Who are the Revit Users?

[madyb]

Drafters or Engineers? From my investigative research into Revit it seems to be a tool for Engineers not drafters. I have been an AutoCAD drafter for almost 20 years at a Structural Engineering Company. My boss asked me to look into Revit Structure as we have an Architectural client who is very excited about Revit Building for their firm. I would love some feedback on who actually is using Revit more..

[Paul Andersen]

I guess it depends on how your firm is set up, but all of our users are currently drafters/technicians. I could see some of the production engineers getting on board as we start utilizing the links to analysis packages more in the near future. We're still in the process of adjusting our workflow and defining peoples roles/responsibilities as we progress.

[david_peterson]

Paul,
So as technicians, are you now responsible for the Analytical model as well? How are you guys going about this. Or are you not really using the link at this point and just waiting it out until the links get better developed. When I told my boss that the Analytical model lives in RS, he wasn't to excited about it. When I told him that he could really modify it in e-tabs, he was down right disappointed.
We are just about to start our first pilot project and I'm wondering if I should even bother with the whole link thing. I'm thinking that for the first project I'm going to have enough trouble just getting the project to come out looking the way I want and modeled correctly. For your first project, should you apply the KISS mentality of just stick to the basics and model with minimal detail? Or should we be trying to use all the tools (and potential problems) that RS provides?
I hate to be skeptical, but we don't even have a local reseller to get training from specific to RS. Which means I'm on my own. Well not quite, there's always AUGI!

[Paul Andersen]

David, with regards to the analytical links we are not currently in production with any of them. We're still testing what's available as we have time and looking forward to a few other links to software we are more interested in using.

Our first pilot project was an internal test of an already completed project which we recreated in RB prior to the existence of RS. Our first production projects in RS were completely done in RS primarily running it as OOTB as possible and adding families and content on the fly. Since we transitioned from MicroStation we found it easier to create almost everything in RS from scratch rather than try to leverage a lot of what we already had. This also gave us a chance to touch up our standards as we went.

One of the things that was difficult for us at the very beginning was knowing when to stop modeling. If you're putting a lot of detail into the model and it's only going to show up in one section in the construction documents it's probably not worth the effort. Better just to show it with detail components and line work in a drafting view.

With regards to who's responsibility it's going to be to put the analytical information (loading) on the RS model it's somewhat of a grey area for us right now. Most of the technicians in our group would be capable and probably more efficient at adding a lot of this information under the guidance of an engineer. Some engineers are more on board with this than others. I think this is one of those issues that's going to vary greatly from firm to firm.

[tsbykatherine60220]

Our approach currently is to make sure that both technicians and engineers can develop the initial model so that we can both get used to doing this task. From there we are not utilizing any analysis links until the beta for RAM comes out.

At that point, we envision a similar approach. The model being developed and updated by both engineer and technician. The sheet set up, linework, detail clean up and development would be the technician's task the same as it was with ACAD.

The engineer and technician will both need to be able to access the model to keep up with the analysis and the architectural changes but we're going to take those projects on as a case-by-case situation. Some projects will merit the engineer having more control and others will merit the technician having more control.

Either way, the worksets feature will come into play for all situations. This is an area that I really look forward to tackling :screwy: !!

With your +/- 20 years experience, you should be in a good situation with regards to your knowledge of how the buildings are detailed. This is where you'll gain the most advantage because this is what you'll need to know to build the model efficiently. If you are a seasoned ACAD user, you may find it a bit frustrating to get going but give it some time and you'll find your way. The tutorials (all of them) are the best place to start; they are designed to work so you won't find any of the problems you would if you tried to recreate a project that you've already done. This step should come very shortly after you finish the tutorials...

I'll just say one last thing; at Autodesk University this year Lynn Allen said something that no one at Autodesk has said to date that I know of. In regards to AutoCAD and 2D work she said "The writing is on the wall". I couldn't agree more, in the next 10 years there is going to be a major shift to the BIM approach. You can be in the forefront or you can play catch up.

Good Luck,
Rick McElvain
Arnold and O'Sheridan
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

[Terry Jordan]

At our firm we have been taking a pretty aggressive stance towards Revit Structure and how we will be using it in the near future. All of our CAD Technicians and Design Technicians have been attending weekly design training classes for the past 6 months. We will be responsible for the model, period. The engineers will perform checks on the model and the design to determine that everything is staying on the right track, but they won't be doing any modeling.

So far I think it's going pretty well. We'll see who can cut it and who can't.

[Tom Weir]

Hi all,
I disagree strongly with the statement that Revit Structure is for engineers. It just is not true at all.
At our company we have used Revit and Revit Structure for over 30 projects in the last two-and-a-half years. Of course for most of that time there were no integration links, so the whole effort was to transition from a 2D drafting environment to a 3D modeling environment. Over the years we had modeled some structures using AME and ADT but it was always quite a strain. But now with the syngergy of powerful PC's and Revit software we can finally begin to achieve our goal of working in full 3D.
Even without the engineering side of the equation we would be modeling since it represents a superior method of producing construction documents, with the added benefit that the 3D model gives for presentation purposes and understanding of the design concept.
I was worried initially about how the engineers would react to working in Revit so did not push them too much. But as we have done more and more projects opportunities have arisen to save the engineers considerable time and effort by utilizing the physical and analytical models.
Point in case is the Rose Bowl (...what a game yesterday, groan..). We are the engineers for the Rose Bowl and I have been constructing a model of the existing structure through several contracts. The existing column layouts are quite complex at the south end, so I was asked to export the analytical model to ETABS. Then that got ported to SAP (somehow). Th engineers were impressed. Then the new structure we were designing was also exported to ETABS. Then it just stayed there and they did their work from there. So I have been building their interest incrementally with these small demonstrations.
When we had to do the column schedule I was able to produce it in about 5 minutes. Being bi-directional one can access the real column in the schedule and change its size. So rather than markups galore the engineer simply highlights the column in the schedule and changes its size, thus updating the column in every view in the project. 2D drafting could never come close to this.
So lately I have been more encouraged that the engineers are seeing the benefits and now that the links are out of beta we are getting closer to having them work directly in Revit Structure. It's a huge change in culture which dramatically alters the historical workflow between engineer and technician but we have been sorely in need of this transition in our industry in my opinion.

Tom Weir
Los Angeles

[peter]

I am a structural engineer, a design draftsman and programmer. I have worked 20 years with AutoCAD and have been learning Revit Structure because 3d modeling will be the future of construction and design.

I think that Revit is a new tool that will be for both detailers and for engineers. Just like AutoCAD was for Manual Drafting, Revit like software will be for AutoCAD. It is just the next step in evolution of the design process.

We will all move to it as we learn it. It takes time to learn new programs, and industry will take time more time because of the cost of change.

Give it at least 10 years for industry to adopt it as a "standard". Be moving that way yourself.

2 cents

Peter Jamtgaard P.E.

[Tom Weir]

Hi all,
I agree with Peter... but think the ten years will be more like five years. I keep recalling how some people who were hand drafting in the early 90's did not want to learn to use PC's and CAD software. They kept telling me that there would be plenty of hand drafting work available in their future. By the latter ninties there was none.

My advice: don't wait, jump in now and be part of the future.

Tom Weir
Los Angeles