Why does Revit Structure have a framing coping tool and Revit Building doesn't?

[cadkiller]

Why does Revit Structure have a framing coping tool and Revit Building doesn't?

I can cope my wood framed roof very easily with Revit Structure; but it's one major task with Revit building.

Why give this ability to one program and not the other, when it's necessary for both?

[Steve_Stafford]

Budget, scope and demand...just like our work life. A steel detailer can't complete his work without it and apparently we can? :wink: I'm not making excuses, just stating fact. It hasn't the priority that other features have. :sad:

[ford347]

I agree with Edward. I don't want everything that Revit structural has, it is it's own beast, but Autodesk are the one's who put 'Structura' tools in Revit building. So we use them. So if the 'Structural' tools are in Revit, then they should have the same working's as any other structural element or tool. I just posted a brief comment discussing this one a couple of days ago...(generated to feedback.:( ) but here's a link... http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=41569
I really like to get the structural members in there because they really serve a good purpose in building the building before you build the building, not to mention, it's so Revit like. But if they look like **** because nothing copes to anything or you can't be efficient with the tool, then it's discouraging. Anyway, still a happy Revit camper, I just wish the structual had a few more capabilities....that's all.

[narlee]

Similar thing for Revit Systems. Steve Stafford had posted some 3D flex ductwork, made in Systems, that had grips which he could use to pull the flex duct shape around. It was very cool. And THAT, I would like to see in Revit Building.

[neb1998]

i think the answer is DOLLARS

if you want the fine structural detailing tools buy structures, has nothing to do with time.....The tools are all available in each program, revit buildings, systems, and strctures.

If they had all the tools from structures in buildings there would be no point to have 2 programs...simple

[cadkiller]

I used the coping tool to finish off this wood framed roof very easily.
How would you finish off this roof without the coping tool?

They need to give us all the modeling tools from Revit Structures and let them keep the analytical stuff. Many non engineers frame out residential houses with wood and need these tools or at least something to clean up the joins, like a trim tool that works with beam systems and framing members. Let me be able to trim to a plane or a face of a framing member.

Do I need to buy Revit Structures just to be able to frame out a wood framed roof quickly and easily?

[neb1998]

like i said, they have 3 programs, they need to differentiate somehow...and if structural detailing is stronger in one than the other their is incentive to look at both.

Its like i would love steel deck to be available in buildings, but its not...its in structures......

If they blend all the products to much we might as well just call it REVIT EVERYTHING and get all the tools of all 3 programs...something i currently am asking for!

[Joef]

To cripple a tool just so you will cough up more dollars is not the best way to make your customers happy. It is not just structural stuff that need this feature. Try building a simple deck or arbor. What if you are doing a building where you want to show the beams on the interior of the building? There are a ton of reasons why this should be included in the building package and none of them have anything to do with structural analysis or structural engineering. It is all about functionality.

Joe

[neb1998]

well call up autodesk and ask for it

[cadkiller]

like i said, they have 3 programs, they need to differentiate somehow...and if structural detailing is stronger in one than the other their is incentive to look at both!
I framed the roof out of wood (not steel)!
We need to be able to cope and or trim wood framed beams just as easily as Revit Structures can.

[Steve_Stafford]

I guess I didn't say it loud enough? :smile: It comes down to budget, scope and demand. Not our budget but the Revit platform development resources being allocated to extend some features to all three versions. There are some features that exist in Revit Building now...for example rooms...that Revit Systems required therefore Revit Building inherits at "no cost" to Revit Building development.

The Revit Structure coping or trim of members is not extended to Building yet, not because they want to force you to buy RS but, because other development projects have been given a higher priority. Simple as that.

I'm with you, this feature ought to be in both. Talk to support to raise Autodesk's awareness about how important it is to you. Enough users do this and it will get addressed. Then again for all we know it is already part of the scope of work for a future release.

[cadkiller]

I agree with Edward. I just posted a brief comment discussing this one a couple of days ago...(generated to feedback.:( ) but here's a link... http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=41569
.Yes please just give us the modeling tools that we need for framing out the structure.
What is a building modeling program without such tools?

The trim to plane is another feature that Revit Structure has that Building doesn't.
Doesn't an Architect need to trim framing members similar to how an Engineer would?

Why do they provide architectural tools with Revit Structure and structural tools with Revit Building in the first place? Then they leave out little features from each; so you have to buy both programs to get all the tools you need.

[neb1998]

I guess I didn't say it loud enough? :smile: It comes down to budget, scope and demand. Not our budget but the Revit platform development resources being allocated to extend some features to all three versions. There are some features that exist in Revit Building now...for example rooms...that Revit Systems required therefore Revit Building inherits at "no cost" to Revit Building development.

The Revit Structure coping or trim of members is not extended to Building yet, not because they want to force you to buy RS but, because other development projects have been given a higher priority. Simple as that.

I'm with you, this feature ought to be in both. Talk to support to raise Autodesk's awareness about how important it is to you. Enough users do this and it will get addressed. Then again for all we know it is already part of the scope of work for a future release.Come on Steve, We have asked for an AREA tool for a long time, to no avail!

[Steve_Stafford]

Come on Steve, We have asked for an AREA tool for a long time, to no avail!so far........just because you rant (even border on insulting at times) about it here in the forum doesn't mean it suddenly becomes priority number one in Waltham. As far as they can tell half a dozen people or more in the forum out of 100K plus users would like it. Personally it doesn't even break in on the top 100 of my wishlist :wink:

[neb1998]

Getting a point across can ge tough on here at times, so many excuses, workarounds, and everyone explaining why we DONT need a specific feature that we believe we do need can get quite agravating at times. So yes, while not many people may talk that way, they do indeed think that way.

So yes, at times your getting 100% of what i think, but in the end its all in good agressive character.

[Andre Baros]

I agree, call Autodesk. I've stopped posting wishes here, I'm trying to focus on trying to answer questions here and post complaints as Support Requests. It's quite satisfying actually and I'm averaging about 1 every week or 2. You have the opportunity to send your file with a very specific problem to them and you get a chance to see Autodesk say "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that... I'll forward it to development for consideration in future releases"

On this particular issue, I think it's BS that they're putting the code in Systems and Structures but not Building. It's bad enough that you have to buy a separate program to render but I don't think it's acceptable for base building issues.

[cadkiller]

Well I would like to see a poll for this thread and have it moved to the wish list forum, just to see how many AUGI people would like (or not like) this feature added to Revit Building.

I'm sure we will get more than 6 out of 100K!

[Andre Baros]

I don't doubt that you'll see a lot of support here, but to see some action you also have to get everyone to send examples to Autodesk.

[ford347]

I sent in my support request early today after spending way too much time on the roof framing plan I'm working on right now. I expressed what I 'wish'd' I could do, then just plain asked for help....so maybe I'll get some, but at least my request is in......so yeah, I say put it in your support requests as well as start a poll here in the forums. This isnt' really a problem more than just an addition since the tools are already in Revit.....just not the one we use...so as far as I'm concerned, they could get this in the next build or release. :beer: Josh

[cadkiller]

Here is the poll!
Please take some time to cast your vote and put in a support request like everyone is saying.

http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=41843

[Prodev75]

Revit Building definitely needs to have this functionality. I believe Ed only voiced what many were thinking. Way to step up to the plate ED. I hope they reevaluate this one.

These 3 (RB and RS and RSystems) are being developed in parallel. So... I’m guessing there was a typing error in the memo on which functionality to put in each package.
:)

[Wes Macaulay]

I have to agree that all objects have similar functionality across Revit versions UNLESS that functionality would be undesirable (a case of this would be columns -- we put them in a level and expect them to go up; a struc eng would expect them to go down).

Coping of struc members is something both disciplines would want; perhaps the Factory does not know how strongly Revit Building users feel about this.

[barathd]

Why??? Really this whole discussion is not just silly but right down DUMB. Fine if Autodesk is so damn "money hungry" - I agree that the DESIGN aspects of other disciples should be separate programs - but really modeling and drafting tools - get serious. Any and all tools that aid in modeling and drafting, etc. should be available to all Revit users at no additional cost. Its about time Autodesk took a long look at themselves in the mirror. I swear Autodesk would sell you a car and ask extra for the keys.

[david_peterson]

Why??? Really this whole discussion is not just silly but right down DUMB. Fine if Autodesk is so damn "money hungry" - I agree that the DESIGN aspects of other disciples should be separate programs - but really modeling and drafting tools - get serious. Any and all tools that aid in modeling and drafting, etc. should be available to all Revit users at no additional cost. Its about time Autodesk took a long look at themselves in the mirror. I swear Autodesk would sell you a car and ask extra for the keys.I'm not sure how many of you have ever used the RS cope tool, but the results you get for most steel memebers are poor at best. Everytime I ask about why things don't work the way they should I just get the "Well, here's the work around" answer. I understand the RS has only been out for a little over a year, but I still feel that I was sold a Porche but I'm driving a 1983 Omni with about 500,000 miles on it, more rust than paint, and I have to put 2 qts of oil in it every 100 miles.
I'm not sure about the functions of RB, but I still don't know anyone that is using RS to create all of their details. If you anyone can tell me how to actually get a beam to beam connection to work correctly, I'd love to know. There's a reson why they just skip over the slightly more difficult connection in the tutorial, and just don't show most of the connections. Just my 2 cents. But before they send it to RB, it'd be real nice if they fixed it in RS.

[mmodernc]

And Archicad 10 is being touted as a BIM.
Software should assist creativity. It should place no limits on the imagination.
Easier said than done. But when the tools are available - what the.....
If dollars are a problem (I mean there are a lot of struggling artist types here as well as the multinats)
then maybe you can get the other "modules" for a minor "additional" cost a bit like Revit Series with AutoCAD. But then again the intention of the original Revit was to be universal as well as intuitive.

[Kirky]

In a marketing sense splitting the Revit in to different part allows for nice niche target markets. Minutes of feverish scribble on white boards by suited pony tailed w*nkers unfolds the new corporate direction................................................. Revit Architects, Revit Mechanical, Revit Civil, Revit Electrical, Revit Surveyor, Revit Residential, Revit Commercial, Revit Steel, Revit Wood, Revit Windows, Revit Kitchen, Revit before bedtime, Revit student (needs to be under the age of 18 and subject to all the fine print) , Revit Interiors, Revit Historical, Revit Contemporary and lets not forget Revit for Dummies (that with no BIM) alternatively just plain Revit.