Revit Architecture LT

[Andrew Dobson]

I have noticed on AutoDesk Labs Website that there is to be an Inventor LT.

Does this mean that there will be a Revit Architecture LT?

Would this be a good or a bad thing?

[Paul P.]

Isn't RA 2008 already Revit Architecture LT, maybe they will release the full version. You never know. :)

[dpasa]

Revit was and still is a LT version of what it should be....

[Chad Smith]

They have already left structural and MEP features out of Architecture, so it already could be considered 'LT'. Taking anything else out of Architecture would only make it more featureless than it already is.

[kpaxton]

...would only make it more featureless than it already is.Normally I try to keep a very objective view on things, taking in the bigger picture, that sort of thing. But I find that I can't help myself in regards to these constant negative comments. The man asked a simple question, but you couldn't resist yet one more "dig". If you have a point to make... try to make it professionally.

Lighten up already. It's getting old.

[Brian Myers]

Does this mean that there will be a Revit Architecture LT?
Would this be a good or a bad thing?

I'd like to step back and stir a bit of your thought process: How would you see this working? I would be curious what a Revit LT would be? Honestly, if it advanced the adoption of the product or provided an effective increase in revenue stream then I'd say a Revit LT wouldn't be out of the question even if there are no current plans for it. That being said, don't expect a Revit "Home" or "LT" edition for mom and pop to do floor plans without drafting, etc tools to show up any time soon.... but you can never say never if the right need/market existed for such a product and the economics for development could be justified.

[rjcrowther]

I don't think Revit is developed enough yet to have a LT version released.

Even if it was considered developed enough then I don't think there are too many tools and features that could be reduced in ability and still have the software remain useful.

I suppose you could still use it ok and do away with worksets and accurender rendering. I personally would not like to see that happen.

Putting the economics that Brian has pointed out aside, I just don't think a LT version of Revit would have enough 'grunt' to serve a useful purpose for professional use.

Rob

[dhurtubise]

What would be the point of having a Revit LT ?
Does anyone do "light" architecture? ;-)

[Joef]

I can agree with those that contend that Revit Architecture is already Revit LT. It's Revit with Structure and Systems removed. This is not a snarky, sarcastic comment, but I think an accurate view of how Revit has progressed over the last few years. I am not saying that Revit is no good and it's terrible software, etc. I am just saying that since the name was changed, first to Revit Building, then to Revit Architecture, the entire scope of the original program has been diminished to a less full featured program. It is now a program with limited capabilities as part of its design. Prior to the name changes, any limitations were due to features that had not yet been implemented. Now the limitations are intentional and are part of the overall design of the program.

[Wes Macaulay]

Joe, you can just call me a dolt. I finally get what you're saying -- or maybe it's just the way you said it this time, and it finally got through my thick skull.

From that perspective, I can see why people are calling RAC an "LT" product. I don't know if the founders and product designers way-back-when thought about whether Revit would be an all-in-one program, or verticalized like it is now. That would be an interesting discussion.

I rarely need MEP or structural tools beyond what I have, but if you pressed me on it I'd have to admit that buying Revit ought to give you access to all the tools, but that it should give you your licensed vertical by default. So RAC opens as RAC but you have to hit a switch to get the MEP tools.

[Andrew Dobson]

I'd like to step back and stir a bit of your thought process.


This is what was trying to do actually - get people thinking.

We have a lot of AutoCAD LT licenses that hopefully one day we might change over to Revit licenses. In the UK this is extremely expensive (£3000/US$6000 per seat which is a lot more than US users have to pay)

It is easy to justify most of our users having AutoCAD LT instead of full AutoCAD, as they arent that dfferent, especially for casual users.

Maybe Revit LT would stop you creating editing families or something along those lines? That may actually be a useful feature anyway.

[Chad Smith]

The man asked a simple question...And I replied with a simple explanation. It just so happened to coincide with my biggest gripe with "Revit".

It's getting old.No, old is [And I speak for everyone in our office] having to do the same frickin' workarounds or long winded detailing process multiple times a day, day after day, when the tools we need are right there waiting to be enabled. That's old. But I don't want to go any further into that here like I tried to keep it that way in my first post.


Maybe Revit LT would stop you creating editing families or something along those lines? That may actually be a useful feature anyway.Now, onto the last comment. I can't see disabling families editing as a solution as the whole Revit process is built around them. The only things I could possibly see as being taken out are Design Options, Phases and maybe Worksets. I just don't see there being enough features to take out to make a significant difference between what we have now and an "LT" version.
The key would be to take out the features which enhance to modeling experience.

[rjcrowther]

This is what was trying to do actually - get people thinking.

We have a lot of AutoCAD LT licenses that hopefully one day we might change over to Revit licenses. In the UK this is extremely expensive (£3000/US$6000 per seat which is a lot more than US users have to pay)

It is easy to justify most of our users having AutoCAD LT instead of full AutoCAD, as they arent that dfferent, especially for casual users.

Maybe Revit LT would stop you creating editing families or something along those lines? That may actually be a useful feature anyway.
Are you thinking of a master version that has full access and then several 'nobbled' versions for the general staff to use?

I understand your cost issue - my initial version of Revit Building 8.0 cost $7200 (aussie dollars).

Just to make a personal comment on the principle of having reduced versions for some of the staff and not others - I think you are doing a disservice to those who get a reduced version, especially if they are full time operators and are relatively good at what they do.

Rob

[Lashers]

I remember when I first bought Revit - There was a clear defined strategy from Revit Tech. that thay were developing a single database product to encompass Structural and MEP, this obviously morphed into Autodesk verticals!

My comment on the situation with verticals (has been said elsewhere as well) is that there should be a Primary package (RA2008) off which there are limited applications for MEP and Structural - I might be insane, but there is a clear logic to the fact that the architectural package should have full capabilities and not have all the variations each limited in different ways - one package should be able to do everything that the software is capable of!

By doing that, they can develop as many verticals as they like . . . Revit ShopFit, Revit Interiors, Revit Door Maker, . . . you get the picture . . .;)

[Andrew Dobson]

Are you thinking of a master version that has full access and then several 'nobbled' versions for the general staff to use?

Yes - you would have one or two people in the team who could edit families, the rest would have limited acess to the model.


Just to make a personal comment on the principle of having reduced versions for some of the staff and not others - I think you are doing a disservice to those who get a reduced version, especially if they are full time operators and are relatively good at what they do.

You are right - the only reason to do this would be the huge intial cost of Revit licenses and the continuing cost of subscritpion compared to AutoCAD LT. I would much rather everyone had Revit to begin with, but the only way to justify the cost of this is to introduce it slowly, letting each small number of licenses pay for themelves before buying more. Its not just the initial cost, but the value has to be continually demonstrated as subscription is so expensive.

[rjcrowther]

Yes - you would have one or two people in the team who could edit families, the rest would have limited acess to the model.



You are right - the only reason to do this would be the huge intial cost of Revit licenses and the continuing cost of subscritpion compared to AutoCAD LT. I would much rather everyone had Revit to begin with, but the only way to justify the cost of this is to introduce it slowly, letting each small number of licenses pay for themelves before buying more. Its not just the initial cost, but the value has to be continually demonstrated as subscription is so expensive.
I guess this is always the problem. In principle it is better to allow people to have a chance to use something to its full potential but the wallet is only so fat.

This sounds like the implementation dilemma attacked from a somewhat more creative angle then normal (the normal being the simple return on investment concept that accountants make a living out of). It would be nice if you could buy a modular revit where you paid for working modules and could stack them up to eventually have a full working version.

Looking at some of the previous input there is a broad feeling that the current break up of Revit into verticals hurts; breaking it up some more would make things quite difficult. This might be a different story if you had the full version elsewhere in the office to call on. I still think the current state of Revit development is not yet sufficient to have a reduced version and still be usable in an efficient manner.

I could see a light version not requiring a rendering engine and/or worksets (if you were a sole practitioner) but other than that you would pretty much need everything that Revit can currently give you.

Rob

[Andrew Dobson]

This is another issue, but it would help if Revit cost the same in the UK and in the US.

It's twice as expensive here.

[Andre Baros]

What about the other extreme, selling a LT version which is just a family editor. Looking at the Inventor LT model, it's version which lets you build components but not assemblies. A family editor only version of Revit might be perfect for manufacturers or other "content" providers.

The Revit complete is appealing to us as a small office where it's hard to justify seats of MEP or Structure which would sit around much of the time but a seat of "complete" could be used every day and have the added benefit of floating around the office (network licenses of course) to help people out when when needed. We draw out own MEP and structural on about half of our projects.

[hand471037]

Why would Autodesk make a Revit LT? Revit has no cheap competition at this time.

See, Inventor is a great but expensive and wide-reaching product. A little company called Alibre came out with an cheap Inventor competitor called Alibre Design. They give away a version with limited features for free, then they have a 'mid-level' full version that's still a fourth the cost of Inventor, and then they have a top-end 'Pro' version that's close to what Inventor can do (for half the price).

I believe that this Inventor LT is in direct response to this, for a lot of folks are using the free version of Alibre now for it meets a lot of common small-shop needs. And heck, the full version is under a grand still. For example, my Shopbot was designed and produced with Alibre. If you just need a nice parametric solid modeler, and don't need FE, CNC, complex surfaces, or motion testing then the free version is a heck of a deal.

Where is *any* serious competition to Revit, let alone a cheap and/or free version of even a limited, yet comparable, BIM tool?

[AP23]

Where is *any* serious competition to Revit, let alone a cheap and/or free version of even a limited, yet comparable, BIM tool?

It wouldn't be a surprise me that a competing BIM software is being development at this moment. Who wouldn't.

[Joef]

If someone took Vectorworks and brought it into the 21st Century (graphics-wise), it could almost begin to compete. Right now it is not a BIM product in spite of all the press releases from Nemetschek. It is quite cheap compared to Revit and low cost is it's main appeal. And it runs on a Mac. But just try to do a set of elevations with shadows in VW and all it's low cost charm will vanish.

[Andre Baros]

Ah yes, the mythical, Google Sketchup BIM... now that would light a fire.

[cosmickingpin]

LOL, Imagine SketchupLT... It would have three buttons and you would operate it with the old Atari joysticks.


Ah yes, the mythical, Google Sketchup BIM... now that would light a fire.

[Wes Macaulay]

Free BIM? You'd need a solids modeler for that. SU is a surfaces modeler. Google would have to pony up loads of cash!

[PaperStreet SoapCO]

Wouldn't SketchUp be considered a sort of 'Revit LT'? Its not bim, but it still has components, you can scale the entire model based on one dimension at anytime, you can cut sections, layouts, etc. It even 'feels' lighter when you use it. I've heard of people using SketchUp and Piranesi exclusively throughout entire projects (SketchUp being the steak and Piranesi the sizzle) - granted these are small scale projects, but what do you expect for software that costs under $1000 combined?

[muttlieb]

Google would have to pony up loads of cash!
Have you looked at Google's balance sheet lately? They are sitting on $4B cash and nearly another $8B in short term investments. I'd say that qualifies as many loads of cash. :)

[Andre Baros]

Why solids, seams like it would work just fine using surfaces... maybe even better. Either way, Google would write their own solids modeler if they needed to.

To bad ketchup still has layers...

[luigi]

...To bad ketchup still has layers...
So Daddy Tomato and Mommy Tomato and baby tomato where hurrying to catch Phil Read's presentation on Revit....but poor little baby tomato was lagging behind...well Daddy Tomato, that brute, stopped, walked over to baby tomato and squashed him saying : "Ketchup"

From that day forth...the Tomato family used (s)ketchup instead of Revit...



Ok...not funny....

[gbrowne]

Slight tongue in cheek observation: I find many a thread loses its thread after a coupla pages..

So to bring it back on line, Up until I used Revit, I only ever used Acad LT, and it was fine. Often, it came out more frequently than the full ACAD, and had better functions. That would be nice in revit, but I hope it never happens so as to maintain the direction of Revit as a whole.

[Joef]

I got a free copy of AutoCAD LT as compensation for Autodesk taking over Generic CAD and then killling it. I used it, but when I tried to upgrade it, I discovered that the AutoCAD LT that I had been given by Autodesk was not upgradeable. My first impressions of Autodesk were not good and have never improved.

[Martin P]

I got a free copy of AutoCAD LT as compensation for Autodesk taking over Generic CAD and then killling it. I used it, but when I tried to upgrade it, I discovered that the AutoCAD LT that I had been given by Autodesk was not upgradeable. My first impressions of Autodesk were not good and have never improved.

I used generic CAD too :), Loved that software.... still got the disks somewhere?

That was before you could draw a line by "point and shoot" with autocad and you had to do all off that 100>45@ blah blah...... great little bit of software it was - they even had a 3D generic cad which I never saw?

[hand471037]

That was before you could draw a line by "point and shoot" with autocad and you had to do all off that 100>45@ blah blah...... great little bit of software it was - they even had a 3D generic cad which I never saw?

That was both the first CAD program and the first 3D software I used. The 3D software wasn't that great, honestly, and about a year later I had an Amiga which had much better 3D tools available (but not much in the way of CAD IIRC).

[Steve_Stafford]

Generic Cadd 6.0 was the first PC cadd software I used too... it had tracking before AutoCAD did, was shocked when R12 didn't have it.

[ron.sanpedro]

I have noticed on AutoDesk Labs Website that there is to be an Inventor LT.

Does this mean that there will be a Revit Architecture LT?

Would this be a good or a bad thing?


One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is

Given that there was a (very good) AU class on using Inventor to create Revit content, and much of full Inventor is totally superfluous to that work, I imagine that is the market Autodesk is after. I would never need the ability to fold sheet metal and all the other manufacturing stuff that Inventor does, I just need to model objects. And I believe that is what Inventor LT is all about. A killer Content Modeling tool for Revit users and the like, and a much lower cost than full Inventor. But Revit LT? What do you take out that isn't needed? As has been mentioned, Revit needs more, not less. You might make the argument that an LT version is just modeling, with no analysis. But what "designer" would really want a stripped down Rac that doesn't do schedules and areas and such. As was mentioned, that is SketchUp.
I do think that LT = Content Modeling would work well between verticals however. Revit Architecture should be, by definition, RevitStructure LT and Revit MEP LT. In Revit Architecture I should be able to model S and MEP forms, but not do analysis and such. And Revit MEP should be Rac LT and Rs LT, and be able to model A and S forms, but again not do higher order work. And Copy Monitor should work for everything, so in Rac I make LT level ducts, which Rmep can monitor, but their Rmep ducts can be load balanced and such. And my Rac (Rmep LT) can then monitor their ducts in return.
Man what a great workflow, no crippling lack of form generation for anyone, and no ability to do higher order work in anything but the appropriate vertical tool. And given that Rs and Rmep are built on top of Rac, the you could put ALL form modeling tools in Rac, then just add appropriate tools in the others. No need to spend time and effort taking things out.

Seem like a viable approach?

Gordon

[Wes Macaulay]

Gordon, for once you're making great sense :-P

Very well stated, and I am completely behind you with this argument!

...and it's what I stated in the beta forum: we must be able to model all the forms in the building; we just don't need to analyze them.

[Joef]

Well stated Gordon, I hope someone is listening. I've downloaded the "free for a year" Inventor LT but haven't had the time to figure it out. Perhaps I'll look for the AU class notes.

[AP23]

Given that there was a (very good) AU class on using Inventor to create Revit content, and much of full Inventor is totally superfluous to that work, I imagine that is the market Autodesk is after.
Gordon

If that is the case, that would be great. But then again, looking through the website, they haven't mentioned anything about revit, it's user or architecture. They are only marketing it towards manufacturers. I think it would be cheaper and easier just to ad a few extra modeling tools in Revit than trying to make inventor to work within Revit.

BTW, it's very nice to see that even Inventor LT has a better rendering engine than Revit.

[steve922542]

The Revit complete is appealing to us as a small office where it's hard to justify seats of MEP or Structure which would sit around much of the time but a seat of "complete" could be used every day and have the added benefit of floating around the office (network licenses of course) to help people out when when needed. We draw out own MEP and structural on about half of our projects.

Have you developed families for pipes and ductwork for RA2008? I am trying to do a coordination study (preconstruction) of the existing structure with the new MEP and arch to check for interference. The lack of basic MEP tools and better structural OOTB is hampering my ability to fully implement.

I have requested (through my reseller) the ability to purchase bolt on MEP and structural capabilities as I have been told you can do in ArchiCAD. I don't need analysis tools - those are what the engineers get paid for - but since almost no projects are fully Revit across disciplines, we would model the piping and ductwork if it were available. With a future state in mind, give the MEP LT tools to guys like me just so that what I am drawing could be used by the engineers in Revit MEP.

-Steve Layne
Objective Design

[bclarch]

I used generic CAD too :), Loved that software.... still got the disks somewhere?

That was before you could draw a line by "point and shoot" with autocad and you had to do all off that 100>45@ blah blah...... great little bit of software it was - they even had a 3D generic cad which I never saw?
One of the fastest 2D drawing programs ever. It had two letter keyboard command entry (without having to hit enter) way before anyone else. You could draw 16 lines at once, each with it's own linetype, color, offset from cursor and layer assignments. We could draw the footing, foundation, exterior wall with all it's components, and the roof overhang all at one time. You could have multiple viewports and you could work between them seamlessly. Start the move command or a line in one and drag the mouse to the next viewport to finish. You could use filters when selecting items. You could set it to select blue circles on layer x with linetype y then window the entire drawing but only get those objects. Very useful for cleaning up other people's junky Autocad drawings.

And yes Wes I do believe we still have the disks. Does XP still support DOS programs?

P.S. The program was morphed into a product called VisualCadd by the original developers (I think it was them). I believe it still exists in that form. Haven't Googled it in a while.

[Joef]

Generic Cadd is still alive and is called General Cadd.

http://www.generalcadd.com/