Saving in Revit 2008

[KRISTIVETTE]

Can you save your files to a lower version and how?

Thanks
Kristivette

[lhanyok]

I'm sure this isn't the answer you're looking for - but no, you can't.

[Brian Myers]

Well actually... it's a "mostly no" answer.

Officially you can not. But, depending on what you need, you may be able to export it as an IFC Model and bring it into the earlier version. Now this won't be pretty, also you will lose a lot of information. BUT if we're just talking about getting a 3D object designed in a newer version into a project currently designed in an older version this can work for you.

[Elmo]

Well blow me over! That is an awesome tip Dilbert! Where did you find out about it?

[Brian Myers]

Glad you liked it! :)

I mostly figured it out on my own. IFC Export is used to share Revit models with other BIM applications. I've seen demos of it being used to share data with Architectural Desktop (in fact, its the best way to do this). In using this logic it made sense two IFC programs (Revit older version and Revit 2008 ) would also be able to share their data the same way.

Its not "perfect" at sharing data, but its really good at keeping a building (or 3D object) a building or 3D object. Some of the graphical information and naming may be a bit different when re-imported, but a wall will still be a wall, doors and windows will still be doors and windows, and mass objects should still be mass objects.

[Brian Myers]

Example:

Attached is the most basic buildings you'll find. It was drawn in Revit 2008 and IFC exported out to Revit 9.1.

The "slab" outside the front door is just a basic Revit mass.

The wall names are no longer "out of the box" standard, but all in all its a fine conversion depending on your needs.

[blads]

Great tip Brian... thanks a bunch :)

[sfaust]

wow, that is a really good tip. thanks

[BillyGrey]

Dog-Pile on the Karma counter :)

[Anthony Miguel]

Does anyone know if Autodesk is considering changing this in the future; i.e saving the file to a previous version?
I know of some companies that don't want to use Revit because of this handicap.
Are there any Autodesk employees that could give us an honest answer on this?

[Martin P]

Excellent tip!!

[iru69]

Does anyone know if Autodesk is considering changing this in the future; i.e saving the file to a previous version?
I know of some companies that don't want to use Revit because of this handicap.
Are there any Autodesk employees that could give us an honest answer on this?
Those firms need to get over it. They're often the same firms that resist change every step of the way and have little understanding of technology.


However, I have started to reconsider, but for none of the reasons that I've typically seen in the past.

Due to the instability issues that have cropped up in Revit 2008, I can see how it might be necessary to take a project back to a previous (more stable) version of Revit when insurmountable instability issues crop up half-way through a project.

Even if there was some loss of information due to new features not being backwards compatible, a few "dumb" elements here and there could be dealt with a lot easier than a bunch of crashing computers.

Of course, the real solution would be to insure that Revit is always stable, but obviously that's not always possible.

[Elmo]

Glad you liked it! :)

I mostly figured it out on my own. IFC Export is used to share Revit models with other BIM applications. I've seen demos of it being used to share data with Architectural Desktop (in fact, its the best way to do this). In using this logic it made sense two IFC programs (Revit older version and Revit 2008 ) would also be able to share their data the same way.

Its not "perfect" at sharing data, but its really good at keeping a building (or 3D object) a building or 3D object. Some of the graphical information and naming may be a bit different when re-imported, but a wall will still be a wall, doors and windows will still be doors and windows, and mass objects should still be mass objects.
Either way this is the tip year for me! I can see myself using it extensively.

[Brian Myers]

The official response would be that as of now there are no plans to allow "saving back" to previous versions. That doesn't mean it will never happen, but for now it won't and its not in the current plans.

Does it need to happen? I think ultimately it will need to and will, the only question being how long this will take and if a third party developer will come up with this tool first. The IFC trick is an indication it can be done, just the "clean-up" process would take some time and programming... ultimately the question of profits vs. cost of reverse engineering each Revit version comes into play and currently thats an interesting question mark (especially with their current increase in # of firms using the product).

To answer your question: No, the IFC export method is likely your best bet for the near future.

[Scott D Davis]

Are there any Autodesk employees that could give us an honest answer on this?
There are no plans to ever have Revit save backwards to earlier versions.

[carlosb.101393]

Of course autodesk will never do that, just imagine all the money they make with the upgrades, they know that if they do not provide save backwards, they will sell more, because in order for companies to exchange files they will need to have same revit versions, I think the scheme is good for autodesk, but as users we will pay the price.

[iru69]

Of course autodesk will never do that, just imagine all the money they make with the upgrades, they know that if they do not provide save backwards, they will sell more, because in order for companies to exchange files they will need to have same revit versions, I think the scheme is good for autodesk, but as users we will pay the price.
Revit has always been that way, even before Autodesk purchased it. So don't blame Autodesk. AutoCAD has never been that way. Of course AutoCAD pretty much didn't change for ten years and until recently, has been one of the slowest developed products I've ever seen. And what a PITA it is that everyone isn't on the same version of AutoCAD. I'm so tired of the emails back and forth between consultants about what version of AutoCAD everyone is on and everyone just ends up saving to the lowest version until you forget to do it, then another round of emails and saves. I like that everyone is on the same version of Revit.

Revit is developing so fast (relative to most software out there) that it would really suck to be stuck on some previous version. The support headaches would be exponential. This very forum would be an unmanageable mess and less of a community.

And enough with the sob stories about how much money Revit subscription cost (at least in the US - I can understand it may be more out of line in certain regions). Currently, it's like, $3 a day per license. Many people spend that much on coffee. And we're not talking about some "utility" here. We're talking about the tool that allows you to draw those buildings that you charge tens of thousands of dollars to design and document.

That's not to say that Autodesk shouldn't explore additional methods of licensing.

If there's an argument to be made about the money, I'd argue that the cost of entry is too high. I know a lot of small firms that can't swing the extra $25,000 to switch half a dozen users to completely new software that they're not even sure is right for them.

[carlosb.101393]

Revit has always been that way, even before Autodesk purchased it. So don't blame Autodesk. AutoCAD has never been that way. Of course AutoCAD pretty much didn't change for ten years and until recently, has been one of the slowest developed products I've ever seen. And what a PITA it is that everyone isn't on the same version of AutoCAD. I'm so tired of the emails back and forth between consultants about what version of AutoCAD everyone is on and everyone just ends up saving to the lowest version until you forget to do it, then another round of emails and saves. I like that everyone is on the same version of Revit.

Revit is developing so fast (relative to most software out there) that it would really suck to be stuck on some previous version. The support headaches would be exponential. This very forum would be an unmanageable mess and less of a community.

And enough with the sob stories about how much money Revit subscription cost (at least in the US - I can understand it may be more out of line in certain regions). Currently, it's like, $3 a day per license. Many people spend that much on coffee. And we're not talking about some "utility" here. We're talking about the tool that allows you to draw those buildings that you charge tens of thousands of dollars to design and document.

That's not to say that Autodesk shouldn't explore additional methods of licensing.

If there's an argument to be made about the money, I'd argue that the cost of entry is too high. I know a lot of small firms that can't swing the extra $25,000 to switch half a dozen users to completely new software that they're not even sure is right for them.

Just because Revit changed owner does not mean it is ok to continue doing the same things.I just wanted to note that it is a different approach that Autodesk is taking with revit on licencing and upgrades than other companies, I agree with you that it is a pain to go an save your files on different formats, but at least you decide to save it or not, I use photoshop for example, and I can save my file on CS3 or CS2 or CS and the files are compatible, revit does not give you that, I understand that new features could be difficult to save backwards, but still you can have at least drafting objects for those new ojects that can not be recreated backwards but you could still have a 3D building information base to work with. Also to note, even saving to the next version it just started to be a pain with so many versions and so often with our projects, we are a small hi-end residential design and build firm, so we start with one version our projects and we finish our project two upgrades-updates later, and we archive our files on each big step of the process, now we ended up with revit files: design 8.1, construction documents 9.0 and record set 9.1 in one project, in five years when the client comes back to put an addition, who knows if we are going to be able to upgrade our files to Revit 2012, and you know if you open an auto cad file from version 10 on 2000 version, it will open, anyway to me it is about compatibility between versions that we are not getting, regardless the price. By the way 3 dollars a day is not that bad, but add hardware, add learning, add changing operational procedures to adapt your work flow to the new software, it adds up, I know it has it's benefits as well by working with revit, and there are more benefits than drawbacks and that is why we are using it.

[twiceroadsfool]

...now we ended up with revit files: design 8.1, construction documents 9.0 and record set 9.1 in one project, in five years when the client comes back to put an addition, who knows if we are going to be able to upgrade our files to Revit 2012, and you know if you open an auto cad file from version 10 on 2000 version, it will open...

If you open an ancient AutoCAD file in a newer version, it will open, yes. It most certainly will not be savable back down to the legacy version it was created in. Revit is the same thing. I have archived projects from Revit 8.1 and i open them in 2008 when i need them. Then i save the in 2008, and thats that. Its the same thing. Now, you go make an AutoCAD file in AutoCAD 2008, and send it to your consultant whose on R12, and let me know how that goes.


By the way 3 dollars a day is not that bad, but add hardware, add learning, add changing operational procedures to adapt your work flow to the new software, it adds up,

Too many people are making that Autodesks problem. Theyre charging you 3 dollars a day for software that is changing your industry for the better. They arent charging you for learning, or hardware, or coming up with new procedure. If you dont want to pay the price to play ball, there us still drafting tables. I have one right next to my computer. :)

[Scott D Davis]

who knows if we are going to be able to upgrade our files to Revit 2012,
Upgrading is not an issue. I'vr opened Revit 3 files in Revit 9.0. Its going backwards that some people have an issue with.

[Anthony Miguel]

There are no plans to ever have Revit save backwards to earlier versions.

I have a friend that is freelancer and uses Revit 8.1. He was approached by a firm that uses Revit 9 to help them out with a project that had a tight deadline. He had to say no because he couldn't open the Revit 9 files!

[brett05]

I have a friend that is freelancer and uses Revit 8.1. He was approached by a firm that uses Revit 9 to help them out with a project that had a tight deadline. He had to say no because he couldn't open the Revit 9 files!

Why wouldn't he have just installed v9 and done the work. You can have both versions on one PC you know. There's no reason to not upgrade IMO.

Cheers, Brett

[Scott D Davis]

Why wouldn't he have just installed v9 and done the work. You can have both versions on one PC you know. There's no reason to not upgrade IMO.

Cheers, Brett
Exactly! Even if he had to run it in 30-day trial mode....it was a tight deadline, right? Shouldn't take longer than 30 days?

[Anthony Miguel]

That's easy to do the first time, but what what he do the next time or if he had to change his plans 2 months later? He doesn't want to upgrade!

Other than that, I didn't know that we could work legally with the trial version of Revit. I always thought that the purpose of the trial versions was for trying out the software but not for making money with them!

[Brian Myers]

He doesn't want to upgrade!

There is an interesting point here being made and I believe its important to discuss it from multiple angles. First, if he's happy and can do his job with his current version of Revit he doesn't need to upgrade. But if his peers are moving on and upgrading the software and as a result he is loosing money, should he upgrade anyway? Likely yes... if the financial benefits can be justified. It's much like the days when everyone would draw on paper yet they "upgraded" to CAD to better share their information and be included in more projects.

I can't argue that saving back wouldn't be good for the end user... it would in an ideal world. But would it even be something that would be possible? I say this going beyond the financial aspects of this where everyone believes Autodesk is doing this for the money... that's not the case by itself. When you discuss "saving a project back" you are no longer just discussing the data provided by Revit Architecture. Today we are also discussing saving back versions/data created in Revit Structure and Revit MEP as well. So for previous Revit versions (perhaps older than 2 years) all these "new" objects would turn into what? Solids? "Dumb" families? How would the new roofs, floors, etc that can now slope be treated in the older versions? Likely they would lose a great deal of information and design intent in the save back. In the end, its important to remember this isn't MS Word, Photoshop, or AutoCAD where text is text, a picture is a picture, or linework (even if "packaged as a block") is still linework. These are entities with built in intelligence that simply wouldn't "transfer back" properly and if they did then they would lose a heavy level of their intelligence and likely no longer either work or be designed properly. You would have entities that imported in like IFC entities and likely would require a fair amount of revision just to make work for your standards. If this is fine, then simply get a newer version of Revit (that excepts the IFC export) and never buy another copy... but this typically wouldn't meet the needs of the end users either, the IFC transfer ability is good, but it wouldn't work the way most architects/designers would require project wide.

So in principle I agree... but I can't see how technologically speaking they could make this work without a lot of issues. It would result in corrupt data, "dumb" (non-intelligent) models, deliverables with more mistakes, and a lot of headaches for both Autodesk and the end users. Ultimately its in Autodesk and our best interest to keep things just the way they are (requiring upgrades to work with newer data) until the day comes where "tweaks" are only being made and the functionality of the design data/objects is no longer changed. The IFC export of the future (as it improves as well) will help in expediting this transition, but until then in order to keep their final deliverable (the .rvt file) a stable, reliable deliverable its in the best interest of the "technology" side of Autodesk to keep the program upgrade cycle the way it is. So while no one can deny the financial impact "upgrading" has, it's also difficult to deny the stability and quality of deliverable (.rvt file) that this process produces as opposed to the alternative. Its something that Autodesk (and the Revit team before it was purchased by Autodesk) recognized and is the reason it is delivered the way it is today.

[andrew.139822]

Just to add a practical example to this discussion - just upgraded from 9.1 to 2008 a few days ago. Didn't think to check that we're doing a project in collaboration with another firm. After several days of work, now come to realize that they're on 9.1. So it now looks like we lost several days work that we'll have to do over again in 9.1. So how pleased am I with my new software promising to make my business amazingly productive? This is a family forum, so I won't elaborate.

Andrew

[sfaust]

I am sympathetic, and I'm sorry for the lost time, but to me that's a little like saying "one of our users saved over our file with an old version and we lost several days of work." While I'm sure that's happened to everyone at some time and it sucks, it's a management issue, not software. If a project is being done in Revit with multiple offices, the version has to be coordinated. Would it be nice if this weren't an issue? sure, but it's not really fair to blame the software for you not being coordinated with your consultants.

I don't mean to sound harsh, so hopefully it didn't come off that way, but just my 2 cents...

[Anthony Miguel]

Just a simple question...
Technically speaking, if Autodesk wanted to make Revit save out to older versions, would that be possible or not?
If yes, why do they hesitate?

[sfaust]

**warning, pure speculation ahead**

I would guess that it is possible. However, I would also guess that because of the complexity of the data and the way that Revit works, it would be very time intensive to make that happen. I would say that at this time they see more value in spending the time developing new tools and enhancing existing ones than being able to back save. I personally would agree with that...

Pure speculation from someone who knows very little about programming, but FWIW...

[Anthony Miguel]

Thx for your thoughts, this is the kind of answer I would have liked to hear from someone over at Autodesk

[Steve_Stafford]

It is basically the reason Autodesk and RTC before offered us in the past. There are a multitude of threads about this here and at the Autodesk NG's. It comes down to priorities. Brian articulated the issues pretty well. Other BIM software doesn't save back technically either, for them there is some sort of export or reduction in integrity of the data ultimately.

In the past it would have been a serious setback to devote development time to saving backward. In the future it might not be. Revit has never made it hard to upgrade, software readily available through subscription and most projects upgrade pretty smoothly. Apart from any unpleasant bugs in various versions (fortunately seldom any) there really isn't any reason not to other than old habits and assumptions...or a really nasty impending deadline in a few days.

[iru69]

Nicely said Steve. I think the last point is particularly interesting. As more and more firms move to Revit, especially the bigger firms, they take their previous notions about upgrading software like AutoCAD with them.

That's also why I'm a little weary of extensive use of the API for added plug-in functionality - I don't want to see users become so reliant on them that they have to wait weeks or months to upgrade Revit because they're waiting for the plug-in to be upgraded.

I literally just got off the phone two minutes ago because of a dwg file incompatibility mix-up with a sub for the umpteenth time. Let's please leave that era behind as much as possible.