we carry and are most familiar, were at one time an independent organism, but came to form a cooperative relationship with our earliest unicellular ancestors, where they are now indistinguishable as a unit, and it follows that many of our micro cellular features may have been acquired by similar means). I certainly would like to make a comparative study of it someday.
How this relates to Architecture? Well I think we can see expressions of basic Biological principals at work in Architecture. Many spices have "decorative" features which are intended to attract attention but do little to improve the functionality or survivability of the individual. Same thing with buildings, many have worthless features that appeal to a very small minority, perhaps just a small circle of friends who live in the upper east side of Manhattan who all attend the same dinner parties and gallery openings, however they have been elevated to the level of "critic/ expert" through useless features and activities that are only so much peacock feathers, and still they are the one's who tell us what is beautiful and exciting in "today's architecture." Wearing expensive eyeglasses or bow ties doesn't make your views on architecture worth a damn. It seems like the higher profile a Starchitect, the less compelling I find their work. They have simply developed a "persona" that takes the place of substance. it seems like young people, students especially, get very easily caught up in this cult of "image" and pay a high price in terms of imagination.



Good Architecture follows proven principals, no matter what the genre.

Palladianism and Modernism follow the same disciplines and principals but just in parallel universes. Post Modernism and Decoconstructivism were contradictions but created order out of chaos to end up with the same level of discipline and principal. Architecture is about order, new Architecture is about the order achieved out of a chaotic birth.

Good Architecture can be seen, felt, is the product of discipline. Bad Architecture is just like bad food put together badly, it just tastes bad.

The relevance of 19th century Architectural responses to a 21st century problem may be a bit questionable to the point of asking why? but is it really less relevant? The correct answer is that it has been executed well, with the apparent skill of a master. If so then it can be enjoyed like fine food, it tastes good all the way down.

Thats my take anyway.

CheersM

[knurrebusk]

Good Architecture follows proven principals, no matter what the genre.

CheersM

Agree!
That´s why I´m pushing for better site tools, not all sites are flat.
Access to a site (by future roads-garden paths-maritime ramps etc!
Is important for the design.

Revit is so close to doing it all in one single solution, that I think Autodesk is a bit scared.
So if I can make a x or t junction on a sloped hill parametric it will step on other Autodesk products toes.

[Andre Baros]

How and when to use Revit? Always!
I just spent the last few weeks back on an AutoCAD project, a VERY high end residence which we started in the office at the same time as we were learning Revit so it was considered too "high end" to experiment with. Luckily we're getting paid hourly because it is taking FOREVER to coordinate everything. There is nothing in this project that could not be done faster in Revit with no special work arounds. As we move through CD's there are lots of small adjustments being made to the design, mostly driven by the details which all have to be updated on several sheets. It's killing me because I wouldn't even need work arounds to make this work. At this point, if the project had been "designed" in Revit the way other projects in our office are CD's would be done. Design would not have been impacted, actually it may have been even better.

[AP23]

Revit is know for its efficiency, so if you want to keep the design process at a high speed, you have to use other software.

This i would not do in Revit: It would me take too much time.

Conceptual presentation design concepts like this:

http://www.dutchdesignevents.com/im...nstudio2_lg.jpg
http://www.dutchdesignevents.com/im...nstudio1_lg.jpg
http://w3.uniroma1.it/de_luca/caad_...-mainframe2.htm
http://www.designboom.com/eng/interview/vanberkel/6.jpg


Preliminary design renderings for competition:

http://architecture.technion.ac.il/...es/image014.jpg
http://www.irish-architecture.com/u...ublin/u2_tower/
http://www.london2012.org/NR/rdonly...tics_centre.jpg

Design competition including urban surroundings.
http://www.thecityreview.com/nymdes.html


However if things move from ps to cd i would call on revit.

[Andre Baros]

Only the last link worked for me.... could you please repost those?

Regarding the last link, If I were doing a half baked solution such as those presented here I would not use Revit because I would not expect things to move forward. If I thought such a scheme would move forward I would use Revit so that I wasn't doing everything twice. I generally respect the work of all these architects but this is clearly not their best work. Some of these submissions are insulting when compared to other work they have done. Regarding the urban sites, I totally agree that I would never create these in Revit but only in a rendering package. In these submissions, the computer is being used to create a glossy napkin sketch.

[AP23]

Conceptual presentation design concepts

http://www.dutchdesignevents.com/images/news/doors_unstudio1_lg.jpg
http://www.dutchdesignevents.com/images/news/doors_unstudio2_lg.jpg
http://w3.uniroma1.it/de_luca/caad_2003/lecture_tecniques-design/tech-des-mainframe2.htm
http://www.bk.tudelft.nl/verenigingen/link/images/transportsext1.jpg
http://architecture.technion.ac.il/news/index_files/image014.jpg
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~arendt/topic_8.html

Preliminary design renderings for competition:

http://www.irish-architecture.com/unbuilt_ireland/dublin/u2_tower/ (click on the architects names to see images)
http://archrecord.construction.com/china/2_inTheWorks/zaha.asp (clik on left column for more architects images)
http://www.blog-art.com/learycalls/datas/img/asymptote.JPG
http://www.american-architects.com/content/profiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=profile&architect=2026&lang=e

[Prodev75]

Agree!
That´s why I´m pushing for better site tools, not all sites are flat.
Access to a site (by future roads-garden paths-maritime ramps etc!
Is important for the design.

Revit is so close to doing it all in one single solution, that I think Autodesk is a bit scared.
So if I can make a x or t junction on a sloped hill parametric it will step on other Autodesk products toes.

Now that is an interesting thought. What if you could make all the little weird shapes in Revit? What happens when its time to redeem your VIz subscription?

[hand471037]

You know, you show all these noodly buildings, yet I don't understand your point. Revit isn't a 100% solution. Nothing is. It's an 80% solution, and that last 20% you've got to work-around or make due using other tools. I'm ok with that, for the alternatives stink so much that after using Revit for five years I can't really even look at the alternatives without thinking them a total and utter waste of time. I think (and hope) that once you get out of school, and into the 'Real World', that you'll in time understand that you don't need a tool to be 100% in order to do great work with it. Just focus on what the strengths of those tools are, and moreso ask yourself why you're using it in the first place (and have a really good answer), then rail and cry and ***** about how it's not a 100% solution.

[knurrebusk]

Now that is an interesting thought. What if you could make all the little weird shapes in Revit? What happens when its time to redeem your VIz subscription?

No more Viz etc!
I would support any modular approach to Revit, the benefit would more than cover the cost.
In fact I think small adaptable companies will embrace Revit even more with this approach.

Then there is the elephants that needs special care, let them in as partners in further development of Revit.
Makes big projects stay on their turf.

[Andre Baros]

Thanks for reposting the links, there's some interesting material there.

If Revit could do it all I would drop Viz, but there's more to it than just modeling.

[knurrebusk]

If Revit could do it all I would drop Viz, but there's more to it than just modeling.
Yes! documenting all the stuff you end up doing in Revit.

This is one of Revit´s strongest asset in my opinion, after all my projects this year is moving forward into construction phase Revit shines. (some temp dim problems:(

Still! We need more tools for future work.
It gets harder and harder to work in other environments, for me.

[sultarc]

The links WERE interesting, but lets get in the real world. Outside of an isolated few projects world wide, who can sell this stuff? I live in a small city with a local design school. All this stuff looks like it came out of design studio 101. My clients would not pay for it nor do they want this jind of thing. All that stuff is for magazines. I saw one local project at the airport attempt such a project several years ago. It was a total failure, never got anywhere near being built and wasted thousands of dollars in design fees. It was visionary but in the end it helped bankrupt the design firm and got put on the trash heap.

[sultarc]

Lets look at all those proposals for the project in Ireland. I venture a bet that if its built, it will look nowhere near any of those proposals. In fact if they select one of those proposals, it will be bastardized to death before it is built.

[knurrebusk]

Compromise is sometime the only road ahead, when the alternative is a timber hut in the woods.

Turning torso may be the new cheap apartment style ;)

[knurrebusk]

Since Maxwell Render RC 1 is due this weekend, I´ll bump this thread.
I´ll re-render some of my finished Revit projects in 2005.

And I´ll name the thread!
#ugly Scandinavian villas he he!

To be honest, I´m very proud of my doings this year.
Most of all! Revit helped me make them real.

Still there is the lacking site/curved path/road/garden issue that I will nag. and nag.
Until you missing heads of "#¤#¤ etc understand the importance of this issue.

Who in their right mind can after all these years defend the lack of these tools.
It just plain contradicts Revit´s core thought.