Revit MEP Afterthoughts

[mjdanowski]

I have had a few people send me e-mails asking me about how I have been handling using Revit MEP on an actual project. I just finished CDs on a project of about 26,000 SF using Revit for the HVAC and Electrical floorplans. (schedules were in CAD, along with plumbing) To make things easier, I have decided to just create a thread here to share my observations with anyone who might be considering it.

To sum up everything in a general statement all at once, I start with this:

Revit is not presentable.

At the end of the day, the goal that we engineers have is to create a complete set of coordinated and well designed documents which conforms to the standards of the industry and standards of each individual firm. Revit has some really cool features that have the possibility to shave lots of time off the design process, but the general problem we have had is that if we want to utilize these features, we have to go heavily out of our way to get them to work the way we want to.
For example; one of the biggest features that we were all excited about going into Revit was that the panel schedules would be linked to the floor plan home runs so we would not have to coordinate between them. This is a great idea, and would be a shining point in Revit if it wasn't for the fact that the panel schedules look like absolute ****, and aren't considered schedules but actually "reports" which aren't dynamic after they are created. The Revit panel schedules take up about half a 30"x42" sheet when initially created, and since there is no template on how they look, it takes about 10-15 minutes to adjust each panel schedule to a reasonable size. Even at this point though it is still very oddly laid out and needs a lot of work before we would put it on any of our plans. And also, since the panel schedules are a report instead of a dynamic schedule, there is little point in even messing with these things.
Another major example of the lack of presentation quality comes with the different discipline views, and the consequences of using them. Again, a great idea with the disciplines with features that will cut wires automatically, draw hidden lines for ducts, and halftone the arch background to a single lineweight. However, as with the panel schedules , to get this you need to pay a price. There is only one lineweight for non-MEP elements in these view disciplines. The halftone that is set is far to light to even see if your vision isn't perfect (which usually isn't the case with engineers). There are ways around this of course, but usually that brings new problems of its own.
Another problem with the disciplines is that when you have "drafting lines" in one of these views, those lines will go halftone too. This one essentially makes the features of the discipline views useless as the majority of our plans has something that needs to be drawn in by hand, whether it be a duct bank, grounding system, or even a "dot" to signify a connection.
These are just two of the major issues with presentation, but there are a lot of minor ones, which may be acceptable to an extent, but they add up. These things include:
- Annotation text in families only going up or left (for a junction box I only want the "J" to be upright, no matter what it is hosted on).
- Symbolic lines within families being but by any other line in a mechanical discipline view.
- No loop arrowhead (have to use non-filled dot, which works but doesn't look good)
- Cannot set custom tick marks
- Cannot change the home run arrow (way to small)

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Most of these things are little odd things that chip away at a CAD standard because Revit forces you to draw something it's way instead of your way.

I have other gripes, but the presentation issues are what has kept me busy, and has really irked my co-engineers, especially while being checked by the senior staff. Since the panel schedules in Revit were unacceptable, we had to do them in CAD, which was a coordination nightmare as it is so easy to change circuits in Revit. I also spent about 9-10 hours of dealing with presentation issues the day the project was due.
If I had one thing to say to the MEP development team it would be that if they focus on Revit as a drafting tool, then people would start using it more. The analysis is nice, however it is not required (and I didn't even use 90% of it). The beauty in Revit is the ease of coordination, people are usually bound to the analysis software they already have.

However, there are good things about the current build of Revit (I wont keep this entirely a rant):
Although the panel schedules were really funky, it was VERY nice to be able to shift around panel schedules and circuits whenever I felt like it within design. Although at the end coordinating AutoCAD with it was a nightmare, during the rest of the project it was real simple to circuit thing up and get it ready for said debacle.
Wires are a great tool electrically, and helps a lot when you are moving positions slightly with receptacles or something. If you move a receptacle the wire will actually follow it to wherever you are moving, saving some drafting time.
3D view is awesome, even if you don't use it that much. I think I used 3D view mainly with coordination with ducts and a few architectural questions, however I know the mechanical engineer working on the job used it almost the entire time. I am sure she will chime in later.
Special notes are pretty well done. Using a note block you can save a lot of trouble with the whole "not used" problems, and Revit's handling of leaders was a lot easier to draft with.
The way Revit handles callouts and sheet views is one of its best features. They are smart and link back to each other taking a lot of problems with false detail references out of the picture.

These are just the most noticeable things that came to my head, but there are a lot of other things which you miss when you go back to AutoCAD.

Many of you have asked "should I mess with MEP" and I guess the answer to this question really isn't a definite one. To answer I would definitely consider the following questions:
- Is your architect using Revit? If not I wouldn't mess with it.
- How big is your project? To big and I could see this being a problem
- How willing are you to deviate from your CAD standard? You will need to make some sacrifices.
- Are you looking to make this a regular thing? If you just want to "mess around" I hope you have a lot of free time, because learning the kinks of the software takes a while. Once you learn it though it becomes a lot easier to think like it does.


If you have any questions please feel free to ask.

[dmb.100468]

I wholeheartedly agree with the comments about the panel schedules and the halftone linework.

We are pressing on in hopes that more flexibility will be provided in future releases, but it is an extremely hard sell to convince my engineers of the benefits of being tied to the model when the end result (panel schedule) looks as bad as it does. Really, really bad.

I understand how the "little things" can add up. We have worked some of them out and built a template to avoid re-inventing the wheel. We were able to customize the tick marks to meet our needs, and built content that displays as required.

At this point I cannot stress enough the importance of having a well developed, well thought out project template prior to beginning a project. So if you are considering using Revit MEP on a project, my advice would be (along with the other considerations posted in this thread) do not start without a well developed template!

[Scott D Davis]

If you were to create a set of CD's and just not worry about creating a set of drawings that looks exactly like your AutoCAD drawings, would it be possible?

So what if the panel schedule is a little bigger than you are used to. Who cares if your linewieghts are a little different....aroows and tick marks may be different than you are used to. I could go on but you get the idea.

Would the project be buildable? Is the GC going to send you an RFI because 'the panel schedule fills up half the sheet" ?

I'm not saying you need to throw standards out the window.....but you also must begin to be flexible...to re-think what a set of CD's is. I know where you are coming from. I'm from the Architectural side of things, and architects can be the most anal-retentive people when it comes to the "artwork" that is a set of CD's.

I suggest not fighting Revit so much. Just let it happen and start to re-examine what your "standards" are.

[Mottiqua]

If you were to create a set of CD's and just not worry about creating a set of drawings that looks exactly like your AutoCAD drawings, would it be possible?

So what if the panel schedule is a little bigger than you are used to. Who cares if your linewieghts are a little different....aroows and tick marks may be different than you are used to. I could go on but you get the idea.

Would the project be buildable? Is the GC going to send you an RFI because 'the panel schedule fills up half the sheet" ?

I'm not saying you need to throw standards out the window.....but you also must begin to be flexible...to re-think what a set of CD's is. I know where you are coming from. I'm from the Architectural side of things, and architects can be the most anal-retentive people when it comes to the "artwork" that is a set of CD's.

I suggest not fighting Revit so much. Just let it happen and start to re-examine what your "standards" are.

When you're trying to convince engineers of something that hasn't changed in the last 20 years, they want it to work just as it had in the past. Or else they'll want to fall back on their crutch: 2-D cad. Unfortunately, it seems architects are a little more open to change....engineers aren't. (Try telling your engineer 3 days before the job goes out that you decided to flip the 3rd floor......same idea)
The panel schedule is a huge deal, no the GC may not send an RFI, but it's rediculous to have 30 sheets of panel schedules, when we used to get away with having 3. Contractors will complain on the number of sheets, and may end up losing sheets.
The biggest hurdle is getting engineers to accept change. No, revit does not look the way we've done it for the last 20 years....

[Mottiqua]

okay i'm off my soapbox :)
There will be gripes and sorepoints, but there will also be revelations and praise....I think in the long run, this will be a pretty awesome setup....
It's a brand new system (on version 3), and we're entering that new phase of engineering. It's just different from what we're used to, and its very hard trying to get people to change and adapt.
Learning that workflow will take some time for us to get up to speed, and for the folks at Autodesk to get up to speed with us as well....

[dmb.100468]

Believe it or not, we DO get RFI's on stuff like that. And some even more trivial than that. It's not just us who are trying to hold to standards, it is our clients who have placed a set of standards on us. We MUST do what they ask or we won't be in business for too long.

Who cares? The guy that signs the paychecks cares. The guy who knows that sheet real estate = $$. The schedule is not "a little bigger". I can get 17 schedules on one sheet using Excel. With Revit I can get 4.

I understand and agree with your point about buildability, but there is also the fact that we take pride in our work and for something to come out of our office, with our name on it, it has to reflect the quality of work that we are holding to.

The notion that we should "just let it happen" shows a lack of connection to what is happening in the day-to-day of the AE industry.

[mjdanowski]

If you were to create a set of CD's and just not worry about creating a set of drawings that looks exactly like your AutoCAD drawings, would it be possible?

So what if the panel schedule is a little bigger than you are used to. Who cares if your linewieghts are a little different....aroows and tick marks may be different than you are used to. I could go on but you get the idea.

Would the project be buildable? Is the GC going to send you an RFI because 'the panel schedule fills up half the sheet" ?

I'm not saying you need to throw standards out the window.....but you also must begin to be flexible...to re-think what a set of CD's is. I know where you are coming from. I'm from the Architectural side of things, and architects can be the most anal-retentive people when it comes to the "artwork" that is a set of CD's.

I suggest not fighting Revit so much. Just let it happen and start to re-examine what your "standards" are.
I uploaded a comparison of one default panel schedule vs. a 30"x42" sheet, the red representing stuff I don't want/need on the schedules. But another note with the schedules is that they do not update (they are a report), which kind of makes the whole point moot.

As far as changing our standard goes, we have a lot. However there is a difference between changing the orientation of the "J" on a junction box and making the architectural background almost invisible on our plans.

After the completion of this project I can also say that the majority of the "easy coordination issues" that were resolved and saved us time via Revit were overshadowed by the stupid little problems that accompanied them. Thats what I am kind of trying to say; Revit has a lot of potential to do a lot of very useful things, but right now there is too much baggage associated with these things to get them presentable.

Ultimately too, people will originally try this out as an attempt to see if it works to get their drawings made. If this is not possible or causes too much problems, they will not use it. The design industry is all about the bottom line: what your drawings look like in the end, thats what we do.

[mike.weigle]

If you were to create a set of CD's and just not worry about creating a set of drawings that looks exactly like your AutoCAD drawings, would it be possible?

So what if the panel schedule is a little bigger than you are used to. Who cares if your linewieghts are a little different....aroows and tick marks may be different than you are used to. I could go on but you get the idea.

Would the project be buildable? Is the GC going to send you an RFI because 'the panel schedule fills up half the sheet" ?

I'm not saying you need to throw standards out the window.....but you also must begin to be flexible...to re-think what a set of CD's is. I know where you are coming from. I'm from the Architectural side of things, and architects can be the most anal-retentive people when it comes to the "artwork" that is a set of CD's.

I suggest not fighting Revit so much. Just let it happen and start to re-examine what your "standards" are.

To answer your first question I have to say no. It is not possible to put out a complete set of drawings. Complete is the key word. We are sending out our first project a week from today and the drawings are no where near as complete as a set of drawings coming from our CAD setup.

Who cares? Thats a little on the rough side. We care, the end user, the people buying your software, our shareholders care and our clients care. Why should we accept 2 panel schedules per sheet when in our CAD setup we can put upwards of 15-20 schedules per sheet. The amount of paper that already goes thru my office would blow your mind. Let alone if we start adding an extra 10-40 (who knows exactly how many) sheets to each project just because the developers tell us "who cares".

We have built our business on CAD standards that have been modified and tweaked over a 20+ year period. To throw that out the window is very painful. BUT...our users have accepted that (even if they don't agree with it). We have explained that our drawings are going to look different and that is just something we all will have to deal with. After a lot of explaining they are "ok" with it.

Its pretty hard to accept "...not fighting Revit so much. Just let it happen..."

Revit cost us a ton of $$$. The money we have spent on content development, internal training and implementation would sink most ships. We have accepted the expenses and realize the future is in BIM. BUT...we need to the support and effort from Autodesk for this to be a successful adventure.

I think Autodesk really needs to staff up and consider, at a minimum, 6 month upgrades instead of 1 upgrade per year. Right now if we suggest changes or additional functionality, we will not see those changes until version 2010. That is almost 2 years away. When I told my PIC this...he almost flipped his lid.

[Scott D Davis]

I'd be inclined to rethink the set. Why do panel schedules need to go on a 30x42 sheet? What if each schedule was printed on its own 8.5x11 and made part of the project manual, or maybe they are bound into a "Schedule book". (I'm just thinking out loud here.) Its much cheaper to reproduce 8.5x11 than it is 30x42.

Just because we have done something the same way for 20 years does not make it the right way to do things today. Everything is changing and evolving around us. Technology is changing, and IMO we are not that far away from abandoning the "roll of paper construction drawings" in favor of delivering the model in electronic format.

Believe me, I understand what you all are saying (except that I've never seen an RFI about "too many sheets" :-) ) but we must all start to think differently about this process. Architecture/engineering is so incredibly far behind any other "similar" process. Why? Because we can't get away from the idea that we must continue to do things like we did them 20 years ago.

[mike.weigle]

We took the approach of doing panel schedules on 8.5x11's and including it in our delivered spec's and that was shot down quicker than you can imagine.

We were told our company does panel schedules on drawings for a reason and we will not go back to putting them on 8.5x11's...they are and will be a part of the drawing set...PERIOD.

I agree...someday we will deliver an electronic copy of the model to the owner/contractor. But not anytime in the near future. So until that happens...paper = $$$.

[Scott D Davis]

We were told our company does panel schedules on drawings for a reason and we will not go back to putting them on 8.5x11's...they are and will be a part of the drawing set...PERIOD.
What was the reason? Who made the decision? Why is it such a rigid standard?

I'm just throwing these out there, and you've probably asked them yourself. I'm just curious of the process and how your company came to that conclusion.

[kyle.bernhardt]

Great discussion guys, good feedback. And, for the record, we realize that we need more flexibility in the formatting and size of our Panel Schedules...about all I can say about it at this point.

Cheers,
Kyle B

[mike.weigle]

It's about more than panel schedules.

Panel schedules was simply the example being used.

There are also problems with central file errors, save to central problems and worksets.

[kyle.bernhardt]

It's about more than panel schedules.

Panel schedules was simply the example being used.

There are also problems with central file errors, save to central problems and worksets.I fully understand that...just making sure the Product Team's view on that subject was known.

As for these other issues, have you logged them with our Subscription Support team and provided examples of the issues?

:beer:
Kyle B

[Mottiqua]

What was the reason? Who made the decision? Why is it such a rigid standard?

I'm just throwing these out there, and you've probably asked them yourself. I'm just curious of the process and how your company came to that conclusion.

Hi Scott,
I guess the way that we can answer that, is that our firm has spent years trying to "standardize" the engineering group (which isn't too easy given that we have 5 engineering offices and 2 overseas) The standard is rigid for that reason, there's just too many of us for us to do our own thing...who makes the decision...the one's that sign our paycheck and have been in the business for 20-30 years (or more) and are worried about the bottom line...
the thing is just that....it's a HUGE change. yes, we deviate from our standards here and there, but this kind of change, has to be forthfront...open and honest.
It's gonna suck for the first few projects (they even said that at AU, maybe not as candidly as I did, but nonetheless :) until you can get to that 'creamy middle' stage....

One thing that one has to keep in check is that revit requires you to think outside the box, and differently....not altogether a bad thing, but it challenges those who typically haven't seen the need to be challenged. Engineers are a far different breed than architects. The idea is you have to also keep in your mind...who does this best suit....
Office culture and age plays a huge deal in whether or not to deploy Revit.

Like Matt said, Revit is an acquired taste...it's not for everyone.

Yes, there are many many quirks, some we can work out, some we can't...but we're giving our feedback, suggestions, rants and raves to Kyle and Company...and we're helping design a product that will suit OUR needs.

Even though, it's tough right now...grrrrr. :)

-Diane

[mjdanowski]

I fully understand that...just making sure the Product Team's view on that subject was known.

As for these other issues, have you logged them with our Subscription Support team and provided examples of the issues?

:beer:
Kyle B

Just a suggestion for a panel schedule formatting would be to have three annotation files named panel_header, panel_row and panel_footer. Then within the family category for this (panel schedule) you have a label with all the parameters of a panel. With these labels you can essentially draw your panel schedules and link back information on how you would like it to look like.
This would work like any other annotation family for the header and footer (aside from some extra system parameters to choose from), but the panel_row would have to be different. This family would have parameters like circuit_name, circuit_ampacity, circuit_name, etc. Then when the panel schedule is drawn in the Revit project it would repeat the row command dynamically pulling in the information for each row. Sounds good in theory, but you would probably need some work with the different phases. (a lot of people who do show that have a "-" or a shaded region for poles which aren't on a certain phase).

Also, make panel schedules dynamic to the sheets! Do this and electrically you put Revit over the edge on the "worth it" scale to a lot of engineers I think.

Another thing that I would like to mention is that stuff like IES integration, calculations and all that jazz, although nice, isn't a priority I think to the people using the software. Most engineers will probably have software which is more or less grandfathered into their firms, and although they may or may not switch to Revit integration at some point in time, it isn't going to happen until Revit is well accepted. So ultimately my point is that development into fundamental issues (like making it a better drafting tool) will go a lot farther then analysis tools.

[dmb.100468]

We are not the only ones who need to rethink the way we do things. Clients need to rethink what they require as a deliverable. If they ask for a set of drawings, guess what we have to give them. We can't just give them whatever WE want to give them.

We're not in the business of pushing the envelope, or thinking outside of the box. We do that on our own time. We're in the business of delivering product (construction documents). Until our clients ask for something different, we are not going to force it on them.

Until the day comes when contractors are wearing tablet PCs on their belts along with their hammers, we are not going to be paperless. That's a long time coming, and we need solutions that work now.

[mjdanowski]

Until the day comes when contractors are wearing tablet PCs on their belts along with their hammers, we are not going to be paperless. That's a long time coming, and we need solutions that work now.

The image of a broken tablet PC just went through my head.

[ahefner]

...Another thing that I would like to mention is that stuff like IES integration, calculations and all that jazz, although nice, isn't a priority I think to the people using the software. Most engineers will probably have software which is more or less grandfathered into their firms, and although they may or may not switch to Revit integration at some point in time, it isn't going to happen until Revit is well accepted. So ultimately my point is that development into fundamental issues (like making it a better drafting tool) will go a lot farther then analysis tools.

We have to run foot-candle measurements for the Health Department. We've already had to redo two jobs because we didn't meet the 50fc at the work pane as required in Texas. We also have to meet the IECC energy restrictions, so being able to run these calcs in Revit and not a second/third/fourth program is awesome. Plus you have the added benefit of the "tracking" schedules with can parallel the IECC requirements and you're talking about shaving 4-8 hours of the overall production time on CDs. You do that enough times and you've just doubled our production.

We're being forced to use Revit because 2 of our major clients have purchased and installed Revit Architecture and a third is well on their way. No matter what we have to use it. Now comes the problems of "who owns and is responsible for which parts of the Revit model" debates. Since we don't own the architect's model, we link it in, but that makes it so that we "lose" the BIM technology that was supposed to make the coordination a breeze.

It seems (no just from this thread, but from anyone developing or selling Revit) they're reluctant to add customizability to the program. Maybe with AutoCAD it's just a 24/7 programming nightmare because there's too much customizing ability, but now we're spoiled and want everything that way. I can definitely see the benefit of having some things remain constant throughout every seat sold, but I do not think that we can stay entirely within Revit for CDs and Rev1, Rev2, etc. For the most part, we're planning to keep everything within Revit until the limitation become a liability at which point we'll move the information into AutoCAD before going out the door.

For some reason it seems the Revit MEP Autodesk developers didn't/haven't sat down with a Revit MEP client and gone from SD, DD, to CDs to note and list all the problems, limitations, and failures. <--- This in no way is intended to reflect poorly on the developers, maybe they haven't had time, or there's not enough staff to go around...

We are not allowed to issue anything in 8 1/2 x 11 format either. There's too much of a chance it'll become separated from the drawings and not used. If they only get half/full sized drawings BOUND, then they're less likely to miss something on a spec sheet or panel schedule in 8 1/2x11 format.


I think this is a great thread and should be on the Revit MEP broacher.

[ahefner]

We are not the only ones who need to rethink the way we do things. Clients need to rethink what they require as a deliverable. If they ask for a set of drawings, guess what we have to give them. We can't just give them whatever WE want to give them.

We're not in the business of pushing the envelope, or thinking outside of the box. We do that on our own time. We're in the business of delivering product (construction documents). Until our clients ask for something different, we are not going to force it on them.

Until the day comes when contractors are wearing tablet PCs on their belts along with their hammers, we are not going to be paperless. That's a long time coming, and we need solutions that work now.

Yeah, I keep hearing the "contractors going to paperless" statements a lot and I can't think of any contractor (even the ones building the $40 million house we're working on) even close or considering going to paperless. We've had a few request electronic files for bid and pricing, but never for CDs. Heck, I would loose sleep if I issued CDs in electronic format and knew that's what the contractor was using to build with.

I can definitely see hammers and nail guns being the worst enemies of TAB-PCs. As a matter of fact, I don't see us going completely, 100% paperless for a LONG, LONG time. There will still need to be a hardcopy onsite (of course wet signed) incase the TAB-PC breaks, etc.

[mmadert]

I have been in the design/build construction industry for nearly 40 years now. I started out using ink on mylar, then pen bar, then the first crude CAD systems (Versa CAD) and now I am using AutoCAD 2008. The way MEP information is presented on CD's should be to provide a clear set of instructions to the tradesmen that have to construct the facility. The engineers have to be assured that errors or oversights in their designs are readily apparent before they get to the contractors or lawsuits result. Since many A&E's specialize or focus their design efforts in particular types of building, design standards develop overtime many times as a result of "learning the hard way". In any case, the standards designing & CAD presentation ultimately reduce the A&E's design risk. To infer that the engineers should consider "relaxing" their design/presentation standards developed over many years for the sake of the inabilities of Revit to meet their requirements is not realistic ( I wanted to use stronger term here).

Tradesmen in the field prefer to work from full size sheets. Lighting is usually not good and they use their drawing sets for mark-ups and notes. The fewer sheets the better. GC's do not give a "flip" about how many sheets there are unless they have to pay for the printing (which they don't anymore as they issue electronic PDF files to the Subs for them to print at their own expense).

I have tried issuing panelboard schedules in 8-1/2" x 11" format with the specifications. The vendors like it. However, the construction workers in the field do not like carrying around a bound set of specifications for their reference and mark-up. Unbind the set and they will surely get lost. In addition, even if the panel schedules are numerically & sequentially numbered and a sheet is not printed (copier/reproduction error) and not bid/purchased, the consulting engineer is responsible for the oversight if it has to be added as a change order later. (I learned the hard way on this one). We use linked interactive Excel spreadsheets for our panelboard/Mcc/Substation schedules such that a single change on a panelboard or any load changes the total load at the main service switchgear schedules. Revit's inability to perform this function is ridiculous considering how much it cost per seat. It is evident to me that Revit was not designed with the MEP in mind.

AutoCAD 2008 finally has most of the features needed to produce a fine set of construction documents. It has the flexibility to meet any firm's design/CAD standards. Having experienced Revit, I (as an engineer) feel that we are taking about 10 steps backward to jump on this BIM Band Wagon. We are seeing a lot of GC's promoting BIM as a means to reduce their risk during construction by "improving coordination between trades". Many are contractually obligating subcontractors to produce as-built documentation in Revit. This is increasing overall cost to the subcontractors (many A&E will not even release AutoCAD files to subcontractors so backgrounds have to be redrawn...$$$$$) and its benefits over previous coordination methods have yet to been seen.

I wonder why Autodesk did not try to build a BIM platform on top of the existing capabilities of AutoCAD and subsequently abandoning all of the years of development to meet our MEP production needs.

Autodesk doesn't appear to have many "gray-haired" MEP engineers on their Revit team that have actually had to produce a set of CD's and be responsible for them. Until the "young pups" Autodesk get some "real world" experience (based upon reading the comments from Scott Davis) Revit, Revit improvements will be slow to develop.

I do not know about you but I am tried of being asked/forced to accept an inadequate product for the sake of it being new the new flavor of the month or "just let it happen" attitude. Time is money to us and "letting it happen" will cost us time and a lot of money in the long run. I agree that AutoDesk product updates/improvements are way to slow. I'll likely be dead and buried before Revit lives up to it advertising.

[ahefner]

^^^ amen, brotha!!

[dmb.100468]

Thanks for your comments, I agree with MOST of what you said.

Autodesk did try to build a BIM solution on top of AutoCAD. It was called ABS (now AutoCAD MEP), and it is absolutely horrible from a BIM standpoint. Don't get me wrong, it is a great DRAFTING tool.

Look around the industry, there is a process change occuring affectionately known as BIM. This process change will not occur without some bumps and bruises along the way. Remember how resistant some were to going from drafting board to CAD? We're still in the early stages but I agree, we can't take a "just let it happen" attitude.

My hope is that Autodesk recognizes that while they are in the process of development, we are in the process of doing what we have always done, generating construction documents. The comments posted here by some do not show that understanding. I appreciate your restraint, I felt the same frustration :).

[mjdanowski]

To quote a co-worker of mine who has been doing the HVAC design on this project: "Revit was made with architects in mind, not engineers."

I think there is a lot of truth in this statement, I mean Revit MEP is essentially Revit Architecture with connectors. It is getting better with more features, but the fact still remains that it is a spur off of architecture.
To architects, Revit is awesome because they can build their project and just take "snapshots" of it. They don't have to separately draw elevations, floor plans, ceiling plans etc. To engineers though, we use symbols and draft a lot more to represent what is there, since actually drawing what is there would be kind of pointless. Therefore, a lot of the mechanics of Revit do not apply to us and/or don;t have any use.

This is where, in my opinion, a lot of the problems are arising.

[Steve_Stafford]

Interesting and relevant thoughts by all, thanks!

I get accused of being an apologist for Revit, that may come with being a moderator here?

For what it is worth there ARE people with many years of real MEP experience involved with the development. They also do alot of field work to get input. The trouble is as a whole each of our disciplines is not very coherant. One firm is happy with "this" while another would fire someone if that "this" was done in their office.

Being defensive, comparing AutoCAD with Revit MEP is a bit unfair in the "apples vs. apples" since AutoCAD is a bit longer in the tooth than Rmep. It also is not trying to accomplish what the three Revit products are attempting to do. AutoCAD also does nothing for us "auto-magically" (thanks for that word Bill) that we haven't programmed ourself or paid someone to do for us.

Autodesk doesn't think you shouldn't put schedules on sheets or that you should only put three on a sheet at a time. The schedule issue was just a sticking point for the original poster and it was one aspect of the software among others that frustrated him. From the start, the focus of development has been on "data first, documentation second" which is why ABS has been bundled with Rmep. So it comes as no surprise, to me at least, that schedules are not perfect. That and they aren't perfect in Revit Architecture either, imho. :smile:

Leaping to defend Scott, he is just trying to provoke or prod different thinking, not "bad" thinking, just a fresh look or consideration. He's definitely not trying to offend. Consider that he's been using Revit since release 1 (the original Revit) so he's a bit "off" anyway :screwy: that and he now works for Autodesk. He's got some "splain'n" to do in the ng's since people always accused him of working for Autodesk years ago.

Along those lines, we try never to tag things more than once if we can help it but we can rethink that with Revit because the tag refers to same thing so no worry about not catching the dozen of tags that weren't updated with blocks w/ attributes. Also with schedules we can consider providing customized output of data that caters to the format a contractor, vendor or consultant might like.

Adopting new software that challenges our existing methods is never easy, more so that it is still young and evolving. You either embrace this "skaterkid" or wait till later when it is a more mature college student. I think it is also important not to base our assumptions on what we've always done according to what we know of our present and past. Supposedly just a short hundred "ish" years ago the congress thought we might as well "shutter" the Patent Office since all the things we need had been invented. A bit has changed in that time eh? Who is to say how soon or how fast the next cool things are made available? I can't keep up with the information available on the Internet now and just a decade ago most folks weren't even online using the internet.

Welcome to the wild frontier...

[Chad Smith]

If I had one thing to say to the MEP development team it would be that if they focus on Revit as a drafting tool, then people would start using it more. The analysis is nice, however it is not required (and I didn't even use 90% of it). The beauty in Revit is the ease of coordination, people are usually bound to the analysis software they already have.A few months ago, I had an hour long phone conversation with one of the Autodesk's AEC Product Managers about pretty much the same thing.

Since your barely using the analysis portion, can I assume you are using other analysis/calculations software, and you just want to model the data, to get the 2D documentation?
This is pretty much what we want to do. Get the data from our structural and mechanical engineers, so we can then model it as part of our final documentation. I explained to the product manager that we need the modeling and documentation tools from MEP and Structure built directly into Architecture, but it seemed to go straight over his head. He was too focused on explaining the benefits of the analysis portion to me (which I fully understand and can appreciate) but is not what we require in our multi-disciplinary user environment.

But still, in a single-disciplinary environment such as an engineering company, Autodesk seem to be too focused on the analysis/data side. Producing reasonable drafted CD's from the model should be the main focus first, and then go back to adding the data to the model components. Autodesk needs to entice new users with the ability to "draft" their documentation like they do in AutoCAD by way of the modeling tools, and then encourage them to use the analysis and data it provides second.

[Scott D Davis]

Leaping to defend Scott, he is just trying to provoke or prod different thinking, not "bad" thinking, just a fresh look or consideration. He's definitely not trying to offend. Consider that he's been using Revit since release 1 (the original Revit) so he's a bit "off" anyway :screwy: that and he now works for Autodesk. He's got some "splain'n" to do in the ng's since people always accused him of working for Autodesk years ago.Thanks Steve (I think? A bit "off", huh?? :-) )

Thats what this is all about. Just a new way of looking at things.

I made the statement that we could be soon delivering a model to the GC rather than paper drawings. Does this mean that there is no paper in the field? That GC's and subs have to carry around tablet PC's around their neck? No, not at all.

Maybe it works like this: (Maybe, this is all just for conversation, I'm not saying its right or wrong or will ever work, but we have to be open-minded to changes that might make the process better.) The GC has the model as an electronic "virtual construction document." He using the model and some of the features of Revit to phase the model into daily "reports" of what needs to be accomplished on site. A printer in the job trailer can produce "Daily Instructions" to the subs that describe specific tasks to be completed. This package may be 8.5 x 11, or 11 x 17 (or something else) and contain the pertinate plans, sections, elevations, 3D drawings, specs, details, panel schedules, RFI/Change order info., etc. for that specific task.

At the end of the day, progress is tracked, and the "daily instruction" is sent to the recycle bin (unless some notes have been scribbled on them for the next days work). The next day, a new set is issued.

A clean set of instructions every day. No ripped tattered coffee-stained missing sheet 30x42 too large to handle plans. Too far fetched? IMO, no.

OK, so a little about this "young pup". I've been in Architecture for over 13 years. Designed, produced CD's, and built, including Construction Admin, many projects. I have industry experience, and just recently joined Autodesk. Why did they want me? Because I have experience. I too started drafting on a board with pencil and paper. Learned VersaCAD in school, then AutoCAD 9, all the way up to 2008. Then found Revit, and have been very passionate about it ever since. Is it perfect? No, but it's much better than anything else out there.

I never said we should "abandon" standards that have been set in place over the last 40 years...just rethink what we are producing. In one of my roles as a CAD Manager of a very large AEC firm, we argued for 2 weeks about what north arrow to use as a standard! What a fricken waste of time, and truly not worth it. I don't care what it looks like, as long as its clear which way is north.

In my opinion, time is wasted when trying to make things look a very particular way. If the info is there, is clear, concise, and the GC can build from it, thats what matters. So when I said "let it happen" what I meant was just look at what you are trying to accomplish. Is it really worth going through the process if the information is the same? I'm not making an excuse for "inadequacies" in Revit...I know its not perfect. At the same time, pick your battles wisely. Don't make an issue of something that is really just a north arrow. Thats where we need to re-evaluate our "standards."

[mjdanowski]

Thanks Steve (I think? A bit "off", huh?? :-) )

Thats what this is all about. Just a new way of looking at things.

I made the statement that we could be soon delivering a model to the GC rather than paper drawings. Does this mean that there is no paper in the field? That GC's and subs have to carry around tablet PC's around their neck? No, not at all.

Maybe it works like this: (Maybe, this is all just for conversation, I'm not saying its right or wrong or will ever work, but we have to be open-minded to changes that might make the process better.) The GC has the model as an electronic "virtual construction document." He using the model and some of the features of Revit to phase the model into daily "reports" of what needs to be accomplished on site. A printer in the job trailer can produce "Daily Instructions" to the subs that describe specific tasks to be completed. This package may be 8.5 x 11, or 11 x 17 (or something else) and contain the pertinate plans, sections, elevations, 3D drawings, specs, details, panel schedules, RFI/Change order info., etc. for that specific task.

At the end of the day, progress is tracked, and the "daily instruction" is sent to the recycle bin (unless some notes have been scribbled on them for the next days work). The next day, a new set is issued.

A clean set of instructions every day. No ripped tattered coffee-stained missing sheet 30x42 too large to handle plans. Too far fetched? IMO, no.

OK, so a little about this "young pup". I've been in Architecture for over 13 years. Designed, produced CD's, and built, including CA, many projects. I have industry experience, and just recently joined Autodesk. Why did they want me? Because I have experience. I too started drafting on a board with pencil and paper. Learned VersaCAD in school, then AutoCAD 9. Then found Revit, and have been very passionate about it ever since. Is it perfect? No, but it's much better than anything else out there.

I never said we should "abandon" standards that have been set in place over the last 40 years...just rethink what we are producing. In one of my roles as a CAD Manager of a very large AEC firm, we argued for 2 weeks about what north arrow to use as a standard! What a fricken waste of time, and truly not worth it. I don't care what it looks like, as long as its clear which way is north.

In my opinion, time is wasted when trying to make things look a very particular way. If the info is there, is clear, concise, and the GC can build from it, thats what matters. So when I said "let it happen" what I meant was just look at what you are trying to accomplish. Is it really worth going through the process if the information is the same? I'm not making an excuse for "inadequacies" in Revit...I know its not perfect. At the same time, pick your battles wisely. Don't make an issue of something that is really just a north arrow. Thats where we need to re-evaluate our "standards."


See thats the thing though, standards don't change overnight. Revit right now is that interesting little piece of CAD technology that has a lot of rumors running around all over the place about it. MEP firms, much like my own, are going to see this and say "I wonder how this software would work for us?" What we did was make a "test project" where we would would try to complete a small sized project with Revit and see what the results are. Then after completing this project we are now in the process of going over all of our experiences.
- How easy was it to use?
- What were the benefits?
- What is the learning curve?
- How plausible is this for future projects?

And the million dollar question:

- How would the transition from our current way of doing things be like?

If the answer to the last question is "complete renovation of standards" then nobody will accept this product. It is not that we do not to change at all, it is just that too much change in too little a time is a very scary concept to a lot of people. (true outside of this business as well)

I mean I would love to only have to send a contractor a building model, to not have to deal with stupid CAD standards, and do do all this other housekeeping. However, this will not happen until the industry accepts it, and this will not happen unless the transition from now to then is a lot smoother and easier.
This is what I am trying to emphasize within this thread. Start small with the basic fundamentals with a drafting tool which is fully customizable, and then move on to the more advanced BIM stuff.

[Steve_Stafford]

This is what I am trying to emphasize within this thread. Start small with the basic fundamentals with a drafting tool which is fully customizable, and then move on to the more advanced BIM stuff.You already have the basic tool...it isn't Revit, Revit is trying to accomplish more than that and I believe you can't start with the basic tool without addressing the bigger picture. As I said earlier, we either find some value or synergy with what Rmep is capable of now or we wait until it does and then act.

As I said before, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate them and the frankness of the delivery. I wish you the best.

[mjdanowski]

You already have the basic tool...it isn't Revit, Revit is trying to accomplish more than that and I believe you can't start with the basic tool without addressing the bigger picture. As I said earlier, we either find some value or synergy with what Rmep is capable of now or we wait until it does and then act.

As I said before, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate them and the frankness of the delivery. I wish you the best.

Revit has the potential to do tons more then AutoCAD (which I am assuming is your reference to the "basic tool"), and I am sure that in time it will be very functional as an industry standard tool. However, to get to that place easier and faster, I think that getting the drafting part tuned first would be a lot more beneficial to getting Revit MEP a lot more widespread acceptance.

Thank you for your comments as well though, Revit MEP can be a bit frustrating and if we have come across a little agitated I think it is because we are a bit passionate about seeing MEP becoming accepted. (oh, and you keep changing your damn ceiling plans :( )

[pkirill]

I'd be inclined to rethink the set. .

And as an architect that would be your prerogative. :) As consultants were are often in the position to provide what our clients want the way they want it. The more players involved, the more important it is that all the documentation be consistent across all trades...

[sbrown]

This is the first time I've ventured into the MEP forum. I'm an Architect who's used Revit since Release 1. At the time I was working with a Design Build MEP firm on a project and the Principal saw what I was doing with revit and asked if he could use it for MEP. I said, its probably not quite ready(this was Release 2.? We were doing our 1st CD set. I thought the detailing and drawing coordination alone would make his life easier. So I'm extremely surprised that at release 10 of arch, that the current release of MEP isn't usable. which I believe it isn't. I've been actively seeking MEP firms using revit, because we do and I can't find any willing to do a very large project in Revit.

My feeling is that I could help the MEP guys understand how to "do" drawings the revit way. Assuming it has the filled region command and detail components you should be able to recreate any set of drawings you've done in the past. Basically when first learning revit, you model the big picture, then draft over the model hiding what you couldn't figure out how to model. I can't understand why schedules in MEP don't work the same as they do in Arch. Any insight Scott D.?? As for symbols, 2d families of the right category should suffice to get drawings out and schedules done. BIM is currently a goal, not reality. Don't force your firm to fully BIM your projects with Revit. Use it for what its good at,

Anyway, back to our consultant who wanted to use revit way back when. When he learned he would see our changes instantly, he wanted no part of revit anymore. What engineer would want to chase an Architect around his model? None. So for the immediate future, Revit should help you get your 2d delieverables out the door with the added benefit to the Arch and Struct of being able to link your 3d geometry into our models for coordination purposes.

I'll keep reading to see how it goes. Good luck.

[Steve_Stafford]

I can't understand why schedules in MEP don't work the same as they do in Arch. Any insight Scott D.??They work exactly the same...except the panel schedule referred to isn't a schedule it is a report and its format is "hardcoded". Looks "nice" (depends who is viewing it I suppose) on screen but is just BIG on a sheet. The qualitative aspect of schedules in Revit has always been lacking and this is just worse.

I'm with you Scott, I wanted to use plain Revit for MEP (before Rmep existed) stuff when I worked back East and the firm is only now starting to dabble with MEP and aren't really happy with it yet either.

[mjdanowski]

They work exactly the same...except the panel schedule referred to isn't a schedule it is a report and its format is "hardcoded". Looks "nice" (depends who is viewing it I suppose) on screen but is just BIG on a sheet. The qualitative aspect of schedules in Revit has always been lacking and this is just worse.

I'm with you Scott, I wanted to use plain Revit for MEP (before Rmep existed) stuff when I worked back East and the firm is only now starting to dabble with MEP and aren't really happy with it yet either.

Yeah, schedules for like motors, lighting fixtures, receptacle types, etc. work almost exactly the same as architecture. They are the strong point of scheduling. (aside from some aggravating formatting things which fortunately you only have to do once since it is dynamic.

The problem with panel schedules are:
1) It isn't dynamic, making any kind of workaround for formatting pointless since you would have to do the arduous task over and over again.
2) It isn't customizable, making your panel schedules very awkward because you have these essentially pointless fields sitting there making the schedule gigantic and looking like ****. It would be like having extra fields on your hardware schedules for "screw type ( philips, flathead etc.), metallurgy, and sole source manufacturer. Yeah, you could not fill these things out since they don't matter very much, but the schedule would still look horrible.

The panel schedules I think will be the turning point for Revit electrically. If you can make the panel schedules looking good and coordinated with the floor plans, then RMEP will be gold in the eyes of electrical engineers. It is something that makes RMEP worth putting up with all the workarounds and frustration to get it to present respectively.

I think the next release of MEP will be a big one as far as adoption of the software concerned. Kyle says that the lineweight issue with detail lines will be addressed, and hopefully if we complain enough the panel schedules will be usable to some extent also. These in my opinion are the two big kickers, and when they are fixed Revit MEP can focus more on BIM rather the deal breaking presentation issues.

[sbrown]

Thats good to hear. We are really looking for MEP guys wanting to use Revit as part of our BIM delievery process.

Steve, any idea why the panel schedules are reports vs live? That sounds very odd in the revit world. Kinda like keynotes not updating properly?

[Mottiqua]

Thats good to hear. We are really looking for MEP guys wanting to use Revit as part of our BIM delievery process.

Steve, any idea why the panel schedules are reports vs live? That sounds very odd in the revit world. Kinda like keynotes not updating properly?

It's actually a combination of a report and a schedule....it's a little wacky how they have it...but I uploaded a few images to show you what we're talking about....first off you can edit the circuits, if need be....change the description name, balance the loads, even select which circuit you want the element to be on..(see move up, right, left, and right....) all of which is good. The second image is the "report", the third finally is what we see when we try and drag that report onto the sheet......as you can see, the panel is huge.

[mjdanowski]

It's actually a combination of a report and a schedule....it's a little wacky how they have it...but I uploaded a few images to show you what we're talking about....first off you can edit the circuits, if need be....change the description name, balance the loads, even select which circuit you want the element to be on..(see move up, right, left, and right....) all of which is good. The second image is the "report", the third finally is what we see when we try and drag that report onto the sheet......as you can see, the panel is huge.


Not to mention, that on the 3rd picture, half the information in the header and footer is not needed/wanted.

I think that since the panel schedules would be a totally unique and different kind of schedule, that development of it has been put on the side burner so more important things could be developed. (much like so many other things) One step at a time I guess.

[sjsl]

It's nice to know that Autodesk saddled you guzs with ****** schedules/reports that don't update, since we architects got stuck with a ****** site tool that can't do much either and is a royal pain in time to use for anything other thamn a flat site w/o roads or parking areas. Wait isn't that what we need most?

[darin.marsden]

Let me add my own thoughts into this. We are an electrical contractor and one thing I say about Revit is, man it sure looks pretty. From an engineering standpoint I can balance my loads, tell the lighting level, add circuits, add to circuits, print panel schedules (sorry reports), etc.... on and on.

However we approach the drawings a little differently and that is to ease the installation of the electricians, we color code fixtures, conduits, devices per the scope of the particular jobs. Which means we want our backgrounds shaded away, etc.... There is so much missing from this package concerning flexibility to allow for any work other than standard engineering.

Again the program looks real pretty from an architectural standpoint, sure the circuits have tickmarks, there's a tag here & a tag there, however in the world of installation, it's not happening like that. How about the home runs that run down the hall of a hospital? Yup, not shown & guess what? No conduits, cabletray, raceway, etc..... How do I differentiate on a drawing the items on an emergency, general, or critical panel so that even a first day helper could lend a hand.

We are being forced to adapt to a piece of software in the name of BIM that does not consider installation, rather design. This looks to me just like ABS was in it's early stages, pretty but not real world installation usable. It's light years ahead of where it was and is a more usable product. We are excited on the possibilities and code work built in based off of the NEC, but are frustrated at the lack of families and pure content not provided.

I like a good look at conventional thinking of "because we did it yesterday does not mean it's the best way to do it today". This is the sole reason that we (as well as many of other posters) changed what Autodesk gave them as "standard symbols" and started to create our own content, blocks, schedules, titleblocks, pen settings, etc.... We aren't afraid to change, we just want to change the unusable into the usable. I believe the changes need to come twofold, Autodesk needs to make the product flexible, and we need to look at the changes in the world of software and embrace some changes for the good and speak up against the not quite as good. (just trying to end PC there).

Thanks all,

Darin

[Martin Figlarz]

This is all about MEP and how it will work in the future not just right now. It is a working progress is it not; to take something and call it a finished product is just not right.
I am pretty sure Autodesk wants to hear this stuff. We shouldn’t sugar coat anything, if people are having problems let’s put them out there. As a Revit Manager we are having problems to, standardizing something that knows nothing of our own standards and is single minded in some cases it hard to push. By laying everything out on the table we are going to open a lot of new door for the future releases. Like someone said, maybe Autodesk will change their ways and just do updates and not wait for a year later to fix something that can be patch with a 5mb file.
Yes, change is good but it can also kill projects and client relations. We are trying to push Revit as a company but some clients are not hearing it and don’t care about what the other guys is doing. They have standards and we need to meet them or else we don’t get the job. So customization is a must and is something Autodesk needs to understand.
One last note; if you plan of working in an industry that needs every discipline to work together and talk to each other your software must be flexible. People want to see a model that works in every sense from windows/doors to the equipment that is filling that room from floor to ceiling.

[RobertB]

...
One last note; if you plan of working in an industry that needs every discipline to work together and talk to each other your software must be flexible. People want to see a model that works in every sense from windows/doors to the equipment that is filling that room from floor to ceiling.Personally I would qualify that statement. I'm convinced that it would not be appropriate to model Romex from one receptacle to the next, for instance. Or all that 1/2 conduit for comm circuits. <shiver>

[kyle.bernhardt]

(Might be useful to re-read the thread if you're going through this and want to understand context)

Wow. You guys don't have strong feelings about this stuff now do you??? :)

I've been tyring to hold out on this discussion and see where it goes, but I wanted to weigh in on a couple of things here. Before I do though, I wanted to let you all know that this is a great discussion, and we on the product team value you guys putting your opinions out here. Even if you're a little rough on us, or just plain angry, as long as your justifying why you feel that way, it is useful for us, although not always a pleasant read (we work very hard and like everyone have feelings). I don't think we'll ever make everybody happy, and we don't try, but these discussions do help to shape the direction we choose to take.

As Steve mentioned earlier, we go out and talk to customers a lot to gather requirements and validate design decisions. We certainly don't make decisions in a vacuum and think that the community will just learn to accept them. I too was once a vocal critical of Autodesk on discussion forums (ABS 2005), and got all hot and bothered that we didn't get more improvements faster. Now that I've been absorbed the Autodesk Amoeba, I can tell you, it's not because of lack or effort or "not getting it". There's so much more to adding functionality than just writing code, that it just doesn't work that way. I could write a whole post on why that is, but trust me, we try to get as much done as fast as possible, there's nothing more we'd rather do that provide you all with every bit of functionality you need....yesterday.

Now, to address a couple of concepts and points that have been tossed around in this thread.

Panel Schedules - This isn't the first thread to beat us up over panel schedules, we know this is an area for improvement. That being said, we do a lot of things here that nobody else does. The structure of a Panel Schedule is completely different than the way that panels work in Revit. Rather than re-engineer the Revit Platform scheduling functionality to support this one application, we chose to generate the report you see today. As for formatting, we get it...You all need to be able to control the size, font, column widths, etc. at the very least. As for the structure, creating a framework that allows for the user to define the exact structure is a daunting task of UI and backend programming. Not insurmountable, but not something we're tackling for the near future.

Now to the fun stuff.


Start small with the basic fundamentals with a drafting tool which is fully customizable, and then move on to the more advanced BIM stuff.Let's think about this for a second. What's drafting? It's drawing a pretty picture of something. Autodesk has a pretty darn good program for drawing pictures, it's called AutoCAD and has been maturing for 20 years. If you want to draw pictures specific to MEP, then AutoCAD MEP is your package. It leverages much of the benefits of the AutoCAD platform. As a former support tech handling AutoCAD MEP, it's incredibly capable, you just have to understand its quirks.

Drawing a better picture and being a better AutoCAD is not what we are trying to do with Revit MEP. I need to be blunt here. Revit started out over 10 years ago as a program to produce a model of a building, and from that model a user can generate views, which can be placed on sheets which can be used to replace the drawings that are generated from a drafting process. Without an accurate model of a building, and the services that make it hum, much of the benefits of the whole BIM concept fall apart very quickly. This is job one for us, as we can do all kinds of things with a good model, and is the cornerstone of the BIM concept.

This is not to say that the views that are generated from the model are not important to us. Views need to visually represent the the model in a way that conveys the designed intent, both through graphical representations of elements (ducts, pipe, light fixtures, etc) and documentation of the data that exists in the model (tags, schedules, callouts, section lines, etc). If we cannot convey design intent in a view, be it graphics or documentation, then this is something that we most certainly do care about, and will work to implement. If the problem is that a particular graphical representation does not match a desired appearance, yet still conveys design intent in that view and on a sheet, then this is less of a concern.

We recognize that there are different ways to represent things; if there are a number of generally accepted ways to represent that, and it won't kill us to provide some variety, then we will give the user choice. We just might not give you the ability to customize the choices. Our Rise/Drop symbols or Flex Duct graphics are a good example of that. Our task is to provide the functionality to complete the BIM puzzle as fast as possible, and at times we cannot get bogged down with designing, developing, testing, and documenting the full cusomization of every aspect of a traditional Construction Document, as long as we are sufficiently conveying designed intent.

Our goal is that customers will be able to sufficiently convey their design intent in an environment where; documentation stays coordinated, the model can be analyzed, the model can be visualized, quantities are readily available, and information flows accross disciplines. If you are not looking to use Revit for those reasons, but are just focusing on the documentation, then you're not using it for the right reasons. The inherent advantage of the platform is not just drawing a pretty picture. Why buy a Swiss Army knife if all you need is the blade?


So ultimately my point is that development into fundamental issues (like making it a better drafting tool) will go a lot farther then analysis tools.We are splitting our focus here, and will continue to do so. One of the revolutionary byproducts of the BIM approach to MEP design is the availability of an accurate, data-rich model. That data-rich model can then be leveraged to carry out all kinds of useful analysis that is already required during the design process. We see this as an enormous opportunity for the platform that adds significantly to its value proposition, and will continue to develop these capabilities. If a firm is so rigid in their practices that they will not adopt an inherently more productive approach, then somebody else will do it and they will get left behind. How many companies are still drafting on Mylar these days?

That is not to say that out analysis tools are the best ever, we know they need to better in some places, or we need to add entire new functionality in other places. This includes supporting multiple existing standards as well as providing more flexibility in the analysis inputs. If you need to get carry out an analysis on data that lives in the model, and we don't give you that ability, you need to tell us. That is part of why we have a Wishes forum.

Whew, that was fun! I hope this puts into context some of the things that have been discussed on this thread, and provides a clear perspective straight from the Product Team.

Cheers,
Kyle B

[Joef]

I have just one question: Why is there no one entering into similar dialog about issues relating to Revit Architecture? These discussions are worthwhile but Revit Architecture seems to have no one interested or capable of discussing the product from Autodesks end.

[Steve_Stafford]

I have just one question: Why is there no one entering into similar dialog about issues relating to Revit Architecture? These discussions are worthwhile but Revit Architecture seems to have no one interested or capable of discussing the product from Autodesks end.My opinions... (realize this is hijacking the thread)

The RA product manager recently changed jobs and a new person is either just getting started on the role or they are still looking for her replacement.

They are under no obligation to do so. Clever and resourceful that they do reply and read the threads in our forums from time to time, but they have a lot on their plate already. Kyle probably put over an hour into his reply because he has to be careful what he says and to frame his reply exactly the way he wanted to. One hour out of his already very busy day, most likely at home neglecting his family, cat/dog or other personal stuff.

I don't think that anything they read in our forums right now are really a surprise, do you? There are long standing issues and relatively recent ones but no completely brand new things that demand discussion right now. It is much different for Kyle because this version is so young and there are many, perhaps slightly more ambiguous, demands and issues to resolve.

I sure hope that all of Revit's development team find value reading and/or replying to this community's posts. One way to ensure that is to avoid getting emotional or angry about things and focus on what you want and describe it well. If that happens they don't really need to reply since it is pretty obvious what you want. A majority of our members do this very well already, which sort of explains why there isn't a great deal of response. I'd like more interaction as much as the next Revit user and perhaps it will change...but I seriously doubt you'll get replies in our forum to the various "deep" criticisms that involve upper management decisions at Autodesk.

I think the Revit team has a long standing record of participating in our forum, perhaps quieter in recent months but I think that it indictates just how much pressure they are under to produce and have less "free" time to spend here....enough outta me...oh..and AUGI is all about peer to peer support, user's helping user's...

sorry, one more...Steve Burri (past Revit Support Manager with RTC and Autodesk) was once asked in the forums why he didn't reply as much. He replied that there were so many more really knowledgeable users responding that he just didn't need to...

[mjdanowski]

First off, I just want to say that although a lot of us are coming off as a bit hostile, we are only doing so because we want Revit to succeed, and as I am sure is the case with a lot of things, are getting a bit worked up over things which have caused us a lot of trouble. (exception maybe being Scott Davis because he is a Cowboys fan :) )

In response to Kyle though; I don't think that the majority of the replies here were really meant to say that Revit should be "AutoCAD 2" or something of that sort. I know my replies were mostly meant to itemize presentation issues which simply make Revit a real pain in the *** at the moment, the majority of these issues being small little kinks in the software. (like architectural lineweight elements)
I know I spent hours upon hours trying to set up and fix small presentation issues to make our CDs viable for submission. The focus went from BIM during the beginning of the project to just "getting it done" towards the end. I think a lot of people who are trying out Revit MEP for the first few times will also follow this path. One point I was kind of trying to drive before was that if you want R-MEP to be accepted more quickly, then the best way to go about it is to make the transition less painful and less of a pain with the presentation issues. Because after the presentation issues are taken care of, then you are able to focus on BIM which is the point of the application.
Viable views and presentation are still possible currently, it is just that you spend so much time getting that to work that you start to forget about the BIM features of Revit, defeating the purpose.
Personally (and I am sure this is the case for a lot of people), I would love to never have to draft again and do everything in a model. Unfortunately, at the current point in time it is just something that needs to be done, and to someone just starting with Revit it is the first thing that pops out as an extreme negative to the program. When I argue for drafting issues here, I am not doing so because I want to draft more, I am doing so because I don't want to draft at all (and I want the program to take care of it).

Anyway, I appreciate your responses and I definitely see where you are coming from. I am also sure that in future releases these dinky little presentation issues will be fixed. I have always said that the three major presentation issues within Revit were a) Panel Schedules b) detail lineweight as arch element and c) non-customizable halftone color, and I believe you mentioned that b) is being fixed in next release so we are slowly getting there. :)

[kyle.bernhardt]

the three major presentation issues within Revit were a) Panel Schedules b) detail lineweight as arch element and c) non-customizable halftone color, and I believe you mentioned that b) is being fixed in next release so we are slowly getting there. :)We know about all of these, but I never said that it was definitely being fixed. I can never make any gaurantees, I can only just say that "we're working on it". I don't want to get myself into trouble here. :mrgreen:

But as for the presentation issues, I agree with you on that one. There are defintely some things, many of which you highlighted, which are really annoying and we should be fixing. As I said earlier, I can only say that we are aware of them and working to resolve them, no firm date of actual release....

Kyle B

[JoelLondenberg]

I think that for me what drives the frustration is the contrast between how beautiful and functional so many of the features are, and then some seemingly small thing throws me to the ground. Like hitting a pebble while riding a skateboard.

I had a small pause between dead lines and so I put a concerted effort in to Revitizing some standard details. Then the little pebble of referencing them ate a whole day. We can have a section that references a drafting view. That is really, really cool. Details can be re-numbered or shifted from sheet to sheet and always stay coordinated with the plan callout.

But the standard detail drafting views we use are mostly not really sections. I could use a callout the same way, that is not really what I want either. What I want is a bubble and a leader so that when you look at the detail you are not confused by expecting specifically a section or enlarged plan view. Seems small and easy, but is just not allowed. Also the callout/section bubble is completely un-editable, so I have one font used throughout the rest of my sheets but the sections/details/callouts are different.

For day to day work flowing out the door, our product is sheets. No matter what tool we start with, for the foreseeable future, our product is still going to be sheets. So as we work very hard to implement this new and promising tool, we always have to keep our focus toward sheets moving out the door. That is why we all keep pounding on the presentation issues.

Kyle, I do really appreciate the work you and the rest of the dev team are putting in to the tool we use. Keep up the good work 'cause we have lots more for you to do . . . :)

[Joef]

Thanks for the reply Steve,
You are correct that Revit Systems is a younger product and there was probably more hands on from Adesk when Revit was that age. What is strange is that we don't even know who the Revit Architectural Product manager is or if there is one. A low profile is one thing invisibility something else. A little communication once in a while is always welcome. You don't have to write essays, just drop in and say hello.

[Steve_Stafford]

...What is strange is that we don't even know who the Revit Architectural Product manager is or if there is one...Well maybe Autodesk doesn't know yet either? Still interviewing perhaps...interested in the job? If it is resolved I'm sure that the last thing on my mind, if I were wearing those shoes, would be this forum. I'd be trying very hard to get my head and hands wrapped around the job...and then I'd make some time to visit.

[buhrito]

I'm trying my best to get myself acclimated to the Revit world and so, I'm spending a lot of time looking at forums like this to find info, tricks, and tips. I see that the last post in this particular thread was over a year ago. Yet, here I am, working with Revit MEP 2009 and I'm having many of the same issues that were mentioned here. I'm not some old school drafter stuck in his ways. I'm 30 and consider myself to be pretty open to learning new technology. BIM and solid modeling were the things I LOVED about CAD in general and it's what eventually led me into the career I'm in. What I don't get, is why the drafting side is just not being developed. It seems like that would be the EASY part. Ya know? It's an Autodesk product so, why not make it so you can do all that "simple" stuff just like you can in AutoCAD. I'm working on this project in Revit and it looks like I might be able to do the ventilation in Revit but, I don't see any way that I'm going to be able to make the piping look descent. And, even with the ventilation, I won't be able to make the views look as nice as I could with AutoCAD because there are no options for clipping the "viewports" (that is, they can only be a rectangle, unless I'm totally missing something".

Anyway, I really love the idea of BIM and I like that Revit is working towards more "automated design" and all that but, like several others have mentioned, it's still all about sending out a document that looks nice. I just think that the changes that would be necessary to do so, would be the easiest changes to make to the program.

[schrodingerscat]

More emphasis on drafting would be a nice addition. We shouldn't really need to make the choice between drafting and modelling.

I agree with the definition of drafting. When people ask me what I do, I say I work for an engineering consultancy company, and when most of them look at me blankly I say I draw pretty pictures for constructions.

The end product that 99% of our clients want is a pretty picture they can build off. If we gave them a perfectly working system model and said "go build" they'd throw the heaviest objects they can find at us, and the excuse that it's BIM doesn't stop them.

At the moment I'd say RMEP is a program that can produce 90% correct models, and 40% correct pretty pictures (for our needs anyway).

[Beancud]

More emphasis on drafting would be a nice addition. We shouldn't really need to make the choice between drafting and modelling.

I agree with the definition of drafting. When people ask me what I do, I say I work for an engineering consultancy company, and when most of them look at me blankly I say I draw pretty pictures for constructions.

The end product that 99% of our clients want is a pretty picture they can build off. If we gave them a perfectly working system model and said "go build" they'd throw the heaviest objects they can find at us, and the excuse that it's BIM doesn't stop them.

At the moment I'd say RMEP is a program that can produce 90% correct models, and 40% correct pretty pictures (for our needs anyway).


I'm not sure if this is relating your topic but have you had situation that client (working with architect) requested the revit model?

I know that consultants these days sometime sell their energy model or other calc model to clients as part of the package... would Revit become something like this?

You can look at bound dwg format that people issue. We were asked to deliver our RMEP model but we refused, afraid they will rip all our content and use it for their own.

[schrodingerscat]

Couldn't you export to DWF? The all they can do is view the model and it's information.

We've never had a client ask for our model, but we're currently working on our first project that actually has a client and isn't just an exercise to learn to use Revit.

[cwade]

I have to agree that there needs to be a lot more emphasis on drafting and being able to use industry standard symbology (which varies according to where you are at, even different parts of the U.S. have different standards)

Again, I have to reiterate one of the previous posters:
At the end of the day we have to have useable drawings.

Please note that by useable I mean drawings that we can get through Plan Check with and that the contractor can build with.

We are currently working on a Revit Project and I keep hitting road blocks to the things that we normally do, but I have found ways around most of them, we will see once this project is completed what other issues we have run into.

[DuckMan]

Autodesk did try to build a BIM solution on top of AutoCAD. It was called ABS (now AutoCAD MEP), and it is absolutely horrible from a BIM standpoint. Don't get me wrong, it is a great DRAFTING tool.



I guess that would depend on Bill Clinton's definition of "great". I find it quite irritating even as a drafting tool

[JoelLondenberg]

...We are currently working on a Revit Project and I keep hitting road blocks to the things that we normally do...

For us the answer has been to not get as hung up on what "we normally do" and instead ask the question "What does it need to show to be constructed, to convey the design?"

Our office's ACAD plans look almost the same as our RMEP plans. We have just made sure that if, for instance, the duct riser symbol is different between the two software platforms, each legend accurately shows what the symbols mean. The flex duct looks different but it still looks like flex duct, so it still conveys the intent.

[tys90]

I was discussion our upcoming change to Revit MEP and I stated that our standards, or common legend, was going to be different than documents created in Autocad. A comment was made that the standards need to be kept across the company and we can't have them changing all the time. I disagreed and argued that as long as the everything is consistent within the same project you could even vary your legend from project to project as long as you remain consistent within the project. If you do multiple projects for the same client you would want to try to stay consistent to earlier work if it was done in Revit. That makes sense to me until you can establish how you want to portray your design in Revit but a lot of people seem worried about it looking how it does using Autocad and previous work we've done.

[schrodingerscat]

My main concern is the legend. I had a look at legends in RMEP and I hated it, but because I wanted to be able to do a whole project in RMEP without ACAD sheets I decided to try and get our electrical legend done in RMEP anyway. What I found is that it is IMPOSSIBLE (not an exaggeration) for us to do an electrical legend that we could issue to a client in RMEP.

Tried inserting all the used families and it would either show the symbol on the side or upside down and not let me rotate it, or it would show the model view as opposed to the plan-symbol view which doesn't help when the client will never use the legend against that view.

In the end I did the legend, details sheet, and single line diagram all in ACAD because the drafting side of Revit is just not developed enough to let us do what we NEED to do.

[dmb.100468]

IMPOSSIBLE is a pretty big word.
I have built legends using text and annotation symbols, pretty much the same way it is done in AutoCAD.

The drafting tools in Revit are there. They don't work the same way as the tools in Acad, but then..........this isn't Acad. I'm not disputing that it is difficult, but I think it has more to do with it being different than being "possible".

[mhartmann]

i've come up with a fairly descent looking symbol list. i made a separate project, it consisted of several long skinny rooms with a ceiling, at 1/8". they will be my columns of symbols eventually. then i just inserted all of my receptacle types and fire alarm symbols, etc. along the wall. putting ceiling devices on the ceiling, then scooting them, like say the smoke detector to where it's quadrant (sorry for acad term) is touching the wall. after i got all of my symbols in there, i hid the walls and ceilings, so i only had the columns of symbols. i then exported it to autocad and brought it in to my project on a coordination drafting detail view. i typed columns of text next to the symbols, then lined up the symbols with the text. i had to make it a separate project so it wouldn't mess up my quantity take offs (would add one of everything). i had to export to acad because i had trouble bringing the revit file straight in to my project, i couldn't put that view directly on a sheet or something, i'm not exactly sure what didn't work. i can't wait for legend views to work for mep like they do for architecture. in theory, we should be able to put together a symbol list (or have it generated for us) in a legend that wouldn't get counted in a device take-off.

[schrodingerscat]

IMPOSSIBLE is a pretty big word.
I have built legends using text and annotation symbols, pretty much the same way it is done in AutoCAD.

The drafting tools in Revit are there. They don't work the same way as the tools in Acad, but then..........this isn't Acad. I'm not disputing that it is difficult, but I think it has more to do with it being different than being "possible".

I'm not exaggerating, we need our symbols to show how they show in plan view, the legend view wouldn't let me insert them that way. Not a clue why. The PDF above is fairly close to what I mean, but there are things on there that you probably don't care about such as the orientation of some of those symbols. When inserting an exit sign, we don't want it to show up on the side. You can't rotate it. See attached. Outlets are the same, they show the wrong way AND they show the incorrect symbol.

[JoelLondenberg]

...When inserting an exit sign, we don't want it to show up on the side...

Your exit sign reminds me of Portal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLaDOS). What a great game.

As for our legends, they are a "drafting" view in Revit. Some of the families might work in a "legend" view as the Factory intended, many don't. Face based components, for instance, aren't handled properly.

In the drafting view you can insert symbols draw bits with drafting lines and add any text you like. Works just like AutoCAD.

The nice looking attachment is a "drafting" view, the ugly one is a real "legend" view. The red circle shows a nice face based receptacle that doesn't hide the 3D because you can't orient it on a face inside the "legend". The "legend" view is good at showing 3D stuff, like our foosball player, but mostly doesn't fit the rest of our needs.

[Ian Matthews]

i've come up with a fairly descent looking symbol list. i made a separate project, it consisted of several long skinny rooms with a ceiling, at 1/8" etc etc

Not blowing smoke here, but wouldn't this be quicker to draw in Autocad and import it into Revit? I reckon I could put the legend together that Mhart showed in about an hour and a half. Could it be done that quickly in Revit?

[schrodingerscat]

The nice looking attachment is a "drafting" view, the ugly one is a real "legend" view. The red circle shows a nice face based receptacle that doesn't hide the 3D because you can't orient it on a face inside the "legend". The "legend" view is good at showing 3D stuff, like our foosball player, but mostly doesn't fit the rest of our needs.

So as I said: not exaggerating when I say impossible.

I'll try a drafting view.

BTW, it should remind you of what it is, not Portal. Lol. See attached. I can't get Portal, my Steam has been set to offline for 4 months now. I should really get the Internet.

[jbaumann]

Not blowing smoke here, but wouldn't this be quicker to draw in Autocad and import it into Revit? I reckon I could put the legend together that Mhart showed in about an hour and a half. Could it be done that quickly in Revit?

Once familiar with the Revit drafting tools, it certainly could be done that quickly. The drafting view also gives you the option of inserting the 2d annotation symbols that work along with your 3d families. So if you have spent some time developing your firm's content, a majority of the symbols should be available to add to the "drafting view legend".

Basically, if you have to start from scratch for a new detail, legend, etc., then I say use the Revit drafting tools. Otherwise, importing from CAD is an option to save creation time but there is usually a lot of adjusting once imported (text/leaders, getting filled regions just right, changing detail lines to the appropriate line style for weight and linetype).

[schrodingerscat]

Just had a look and you can insert symbols into legends as well as drafting views. All the "legend" tools that are available in drafting view are available in legend view, except that you can insert more than symbols in legend views.

I was after a way to insert my families into a view and be able to edit the appearance eg. rotate symbol, not see the 3D part of it, insert without wall, etc.

[sjsl]

"I do not know about you but I am tried of being asked/forced to accept an inadequate product for the sake of it being new the new flavor of the month or "just let it happen" attitude. Time is money to us and "letting it happen" will cost us time and a lot of money in the long run. I agree that AutoDesk product updates/improvements are way to slow. I'll likely be dead and buried before Revit lives up to it advertising."

And you probalby said the same thing about cad.

[Michael.c]

[QUOTE=mfiglarz;733735]"I do not know about you but I am tried of being asked/forced to accept an inadequate product for the sake of it being new the new flavor of the month or "just let it happen" attitude. Time is money to us and "letting it happen" will cost us time and a lot of money in the long run. I agree that AutoDesk product updates/improvements are way to slow. I'll likely be dead and buried before Revit lives up to it advertising."


er.....as Meatloaf said: "you took the words right outa my mouth"

[oshalygin]

I'd be inclined to rethink the set. Why do panel schedules need to go on a 30x42 sheet? What if each schedule was printed on its own 8.5x11 and made part of the project manual, or maybe they are bound into a "Schedule book". (I'm just thinking out loud here.) Its much cheaper to reproduce 8.5x11 than it is 30x42.

Just because we have done something the same way for 20 years does not make it the right way to do things today. Everything is changing and evolving around us. Technology is changing, and IMO we are not that far away from abandoning the "roll of paper construction drawings" in favor of delivering the model in electronic format.

Believe me, I understand what you all are saying (except that I've never seen an RFI about "too many sheets" :-) ) but we must all start to think differently about this process. Architecture/engineering is so incredibly far behind any other "similar" process. Why? Because we can't get away from the idea that we must continue to do things like we did them 20 years ago.

i've never seen an RFI for too many sheets, but i have heard, "WTF we have 10 sheets?"

...:D

[oshalygin]

We took the approach of doing panel schedules on 8.5x11's and including it in our delivered spec's and that was shot down quicker than you can imagine.

We were told our company does panel schedules on drawings for a reason and we will not go back to putting them on 8.5x11's...they are and will be a part of the drawing set...PERIOD.

I agree...someday we will deliver an electronic copy of the model to the owner/contractor. But not anytime in the near future. So until that happens...paper = $$$.

true story, also 8.5x11's dont have any PE stamps and dont really come off as a real document, just extra paper. Everyone on the drawing has a stamp and approval. I think thats the reason of putting schedules on the sheet?

[oshalygin]

Hi Scott,
I guess the way that we can answer that, is that our firm has spent years trying to "standardize" the engineering group (which isn't too easy given that we have 5 engineering offices and 2 overseas) The standard is rigid for that reason, there's just too many of us for us to do our own thing...who makes the decision...the one's that sign our paycheck and have been in the business for 20-30 years (or more) and are worried about the bottom line...
the thing is just that....it's a HUGE change. yes, we deviate from our standards here and there, but this kind of change, has to be forthfront...open and honest.
It's gonna suck for the first few projects (they even said that at AU, maybe not as candidly as I did, but nonetheless :) until you can get to that 'creamy middle' stage....

One thing that one has to keep in check is that revit requires you to think outside the box, and differently....not altogether a bad thing, but it challenges those who typically haven't seen the need to be challenged. Engineers are a far different breed than architects. The idea is you have to also keep in your mind...who does this best suit....
Office culture and age plays a huge deal in whether or not to deploy Revit.

Like Matt said, Revit is an acquired taste...it's not for everyone.

Yes, there are many many quirks, some we can work out, some we can't...but we're giving our feedback, suggestions, rants and raves to Kyle and Company...and we're helping design a product that will suit OUR needs.

Even though, it's tough right now...grrrrr. :)

-Diane

i can tell you from my company(since im by far the youngest guy here), people are not really keen on wanting to know Revit with statements like, "yea they said that previous autodesk products are going to be the future, and we still use CAD".

At first I really disliked Revit, but now that i can kinda do something in it, i really prefer it over CAD. CAD just sucks ***...and im fast at CAD. Im a quick learner and I have to say I've learned quit a bit just working @ this company for a short time.

With that said

nothing beats CONTAMW, Heavent(by Industrial Design)...those two programs are retardedly developed, I hate both of them with a passion, so when I started learning Revit, once you kinda get it...you can struggle through it and get the job done :D\

but

Revit
------
older guys = do not want
young guys = do want

>.>

[oshalygin]

A few months ago, I had an hour long phone conversation with one of the Autodesk's AEC Product Managers about pretty much the same thing.

Since your barely using the analysis portion, can I assume you are using other analysis/calculations software, and you just want to model the data, to get the 2D documentation?
This is pretty much what we want to do. Get the data from our structural and mechanical engineers, so we can then model it as part of our final documentation. I explained to the product manager that we need the modeling and documentation tools from MEP and Structure built directly into Architecture, but it seemed to go straight over his head. He was too focused on explaining the benefits of the analysis portion to me (which I fully understand and can appreciate) but is not what we require in our multi-disciplinary user environment.

But still, in a single-disciplinary environment such as an engineering company, Autodesk seem to be too focused on the analysis/data side. Producing reasonable drafted CD's from the model should be the main focus first, and then go back to adding the data to the model components. Autodesk needs to entice new users with the ability to "draft" their documentation like they do in AutoCAD by way of the modeling tools, and then encourage them to use the analysis and data it provides second.

i agree with this guy, i dont care about calculations/etc...I want it as a drafting tool first, calculations LAST.

We already have a ton of other programs we HAVE to use to get our plans approved. EnergyPro comes to mind >.>

[Beancud]

i can tell you from my company(since im by far the youngest guy here), people are not really keen on wanting to know Revit with statements like, "yea they said that previous autodesk products are going to be the future, and we still use CAD".

At first I really disliked Revit, but now that i can kinda do something in it, i really prefer it over CAD. CAD just sucks ***...and im fast at CAD. Im a quick learner and I have to say I've learned quit a bit just working @ this company for a short time.

With that said

nothing beats CONTAMW, Heavent(by Industrial Design)...those two programs are retardedly developed, I hate both of them with a passion, so when I started learning Revit, once you kinda get it...you can struggle through it and get the job done :D\

but

Revit
------
older guys = do not want
young guys = do want

>.>

This is already discussed before, you will find it here:

http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=84092&highlight=New+generation

If you are worried about those older guys, let them be - in few years time they will be jobless.

[Chad Smith]

older guys = do not want
young guys = do want
You could also adapt this to the following;

Older users = Very experienced in one discipline
Young users = Fairly experienced in one discipline and basic experience in other discplines. Or, moderately experienced in a lot of disciplines.

From my own experiences, the older generation is moving out of the industry, and the newer generation is moving in, and they are taking more overall control/ownership of projects then ever before.
This is not to say that there aren't segments of the younger generation focusing in on just one discipline. But the rest are hungry for more info (via the Older experienced users, higher education, etc.), which means they have a higher skill level to do more than being confined by the parameters of the software.

Autodesk is advancing Revit. But when a user is confined by restrictions of the software placed on it by the developer, it really is one step forward, two steps back.

[Beancud]

You could also adapt this to the following;

Autodesk is advancing Revit. But when a user is confined by restrictions of the software placed on it by the developer, it really is one step forward, two steps back.

There will always be a restriction on any program, some people stop and give up if they can't, some excel and find solution through creativity and initiative.

[Chad Smith]

True, but there is a difference between restrictions that are due to the lack of advancement in technology/software, and restrictions which have been strategically implemented by the developer.

It's also true that some users excel to find a creative solution which takes then one step further forward indesign than other users. But, at the same time, that creative solution probably took them twice as long to do than using a tool which has been restricted from their use (two steps back).
Software like Revit should be used to help aid in the production of our work as efficiently as possible, not to get us 80% of the way and then make us jump through hoops to get the final 20% done. It shouldn't have to be this way.

[oshalygin]

You could also adapt this to the following;

Older users = Very experienced in one discipline
Young users = Fairly experienced in one discipline and basic experience in other discplines. Or, moderately experienced in a lot of disciplines.

From my own experiences, the older generation is moving out of the industry, and the newer generation is moving in, and they are taking more overall control/ownership of projects then ever before.
This is not to say that there aren't segments of the younger generation focusing in on just one discipline. But the rest are hungry for more info (via the Older experienced users, higher education, etc.), which means they have a higher skill level to do more than being confined by the parameters of the software.

Autodesk is advancing Revit. But when a user is confined by restrictions of the software placed on it by the developer, it really is one step forward, two steps back.


my feeling is that older guys are afraid of techology...my brothers father in law for example, didnt grow up with computers and doesnt want to learn to use one.

We had a guy in our office that grew up drafting by hand, did he know CAD? no...he didnt want to learn.

Even the older people here who know how to use CAD, they stick to the tools they know how to use and cant do much outside that...and if you want them to learn Revit, forget it.

Older generation thats been using CAD for 10+ years is going to have one hell of a time learning something new.

If you're 40+, learning something new like Revit = end.

I really hope revit takes off to the whole industry but i dont think so, too many older guys too stuborn to change a wayt hey've been doing for awhile.

[oshalygin]

There will always be a restriction on any program, some people stop and give up if they can't, some excel and find solution through creativity and initiative.

to develop every little thing that everyone can possibly think of is impossible, the peopel that think its possible are in dreamland.

[oshalygin]

This is the first time I've ventured into the MEP forum. I'm an Architect who's used Revit since Release 1. At the time I was working with a Design Build MEP firm on a project and the Principal saw what I was doing with revit and asked if he could use it for MEP. I said, its probably not quite ready(this was Release 2.? We were doing our 1st CD set. I thought the detailing and drawing coordination alone would make his life easier. So I'm extremely surprised that at release 10 of arch, that the current release of MEP isn't usable. which I believe it isn't. I've been actively seeking MEP firms using revit, because we do and I can't find any willing to do a very large project in Revit.

My feeling is that I could help the MEP guys understand how to "do" drawings the revit way. Assuming it has the filled region command and detail components you should be able to recreate any set of drawings you've done in the past. Basically when first learning revit, you model the big picture, then draft over the model hiding what you couldn't figure out how to model. I can't understand why schedules in MEP don't work the same as they do in Arch. Any insight Scott D.?? As for symbols, 2d families of the right category should suffice to get drawings out and schedules done. BIM is currently a goal, not reality. Don't force your firm to fully BIM your projects with Revit. Use it for what its good at,

Anyway, back to our consultant who wanted to use revit way back when. When he learned he would see our changes instantly, he wanted no part of revit anymore. What engineer would want to chase an Architect around his model? None. So for the immediate future, Revit should help you get your 2d delieverables out the door with the added benefit to the Arch and Struct of being able to link your 3d geometry into our models for coordination purposes.

I'll keep reading to see how it goes. Good luck.

no ****, the architect will change one thing which they consider "minor" and then we have to spend hours and hours redoing our design...then with this "coordination" the architect will just say "well its updated, you could of seen it"

DO NOT WANT :p

[Tyveka]

Actually, we have a couple of people here in our office that are within a year or two of retirement and they are some of our most excited users of Revit. And they are pretty good with it too. So the blanket statement that people after 40, Revit=end is just way off base. They wanted what Revit can do now, 20 years ago...
Maybe it's just the mindset of the individual users.

[mjdanowski]

my feeling is that older guys are afraid of techology...my brothers father in law for example, didnt grow up with computers and doesnt want to learn to use one.

We had a guy in our office that grew up drafting by hand, did he know CAD? no...he didnt want to learn.

Even the older people here who know how to use CAD, they stick to the tools they know how to use and cant do much outside that...and if you want them to learn Revit, forget it.

Older generation thats been using CAD for 10+ years is going to have one hell of a time learning something new.

If you're 40+, learning something new like Revit = end.

I really hope revit takes off to the whole industry but i dont think so, too many older guys too stuborn to change a wayt hey've been doing for awhile.

The older generator deals more with the business end of the industry.

Our business at the end of the day is reliant on paper construction documents delivered to the client. As long as Revit refuses to appease QA staff and firm principles in the area of viable documentation, then it will never take off as an "industry standard".

I still stand by my viewpoint that Revit is still a substandard analysis tool (compared to other industry standard programs) which takes a relatively large amount of time to produce our deliverables.

In addition, if I didn't have to spend hours upon hours on little nitpicky drafting standards, I might actually be able to use the analysis tools more in depth. Right now, we generally try to use the analysis tools up until 50% DD, at which point all of our time is devoted to making things look correctly. The analysis goes out the window from that point forward (at least for mechanical).

[oshalygin]

The older generator deals more with the business end of the industry.

Our business at the end of the day is reliant on paper construction documents delivered to the client. As long as Revit refuses to appease QA staff and firm principles in the area of viable documentation, then it will never take off as an "industry standard".

I still stand by my viewpoint that Revit is still a substandard analysis tool (compared to other industry standard programs) which takes a relatively large amount of time to produce our deliverables.

In addition, if I didn't have to spend hours upon hours on little nitpicky drafting standards, I might actually be able to use the analysis tools more in depth. Right now, we generally try to use the analysis tools up until 50% DD, at which point all of our time is devoted to making things look correctly. The analysis goes out the window from that point forward (at least for mechanical).

well i can tell you this, my bosses sure as hell not going to trust Revits analysis tools...they'll just tell me to use EnergyPro or Trace or whatever the hell else we use for load/energy calcs.

That and building department is going to want to see the energy calcs through EnergyPro..not some new program Autodesk created.

I still think this is one hell of a drafting tool, just need to keep tweaking it to make it better and better..

still its like my parents, do you think they know how to use bit torrents, program or anything else associated with a computer that isnt the run of the mill of checking email or news?? No, the older generation does not want to learn new tricks(fact).

But yes I agree, the older generation in this business is more geared toward the business part and not analysis/drafting. But I was speaking specifically in regards to older drafters/engineers/designers...

[oshalygin]

Actually, we have a couple of people here in our office that are within a year or two of retirement and they are some of our most excited users of Revit. And they are pretty good with it too. So the blanket statement that people after 40, Revit=end is just way off base. They wanted what Revit can do now, 20 years ago...
Maybe it's just the mindset of the individual users.

Well I was speaking generally, didnt know I had to add that disclaimer :p...

[Beancud]

It's also true that some users excel to find a creative solution which takes then one step further forward indesign than other users. But, at the same time, that creative solution probably took them twice as long to do than using a tool which has been restricted from their use (two steps back).
Software like Revit should be used to help aid in the production of our work as efficiently as possible, not to get us 80% of the way and then make us jump through hoops to get the final 20% done. It shouldn't have to be this way.


Its always a struggle at the start with any programs. Again - this has been mentioned here before, give Revit time to grow and you need to grow with Revit, expecting a perfect software out of a package is naive. Just look at Autocad, Microsation and even ArchiCAD? just how many version did it go through when it was first released?

I don't see that 80% to be a waste because you end up learning more about the program. Smart motivated people will understand what the difficulties and restrictions are and their knowledge gained for strife and struggle will be valuable after it several versions.

If people do not get in to Revit at this stage they will struggle even more after 10 versions later. People will always come up with excuses not to but never the solution.

[Chad Smith]

expecting a perfect software out of a package is naive.
I might not have been clear in my previous post in regards to the need to jump through hoops for the final 20%. Sure, it would be naive to expect that a software be perfect.

What I was refering to, was needing to spend that last 20% manually doing things that the other verticals already do.

Someone in Architecture shouldn't have to take twice as long to manually model up a Truss, when Structure has a tool specifically for it.
Someone in Structure shouldn't have to take twice as long to manually model up a Ceiling, when Architecture has a tool specifically for it.
And someone in MEP shouldn't have to take twice as long to manually model up a Beam, when Architecture/Structure has a tool specifically for it.It has been stated many times, by many users from each discipline over the years as to why they need these disabled tools, enabled. The simple answer is, so they can complete their work as quickly and efficiently as possible, without the need to rely on other consultants also working in Revit and providing a model (which mind you, plenty of companies are reluctant to do anyway due to the loss of IP and liability).

The choice of which tools to disable, seems like a rather abitrary one too. An Architecture user can model a Beam, but not a Truss. An MEP user can model a Structural Wall, but not a Column or a Beam to hold their plant equipment. Doesn't exactly sound logical :roll:.

And finally, using the Autodesk logic that we shouldn't be modeling that which is not in our discipline, then why do we have the option to be able to model In-place families from other verticals anyway, by checking the 'Show categories from all disciplines' :?: Deep down, it would seem that Autodesk do understand this requirement, but have chosen to make it difficult enough that you might be inclined to purchase more than one vertical of Revit. The battle for reason continues on.

[Beancud]

I might not have been clear in my previous post in regards to the need to jump through hoops for the final 20%. Sure, it would be naive to expect that a software be perfect.

What I was refering to, was needing to spend that last 20% manually doing things that the other verticals already do.

Someone in Architecture shouldn't have to take twice as long to manually model up a Truss, when Structure has a tool specifically for it.
Someone in Structure shouldn't have to take twice as long to manually model up a Ceiling, when Architecture has a tool specifically for it.
And someone in MEP shouldn't have to take twice as long to manually model up a Beam, when Architecture/Structure has a tool specifically for it.It has been stated many times, by many users from each discipline over the years as to why they need these disabled tools, enabled. The simple answer is, so they can complete their work as quickly and efficiently as possible, without the need to rely on other consultants also working in Revit and providing a model (which mind you, plenty of companies are reluctant to do anyway due to the loss of IP and liability).

The choice of which tools to disable, seems like a rather abitrary one too. An Architecture user can model a Beam, but not a Truss. An MEP user can model a Structural Wall, but not a Column or a Beam to hold their plant equipment. Doesn't exactly sound logical :roll:.

And finally, using the Autodesk logic that we shouldn't be modeling that which is not in our discipline, then why do we have the option to be able to model In-place families from other verticals anyway, by checking the 'Show categories from all disciplines' :?: Deep down, it would seem that Autodesk do understand this requirement, but have chosen to make it difficult enough that you might be inclined to purchase more than one vertical of Revit. The battle for reason continues on.


This is a difficult one.... we have a strucutral team and MEP team here, and we dare not cross over each other's path by doing something silly like putting a beam in Revit MEP or toilet in Revit structural. It is very easy for us to coordinate or make changes because MEP/Structural group work closely and sit next to each other.

However this want work for small consultants who only use 1 package. Autodesk has really defined the boundaries of discipline. I don't know how a single discpline firm will cope with Revit... I think you just have to have a good relationship with the other consultant and bring them cake in every meetings.

[Chad Smith]

Autodesk has really defined the boundaries of discipline.
Exactly. That's neither their job, nor concern. It's ours!! :)
If a company such as yours which has all disciplines in the office and you all work together, then it is the companys role to set the boundaries of who models what. And the same goes if working with consultants.

[mjdanowski]

Exactly. That's neither their job, nor concern. It's ours!! :)
If a company such as yours which has all disciplines in the office and you all work together, then it is the companys role to set the boundaries of who models what. And the same goes if working with consultants.

I think Autodesk doesn't implement what you are referring to for two reasons:

1. BIM is about one instance of everything, not one instance of a duct for analysis in an MEP model and one instance of a duct in the arch model because the architect is too lazy to link in the MEP model. I can guarantee you that if Architects could draw ducts, that there would be random ductwork all over the place. It is bad enough I have to deal with lighting fixtures copied over from our model to the arch model, ducts would just expand that problem.
Revit is about collaboration between trades, and engineers should be putting mechanical and electrical elements into the model, not architects. If you want to see ducts for coordination, link in the MEP model as it is intended.

2. Revit Architecture and Revit MEP are two different programs with two different design teams, with two different markets. The fact that they use a common engine does not entitle you to get the features of both programs if you buy one.

[Chad Smith]

1. BIM is about one instance of everything, not one instance of a duct for analysis in an MEP model and one instance of a duct in the arch model because the architect is too lazy to link in the MEP model. I can guarantee you that if Architects could draw ducts, that there would be random ductwork all over the place. It is bad enough I have to deal with lighting fixtures copied over from our model to the arch model, ducts would just expand that problem.
Revit is about collaboration between trades, and engineers should be putting mechanical and electrical elements into the model, not architects. If you want to see ducts for coordination, link in the MEP model as it is intended.
Sorry, but like Autodesk you seem to be stuck in the mindset that ALL companies work that way. That ALL companies, should contract out specialised disciplines to contractors. Sorry, but that's only part of the reality.
The other part is that there are actually companies out there that are multi-disciplined, not only across departments, but also multi-disciplined users. This is the part of reality that Autodesk seems to convieniently forgets. By ignoring this market, it keeps user such as yourself in the dark about other companies and processes, and selling more software.

And so what if an architect wants to model a whole heap of ductwork? What if they have an exposed ceiling and want to model in some schmicko looking ductwork as part of the 'architectural look' to show intent in a rendering to win a project, or for marketing long before construction drawings are produced? It might not be correct, but it does the job. Going down the path of using engineering contractors, the ductwork is then hidden or deleted and replaced with the MEP model. We don't want analysis, just modeling capabilities.

I'm not going to disagree that there should only be one instance of everything in a project, but there will be variations of this instance throughout the lifecycle of the project. One in the beginning with the architect, and another with the engineers model later on.

I doubt you will find an architect who will be too lazy to import an MEP model. If anything it will be the other way around with the architect being too lazy to keep their own ductwork up-to-date and wanting to use the model done by the engineer.

Sorry, but the engineering discplines aren't as sacred as you might believe them to be.


2. Revit Architecture and Revit MEP are two different programs with two different design teams, with two different markets. The fact that they use a common engine does not entitle you to get the features of both programs if you buy one.
Sadly, yes I know there are two programs. But, once upon a time we used to use just one program called Revit, with one market in mind, building design/construction. Hell, it was even called Revit Building at one time, destined to go down the true BIM path. Building Information Modeling. All this before Autodesk divided up the development.

I guess there is a reason why Architecture has tools such as Structural Columns and Beams, Foundations, etc, because a software company can't very well take away tools which they no longer consider part of the users 'market'. Imagine the uproar that would cause.
Instead, verticals are created, and the original program renamed (again), all to help justify which tools are now on offer to the user in their 'market'.
Architecture is all about design in ALL aspects of a project, and the software should reflect that. If anything, Architecture should be the one with ALL modeling tools, leaving the analysis to the engineers.

If it can be modeled, then there is every chance an architect might want to show it in their design.

[Beancud]

The analysis goes out the window from that point forward (at least for mechanical).


I'm curious about this one. Why are people assuming built in IES to be perfect.... its really a free ware built in, smaller version of IES.

The idea is to obtain architect's model, tweak it to suit and run a quick calc to get the general idea! than export to the full version of IES.

While the person X is doing their stuff to refine the gbXML model the person Y would come up with a schematic design based on the free ware IES. Than at the end of the week person X and Y integrate their models for an accurate result and a better design.


Many people hate IES and are married to other analysis software, but Autodesk has decided IES is the one and have started to improve it.

The conversion between the Revit model and calc program could be improved, and I would love to see more analysis programs built into Revit MEP. This would make it a multi software BIM!

[Beancud]

Sorry, but the engineering discplines aren't as sacred as you might believe them to be.


I don't know how it works in the US but here in Oz, we never let architects decide what to do with ducts / lights / structural beams and columns. If they did the build will fall down if duct and lights haven't. We recieve models/drawings back with architect's idea of location to be placed and 9 out of 10 times we reject it. I'm pretty sure its illegal for architect to design engineering elements, and the governmening body will reject it.

But I think what you are trying to say is that don't even include the ability to if they shouldn't be?

[Chad Smith]

More or less yes. Using Autodesk logic, either move all modeling tools from each vertical that doesn't concern that users discpline, or accept that all disciplines overlap to a degree and enable all modeling tools. Obviously the latter makes more sense. Just don't take a half arsed approach, and disable random tools for the sake of it.

I live in Brisbane too, and to give a different approach to building design/construction.
At the last company which I was at for nearly 11 years, I worked in New Business designing 100's of new projects. We had in-house design, engineering, mechanical (A/C & Coldstore Refrigeration), landscaping and even a steel fabrication yard. The design team was the only department that did Revit modeling/documentation. The other departments were for calculations only.

When designing, I took two approaches to modeling these other discplines which I'm supposed to not be doing.

1. Past experience tells me that for a building of a certain size that I would need roughly certain steel members and concrete wall/floor sizes, and need to allow for mechanical (like ductwork) of certain sizes also. If I needed to model items like ductwork, I unfortunately had to do it the long custom family way, and not using the neato modeling tools from MEP.

2. If the engineers were not busy, I would query them for sizing and get it right from the start.

Either way, as a non-engineer I get this information into the model as early and accurately as possible for new business documents, to help win projects, and to make sure what is designed actually works. Once we hit design/construction documentation, it went back to the engineers to double check and final design completed.

So just because a non-engineer has modeled this information early on, doesn't mean the design is inaccurate or unsafe. As you would know here, the engineering designs have to be certified by the engineer and approved by local authorities before construction begins.

I'm no landscape architect either, but I did landscaping designs and planting schedules (again based on past experience), which then went to an accredited landscape architect for comment (sometimes small amendments were required) and then approved. Then they were approved by the local authority. Once again, I did the modeling and documentation work, but the design is still certified.

My point being that when it comes to CAD documentation, there is no black and white, cut and dry, draw a line in the sand division between disciplines. In design and certification, yes. But certainly not documentation.

[mjdanowski]

Sorry, but like Autodesk you seem to be stuck in the mindset that ALL companies work that way. That ALL companies, should contract out specialised disciplines to contractors. Sorry, but that's only part of the reality.
The other part is that there are actually companies out there that are multi-disciplined, not only across departments, but also multi-disciplined users. This is the part of reality that Autodesk seems to convieniently forgets. By ignoring this market, it keeps user such as yourself in the dark about other companies and processes, and selling more software.

I know there are firms which have both disciplines, however your argument that "there are people that do both architecture and engineering" is weak.
First, I have yet to meet a dual architect/engineer, and to be quite frank, I bet I can count dual PE/AIA's on one hand in my area.

Second, even IF there are people who do both, they are not going to do architecture and engineering at the same time. You will lay out your ductwork, and then make any architectural changes which may be a result of it. Just because there is one person doing both jobs does not mean the work-flow between the two disciplines has changed.

Third, your analytical MEP model is going to be linked into the architectural model. They are going to be two separate files, an analytical model and an architectural. You do not need the tools for both models in one giant program. In fact, I don't WANT the tools in one program because MEP 2009 is unstable as it is.



And so what if an architect wants to model a whole heap of ductwork? What if they have an exposed ceiling and want to model in some schmicko looking ductwork as part of the 'architectural look' to show intent in a rendering to win a project, or for marketing long before construction drawings are produced?

They go to the cubicle across the hall and tell the engineer what he wants, and the engineer puts it into the architectural model based upon his estimates for the requirements of the project. This is EXACTLY why such tools shouldn't be implemented in one version. You are looking at ductwork as an architectural element, when it also needs to be looked at as a mechanical element. What if the duct needs to be bigger? What if it can't have that many turns? What if it needs to be rectangular and not flat oval? You are looking at mechanical systems as an architectural element, and therefore want to model them.



I doubt you will find an architect who will be too lazy to import an MEP model. If anything it will be the other way around with the architect being too lazy to keep their own ductwork up-to-date and wanting to use the model done by the engineer.
I have yet to receive an architectural central file with the MEP model linked into it. I have seen Structural, civil, and site models, but not MEP.

Now you may be asking "why is he so fervently against this?"

Well I will tell you why. Too often I see more and more of a trend with Revit that it is an architectural program which has a mechanical spur off of it. Coordination between trades is a two way street, and if an architect can just draw ducts on his model instead of coordinating with the engineer, then that link between trades is broken. If I just started making my own electrical rooms in the MEP model, I can assure you that wouldn't be appreciated by the architect. What makes you think that the architect drawing ducts in his model will be appreciated by the engineer?
As I stated before, it is bad enough that I have the architect putting holes in my ceiling with his own lighting fixtures, ductwork would just be a catalyst to this already large problem in regards to the overall point of BIM. I think the architectural community still sees BIM as "how can I make my drawings and have the MEP element be coordinated with them[/i] and not "how can we make a coordinated building model."

[Chad Smith]

You are looking at mechanical systems as an architectural element, and therefore want to model them.
Now you're getting it ;). An architectural element is all we want in these early stages of a project, for design intent.
Architectural Intent is one of the facets that we care about until the project reaches a certain point of maturation (which will vary between companies and projects), and then the engineers can go nuts with their design/modeling.


They go to the cubicle across the hall and tell the engineer what he wants, and the engineer puts it into the architectural model based upon his estimates for the requirements of the project. This is EXACTLY why such tools shouldn't be implemented in one version. You are looking at ductwork as an architectural element, when it also needs to be looked at as a mechanical element. What if the duct needs to be bigger? What if it can't have that many turns? What if it needs to be rectangular and not flat oval?

If we can get engineers involved in this very early stage, then good. But I'm yet to meet an external consulting engineer who will lift their pinky finger to do design work for projects at such an early stage. So that means the architect needs to make that judgement call until such a time.

At this early stage, it's completely irrelevant if a duct should be bigger, have more turns or is rectangular, because the simple fact that we are even showing ductwork is portraying the (here it comes again) architectural intent to the potential client. This is EXACTLY the reason why Architecture needs these tools.
After the project build contract has been signed, it will most likely go through umteen changes anyway, making any engineered designs obsolete.
Engineers are always complaining that the architect keeps changing the design, and here you wanting to make more work for them by designing a system so early on in this high risk stage where the project has the potential to be pulled :shock:.

In the case of where the engineer is in the same office they;
a. Would be very reluctant to do any modeling themselves at this early stage
b. Shouldn't have to. Their resources should be spent working on more mature projects. Ones that have been signed off on and financed.

Even after the project reaches maturity, I'm also yet to meet an engineer who will work with such modeling programs as Revit. They either stick with their analysis software of choice, and/or draft using AutoCAD.

[RobertB]

Older generation thats been using CAD for 10+ years is going to have one hell of a time learning something new.

If you're 40+, learning something new like Revit = end.Please stop making blanket statements like this. Age discrimination is as despicable as discrimination based on the color of your skin.

I'm disappointed.

[Steve_Stafford]

Please stop making blanket statements like this. Age discrimination is as despicable as discrimination based on the color of your skin.

I'm disappointed.He apologized earlier, sort of. I was 37 when I started implementing Revit the first time.

[Joef]

He apologized earlier, sort of. I was 37 when I started implementing Revit the first time.

I get tired of this "too old to learn new things" line as well. I was 54 when I picked up Revit. I am now the only person in the office who is fluent in Revit, Vectorworks, AutoCAD and Sketchup. The younger guys in the office still have a hard time with paperspace and none of them are capable of producing anything in 3D.

[Mark James]

I was 37 when I started implementing Revit the first time.
Ditto.
I also started drafting by hand, have 10+ years CAD experience, and am over 40.
Now I'm the office Revit/BIM Manager.

[Beancud]

For day to day work flowing out the door, our product is sheets. No matter what tool we start with, for the foreseeable future, our product is still going to be sheets. So as we work very hard to implement this new and promising tool, we always have to keep our focus toward sheets moving out the door. That is why we all keep pounding on the presentation issues.

Kyle, I do really appreciate the work you and the rest of the dev team are putting in to the tool we use. Keep up the good work 'cause we have lots more for you to do . . . :)

As far as we are all aware the documentation is not up to the detail and the flexbility but isn't this also because there are too many different drawing standards? style? and personal/company preferences? What I can tell, people want more flexibility and options.

There are already ways to cheat and pepper the model to look respectable, but too many people brandishing: "my style or the program is useless". I think many people still see BIM as something extra rather than smart integartion. People only care about lines on paper at this stage. I have trouble promoting Revit to tough stubborn engineers in the office who would die by the rule of: "I design - You draw, and theres the line"

Its good to see critical issues addressed and hard talk done in such a early life of Revit MEP!

[RobertB]

There are already ways to cheat and pepper the model to look respectable...I think that is really the heart of the matter. How usable is a model that has been "cheated and peppered"? I'm not talking about the paper produced. The promise on BIM is that the model is valuable, and let's face it: the MEP model has gaping "cheats and peppers".

That being said, let's face it. Revit is going to be used for MEP projects. But the fees darn well better reflect the lost productivity. When the consulting engineering firms double the fee to do the job in Revit, most architects sit up and take notice (not to mention the building owners).

[Beancud]

That being said, let's face it. Revit is going to be used for MEP projects. But the fees darn well better reflect the lost productivity. When the consulting engineering firms double the fee to do the job in Revit, most architects sit up and take notice (not to mention the building owners).


If the consulting engineers are doubling fees for a job because of Revit than they deserve to be out of buisness.

To me it all comes to people and mentality. 3D shouldn't be an extra $$$. Whats costing money is the fact that some people struggle to pick up 3D package and Revit and spend far too long.

This is when the company needs to think smarter about implementation. There are many ingredients to efficieny and cost effectiveness to Revit. I don't know where to start... right people, attitude, motviation, support, pepper... and list goes on.

[RobertB]

If the consulting engineers are doubling fees for a job because of Revit than they deserve to be out of buisness.

To me it all comes to people and mentality. 3D shouldn't be an extra $$$. Whats costing money is the fact that some people struggle to pick up 3D package and Revit and spend far too long.

This is when the company needs to think smarter about implementation. There are many ingredients to efficieny and cost effectiveness to Revit. I don't know where to start... right people, attitude, motviation, support, pepper... and list goes on.Oh my... have you actually mangaged a BIM project with all the coordination meetings? I'm not talking about just producing the model. There are more meetings, more frequent file exchange, more designer involvement (designers/engineers bill more than CAD staff), more time to work around the deficiencies, and so on.

This is time that affects profitability of a project. If a firm spends more time, they spend more money. The upshot is that the extra money should come from the contractor budget since there should be far fewer RFIs and constructability issues.

I'm not saying that Revit MEP won't be important to the industry. But I, and others here, recognize that there are significant inefficiencies when using Revit MEP. A firm should not be monetarily punished because the rest of the design team (arch/struct) is using software that is more advanced than the MEP flavor.

That is the crucial point that I feel most architects fail to see: Revit MEP is not nearly as advanced as the Arch/Struct flavors. The design effort will be more inefficent than mature processes. Until the product itself addresses the holes, an engineering firm's fees must be higher to account for the extra time.

[Beancud]

Oh my... have you actually mangaged a BIM project with all the coordination meetings? I'm not talking about just producing the model. There are more meetings, more frequent file exchange, more designer involvement (designers/engineers bill more than CAD staff), more time to work around the deficiencies, and so on.

This is time that affects profitability of a project. If a firm spends more time, they spend more money. The upshot is that the extra money should come from the contractor budget since there should be far fewer RFIs and constructability issues.

I'm not saying that Revit MEP won't be important to the industry. But I, and others here, recognize that there are significant inefficiencies when using Revit MEP. A firm should not be monetarily punished because the rest of the design team (arch/struct) is using software that is more advanced than the MEP flavor.

That is the crucial point that I feel most architects fail to see: Revit MEP is not nearly as advanced as the Arch/Struct flavors. The design effort will be more inefficent than mature processes. Until the product itself addresses the holes, an engineering firm's fees must be higher to account for the extra time.

Well this is why you prepare for the complexity of BIM project before getting out of hand and over spending in time. Anyhow BIM is designed to make work flow efficient. I still can't understand a file exchange and meetings should double the fees. Does that involve 4D and 5D report? than it would certainly be extra fees. Although I cannot see BIM management costing 10 million instead of 5 million.

[Steve_Stafford]

People seem to think that collaboration meetings are not needed between offices if "cad" is used. Not all cad users and firms use cad the same way either and despite using it longer than Revit there are any number of messy things that can and usually do happen.

[Chad Smith]

I agree with Steve on this one. CAD / collaboration meetings are an important part of the BIM process. Not only do firms use CAD differently, there is always a differing level of skill base, on all sides.
These meetings aren't necessarily about swapping files, they're about pooling the user expertise and discussing how to attack the next phase of the project efficiently within our BIM environment.

Having said that, I don't agree that this should push fees up as these meetings are designed to make a project run better for everyone involved, and save money.

[mjdanowski]

Well this is why you prepare for the complexity of BIM project before getting out of hand and over spending in time. Anyhow BIM is designed to make work flow efficient. I still can't understand a file exchange and meetings should double the fees. Does that involve 4D and 5D report? than it would certainly be extra fees. Although I cannot see BIM management costing 10 million instead of 5 million.

Then there is always the problem of it taking 3-5 minutes to save to central, load a new family , or do anything.

Even if you count out all the BIM coordination tasks, using Revit takes a lot longer just by the slowness of the program.

[cris8096]

Then there is always the problem of it taking 3-5 minutes to save to central, load a new family , or do anything.

Even if you count out all the BIM coordination tasks, using Revit takes a lot longer just by the slowness of the program.

D

Depending on the size of the project....
I believe some Architect create a view that say's Save To Central View that is blank... should help a bit..
Also depends what type of CPU you have, I have 64 Windows, 8 MB..
My MEP Central file is 41 MB and I can do coordination pretty smoothly...

[oshalygin]

Ditto.
I also started drafting by hand, have 10+ years CAD experience, and am over 40.
Now I'm the office Revit/BIM Manager.

WOA guys i was just making a generalization on the people around me....I know quite a few people too that know alot but i always got this vibe that if you already been doing something for a long time(10+ years) that change was the last thing on your mind.

No?

[oshalygin]

PS: sorry if i offended anyone, was not my intent

[nubrun.188780]

Then there is always the problem of it taking 3-5 minutes to save to central, load a new family , or do anything.

Even if you count out all the BIM coordination tasks, using Revit takes a lot longer just by the slowness of the program.

I agree with the saving to central part is cumbersome, my save times are usually around 20-30 seconds. Althought my projects are generally on the order of 40 megs with the architects model being 70.

And althought Revit is generally slower, there are many features that increase the efficiency of the team. For example the scheduling/ tagging allows Revit to make up alot of time, as well as things such as gbxml export for load calcs. While we struggled to figure out a streamlined workflow for Revit, once you figure it out, I think the program overcomes its inherent difficulties such as being slow to model with. Don't get me wrong Revit MEP does have many shortcomings which will hopefilly begin to be resolved in the next realease.

So both CAD and Revit have there advantages... me I prefer Revit.

Just my .02.

[Beancud]

I agree with the saving to central part is cumbersome, my save times are usually around 20-30 seconds. Althought my projects are generally on the order of 40 megs with the architects model being 70.

And althought Revit is generally slower, there are many features that increase the efficiency of the team. For example the scheduling/ tagging allows Revit to make up alot of time, as well as things such as gbxml export for load calcs. While we struggled to figure out a streamlined workflow for Revit, once you figure it out, I think the program overcomes its inherent difficulties such as being slow to model with. Don't get me wrong Revit MEP does have many shortcomings which will hopefilly begin to be resolved in the next realease.

So both CAD and Revit have there advantages... me I prefer Revit.

Just my .02.

We usually use the most powerful pc to be the central / coordination pc. There is a 64k bit quad core for that purpose. Another spare 64k bit backup power machine also helps... but yeah anything less than a dual core 2.5ghz 4g ram is a no no for Revit.

[mjdanowski]

We usually use the most powerful pc to be the central / coordination pc. There is a 64k bit quad core for that purpose. Another spare 64k bit backup power machine also helps... but yeah anything less than a dual core 2.5ghz 4g ram is a no no for Revit.

Doesn't Revit only use one core?

We looked at doing a "central server" for Revit central files, but when we did an analysis of the server resource usage during a save to central, there was barely a blip on what it uses. It seems that the computing is all done on the client.

[cwade.109269]

I'd be inclined to rethink the set. Why do panel schedules need to go on a 30x42 sheet? What if each schedule was printed on its own 8.5x11 and made part of the project manual, or maybe they are bound into a "Schedule book". (I'm just thinking out loud here.) Its much cheaper to reproduce 8.5x11 than it is 30x42.

Just because we have done something the same way for 20 years does not make it the right way to do things today. Everything is changing and evolving around us. Technology is changing, and IMO we are not that far away from abandoning the "roll of paper construction drawings" in favor of delivering the model in electronic format.

Believe me, I understand what you all are saying (except that I've never seen an RFI about "too many sheets" :-) ) but we must all start to think differently about this process. Architecture/engineering is so incredibly far behind any other "similar" process. Why? Because we can't get away from the idea that we must continue to do things like we did them 20 years ago.
Because plan checkers require it to be on the drawings, really, that's what it boils down to, a CD set of drawings must be able to get approved by Plan Checkers/DSA or whoever the appropriate authority is.