ArchiCAD Propaganda

[Scott Hopkins]

Apparently the ArchiCAD folks are really getting worried about Revit – as they should be. I came across an interesting comparison chart of Revit vs. ArchiCAD features.

http://www.parch.com/images/pdfs/revit_v_archicad.pdf

It appears that whoever wrote this had very little understanding of Revit. It is essentially a propaganda piece is favor of ArchiCAD.

It makes for an interesting read and its fun to see what the competition is up to. There are a few good ideas to be gleaned from the article. I like the notion of instant graphical feedback when changing family parameters.

Well enjoy the article and don’t get too enraged by the misrepresentations of Revit.

[beegee]

I agree Archicad must be getting edgy to have produced something like that.
I've used Archicad a lot ( although not the latest version ). I love their (short ) response to " Output " :o No mention of that spawn of the devil, otherwise known as 'Plotmaker', which makes archicad one of the clunkiest pieces of software I ever used. Of course , there are lots of other pieces of missing information and mis-representation in the article, but I'm following Scott's wise advice and not getting hot under the collar. :evil:

beegee

[timothyj67]

I hope this doesnt turn into a ADT vs REvit debate...
I have used Archicad a little so I have yet no room realy to speak for for it but I did notice that it is kinda difficult to grasp at first but some of the commands are more powerful than revit, I wish revit had the wall modifer window like Archicad has I mean you can see what you are changing instead of guessing where this or that goes.
I also think it is wise to learn as many tools of the trade as possible so you are knowledgeable in all aspects of CAD .

But that is my two-bits..

So...What about this wrestling in Japan?

[ajayholland]

I used ArchiCad v7.

That marquee to isolate objects is helpful. Per the wish list, I'd like to define scope boxes in Revit by the same method.

The Quicktime VR output (objects and panoramas) was also interesting.

The biggest problem for me was that it's still a layer-based system - layer management is tedious and unpredictable, at best.

-AJH

[Steve_Stafford]

Did you read the article on the ex-Autodesk employee uses AC instead of everything else? It doesn't even mention Revit, either on purpose or because the article is too old to be relevant even though it talks about version 8. Wonder if this is ala the New York Times...heehee.

Gotta love propaganda...

[Scott D Davis]

That "Comparision" is so inaccurate, I had to laugh! Its not even a comparision. Its a chart that descibes how a particular Revit feature is similar to an ArchiCAD feature. On the Revit side of the chart, the descriptions are obviously from a user who popped open a demo copy of Revit and spent 10 seconds looking into the tool. Everything in the descriptions is "negative" meaning each descriptive word is something like "slowly" or "poorly". On the ArchiCAD side of the chart, its all about how "fast" and "well thought out" everything is.

This guy, David Pacifico, of www.parch.com, is an ArchiCAD reseller, who also sells ArchiCAD consulting services, and ArchiCAD custom GDL content. Without ArchiCAD, his business tanks. It's no wonder he's bashing Revit. He's scared!

[Wes Macaulay]

I've put together a half-baked reply which I'm sending off to David Pacifico. You can download it from our website at:

http://www.pat.ca/archicad_vs_revit.pdf

It's just a Word doc using screenshots of the original PDF, and is a 1.7Mb download - those of you with thinner pipes might be waiting a bit.

He needs to be mildly rebuked for disseminating inaccurate information!

[Scott D Davis]

You hit so many of the inaccuracies, but there are still more! The whole effort on his part is such a joke! It's obvious that he has spent no time using Revit at all.

His biggest inaccuracy is the title: Revit to ArchiCAD conversion guide. I highly doubt that anyone who has truely used Revit, could be convinced to 'convert' to ArchiCAD!

Revit 6.0 in 4 years.....ArchiCAD 8.0 in 20 years. Hmmmm......

[trombe]

I've put together a half-baked reply which I'm sending off to David Pacifico.

Mr Metanoia,
Thank goodness someone has the cajones to try and balance the books.
That man is a fool. In NZ he would suffer very fast from local ridicule and there would be few places to hide. Well done.
trombe.

[beegee]

Great job Wes !!

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to correct those <inaccuracies> :wink:

A calm, succinct and well thought out response.

beegee

[Wes Macaulay]

Here's the e-mail I sent to David Pacifico:


The link to your Revit / ArchiCAD comparison landed on the Revit newsgroup today, and as an ArchiCAD user who has converted to Revit because of its power, simplicity, flexibility and ease-of-use, I have gone over your document and pointed out some aspects which you should correct.

ArchiCAD users on the Revit newsgroup all agree that we miss some of ArchiCAD's features - most notably TeamWork - but that we would not want to go back. The whole lot of us are over at www.zoogdesign.com/forums and all agreed that you should present the most accurate information possible to your clients.

Rather than e-mail the response, I have posted it on my company's website at http://www.pat.ca/archicad_vs_revit.pdf which you should download and review at your earliest convenience.

I do work for a Bentley/Autodesk reseller (a weird combination if there ever was one), so I'm certainly seeing that the digital design world has much to do to improve how data is shared between disciplines.

Kind regards,

Wes Macaulay
I hope he reposts his comparison. At this point, it doesn't tell the truth! I know there's more in there to correct, but I've got a presentation to plan for, families to build for clients, and Gilder to frame for it. I'm swamped!

[beegee]

<Off _ Topic>

Hey Wes,

Your last avatar had a facinating background story. Is there another associated with this new one ?

Or maybe thats really you :P

Fess up when you get the time.

beegee

[PeterJ]

Good piece of work Wes, out of interest what software did you use to mark it all up?

[Wes Macaulay]

I might bring back the other avatar if and when my feminine side needs to come out more... HA!

Today's avatar is Wallace Shawn, in his role as Vizzini in The Princess Bride, a charming and witty movie if America ever made one. I put him in because I was "framing Gilder for it", another great line from the movie.

I pasted screenshots from Adobe into MS Word, then used floating text boxes to put in my comments, then recreated the PDF. Not an elegant solution, but didn't want to bother reverse-engineering the orginal PDF!

[JamesVan]

Wes, fabulous job...great movie!

My 'favorite' comparisons in this article are found under "Interface" and "Plan Layout" which is on page 3 I think. On one side we see Revit's interface; clean, intuitive and presents the information in a visual language that is understandable to an ARCHITECT, not a CAD USER (plan, section, elevation...). On the other side is ArchiCad; toolbars, buttons, icons input areas, all disconnected from the actual input area. This is a classic example of the unavoidable distinction that sets Revit apart from its competitors.

We investigated AC a few years ago and after grappling with the general input methodology, we ceased our trial after phase 1. It is quite difficult for anyone to produce an accurate, "apples-to-apples" comparison of any two BIM products based solely on individual feature sets. Each firm needs to get the applicable programs and try them out under a controlled environment with the proper guidance to reach an informed conclusion.

[jbalding48677]

You hit so many of the inaccuracies, but there are still more! The whole effort on his part is such a joke! It's obvious that he has spent no time using Revit at all.

His biggest inaccuracy is the title: Revit to ArchiCAD conversion guide. I highly doubt that anyone who has truely used Revit, could be convinced to 'convert' to ArchiCAD!

Revit 6.0 in 6 years.....ArchiCAD 8.0 in 20 years. Hmmmm......

Scott - Your math is a little off. Revit 6.0 in 3 years 8 months +

[hand471037]

"Inconceivable!" :P

[Scott D Davis]

[quote:36820cb12a="Scott Davis"]You hit so many of the inaccuracies, but there are still more! The whole effort on his part is such a joke! It's obvious that he has spent no time using Revit at all.

His biggest inaccuracy is the title: Revit to ArchiCAD conversion guide. I highly doubt that anyone who has truely used Revit, could be convinced to 'convert' to ArchiCAD!

Revit 6.0 in 6 years.....ArchiCAD 8.0 in 20 years. Hmmmm......

Scott - Your math is a little off. Revit 6.0 in 3 years 8 months +[/quote:36820cb12a]

Correction has been made! Thanks JB! I think I was thinking 1997 was when the earliest thought of revit was 'born'.

[Scott Hopkins]

Wes

Great job! I was hoping someone with some expertise would dissect and debunk that caparison chart with some hard facts. I haven’t used ArchiCAD since release 6.5, but at that time the method of plotting used a sub-program called “Plotmaker” To make a simple revision and get a plot out was a convoluted 10 minute process prone with potential errors along the way. It was just baffling that ArchiCAD users were willing to put up with it. As Beegee noted Plotmaker was/is truly was” the spawn of the devil”. Does anyone know if they have corrected this in Release 8?

Also (at least at the time I was using it) ArchiCAD really was not fully parametric. When using ArchiCAD, somewhere toward the end of schematic design, we would give up on maintaining the 3D integrity of the building model and turn the elevations and sections into flat 2D drawings so that we could work on them effectively. I don’t know if it is still true but sections and elevations were a one-way street. Changing them would not update the floor plans.

ArchiCAD is not a simple program to learn. There is not a comprehensive logic to the way one approaches drawing and modeling. It is a bit like 80-T in the way that every tool has its own logic and methods that don’t relate to the other tools in the program. At the time I was using version 6.5 there was a scheduling component to ArchiCAD, but it was too complicated and convoluted to figure out so everyone in the office just did the door and window schedules by hand.

The other thing that drove me crazy about ArchiCAD was that you couldn’t use simple shortcut keys as can in Revit. In ArchiCAD programmable shortcut keys are always a combination of “ctrl” or “shift” and another key. You’re hand would get a great work-out trying to hit all of those claw patterns.

One of the biggest downfalls of ArchiCAD is of course GDL. This is the program language required to make any custom content in ArchiCAD. What architect/designer has the time or the inclination to learn this? GDL of course creates a lot of work of programmers and developers making expensive add-on programs. As an ArchiCAD user you are almost required to buy add-on programs to use ArchiCAD effectively. For example to make custom windows you will have a very difficult time getting by without “Door and Window Builder” The typical way an ArchiCAD user “makes” custom content to go on line and spend $15-$30 for a feeble approximation of the item they are really looking for. Also, the rendering engine that comes with ArchiCAD is terrible so everyone ends up buying an add-on rendering program called “Atlantis”. The true cost of ArchiCAD is much more than the cost of the program alone. In Santa Barbara where my practice is, there is a large contingent of ArchiCAD users. However, the tide is slowly starting to turn and I am seeing a few offices beginning to investigate Revit.

Scott Hopkins
Architect

[Wes Macaulay]

Plotmaker is more tightly integrated into R8, and I'm trying to remember if you even have to generate PMKs anymore... I think you still do. And if anyone's interested, you can read all about their pain:

http://escribe.com/software/archicadtalk/index.html?by=Thread

And BTW, no word back from David Pacifico yet!

[Scott Hopkins]

Wes,

I took a look at your link and guess what (actually it is no surprise) there are a ton of comments dealing with Plotmaker problems/issues. It appears that even the most current release of ArchiCAD, Version 8, is still plagued by Plotmaker difficulties. It makes you wonder about the viability of a program in which the basic functions don’t even work correctly. Yes I am sure that if you do everything just right you can get Plotmaker to work, but should the simple act of printing a set of drawings to scale really be that difficult and cause so many problems? How long are all of those ArchiCAD users going to keep on living with it? The poor bastards have been putting up with a ****** program for so many years that they think it is a normal state of affairs. My guess is that the ArchiCAD programmers are so busy adding new feature sets to keep up with Revit that some of the more basic and fundamental things, like making an easy plot, may never get fixed.

As Marlin Brando said in Apocalypse Now

"THE HORROR! THE HORROR!"

[Scott D Davis]

If you go to that ArchiCAD NG, do a search for Revit. A bunch of hits came up for me, and it made for some good reading. The one thing that seems to scare them the most, is an OSX version of Revit to run on a Mac. ArchiCAD runs on a Mac, and it seems that many ArchiCAD users are the "anti-autodesk" and "anti-microsoft" users. Many of them use ArchiCAD, simply because they can run it on a Mac, and not deal with MS, and its not Autodesk.

It's almost that they concede that Revit is a great program, and think that a Mac version of Revit would lure many ArchiCAD users away.

[hand471037]

I totally agree that basic functions of the software should be bulletproof and so easy anyone can do it. Otherwise it's bad design, no matter how many reasons the company that made the software gives.

For example, I think that when AutoDesk switched the plotting in 2000-and-up it really made a lot of people mad. Suddenly something as basic as printing your drawing was a complex issue. I even went to a talk where the designer from AutoDesk who designed the plotting system for 2000-up was talking about it. People aksed him why he had made such a confusing system for plotting. And he just couldn't get it through his thick skull that some people thought his system was too hard to use. That, while concepually, the plotting scheme in 2000-up was better than what came before it (which I do agree with) that the design and exicution of that scheme was so flawed to render it hard for even people who knew what they were doing. But he just didn't get it, for in his programmer's mindset, he felt that more options = a better plotting system and didn't see why people thought that it was hard; that adding multipule layers of complexity is something that most users don't want. To him, it made sense, and all the options made it a good design. To the rest of us, it was too complex, and a bad design.

[Scott D Davis]

metanoia,

If you add any more comments to the Revit vs ArchiCAD article, make sure to include this, because everyone still thinks that Revit has a project size limitation.

In the comparison, the very first line says:

"Performance File size limits - Navigation slows significantly as file is expanded"

In an AUGI article, called Take 5, Rick Rundell of Autodesk wrote:

"Antunovich Associates, a Chicago-based leader in architecture, planning, and interior design, chose Autodesk Revit for a 700,000 square foot project for the University Center of Chicago. As the largest multi-college student residence hall in the United States, the multi-use facility will house 1,720 students, and include retail space, meeting rooms, a conference center, fitness facilities, classrooms, music practice rooms, food service, and a rooftop garden. Antunovich chose Autodesk Revit to meet the demands of this complex project. The program’s 3D visualization capabilities helped everyone to understand the building design right from the start. A video about this project is available on the Autodesk website at www.autodesk.com/revit"

I would hardly call 700,000 square feet a small project. If Revit can handle a 700,000 SF project, it has no limitations of project size in my opinion.

[LRaiz]

Correction has been made! Thanks JB! I think I was thinking 1997 was when the earliest thought of revit was 'born'.

Scott's memory does not fail him. Revit Technology was registered as a Massachusetts Corporation on Halloween of 1997 but the first line of code was not written until the Spring/Summer of 1998. Ironically the sale to Autodesk closed on April's Fool day.

[jbalding48677]

Of course, but doesn't 6 releases in 3.66 years (which is accurate r1.0 April of 2000 and r6.0 sometime later this year) sound better than 6 in 6 years?

Anyway, welcome to ZoogDesign Forums Mr. Raiz, it's nice to see you here.

[brantf]

Pretty good when it comes to propaganda but not compared to the american gov't

[BomberAIA]

I was at the SEBC in Orlando and talked to a Archicad rep and he told me they had 15000 users in the the US and Revit had only 900. I do not believe that.

[Steve_Stafford]

:lol: Heck, Revit's got that many in Australia alone... :lol:

[PeterJ]

Surely it is now time for Revit/Autodesk to publish their sales figures. Clearly the uptake will be much lower than any of the more established technologies, but nevertheless it would demonstrate a growing user base.

[sbrown]

Scott Davis, I have to take issue with you on revits file size workability, while it is true you theoretically can do quite large projects in revit, the performance is AWFUL We have office bldgs of only 10,000sf or less done in revit that are almost unworkable due to regeneration time. We have found if you use the compound wall feature to add sweeps to your model the performance is drastically affected negatively. A large bldg with a simple wall structure and very few split walls may still work fine in revit but if you create a wall with multiple wall sweeps, reveals etc. built in, revit becomes almost unuseable, regardless of overall squarefootage. Note we are using incredibly powerful machines also. XEon 2.4 gig with 2 gig of ram.

I've used revit since release 1.0 and am still scare to take on many project types. I hope for improvement in this area.

Some projects you won't notice performance issues at all, currrently I'm working on a 100,000sf project and it smokes, then you do a high end home with many wall types and boom, coffee break every command.

[Scott D Davis]

I haven't done anything "huge" in Revit yet, but to this point, I have had no problems with model size. But I also haven't added mch complexity to my models either. I was in this regard, simply quoting a figure for a large project done by another firm.

I agree that improvements in speed need to be made, but I am fed up with hearing that Revit can handle small residential projects only. That is simply not true. This is one of the biggest arguments that the competition, such as ArchiCAD, make.

[sbrown]

Agreed, Revit in my opinion handles commercial projects much better than residential.

Just so readers know, revit is aware of the performance issues I have experienced and are studying them hopefully (and I'm sure they will) find solutions and make improvements in future releases.

As you gain revit experience you start to know what will cause issues and what wont.

[wjspence]

Is the performance issue related directly to file size as more complex components are added, or is it just the complex components themselves that cause the slowdown? In other words, does the file size increase dramatically with more complex components, or is the slowdown possibly caused by the way the Revit database is organized?

[sbrown]

It is NOT the file size, it is the complexity and relationships revit establishes and checks when the model is modified. for example you have two walls with integrall wall sweeps, when you move one revit checks the relationship to the other wall, when its just a wall, its a quick regen. when you add multi. sweeps each one of the sweeps also has to check its relationship and join condition with the adhacent walls, these relationships can multiply very quickly causing a lot of calculations on revits part.

I didn't notice this problem as much with hosted wall sweeps, just the integral ones.

[Wes Macaulay]

Any time you create relationships between objects in Revit, you're creating a bit more work for Revit to deal with when you're making changes. I tell people to have as few of these as possible - lock relationships between objects only when it's a neccessity.

The more tightly bound the Revit database is with locked alignments, locked dimensions, etc. the more you see Revit bogging down. With complicated, large models, Revit still performs happily provided you don't go crazy with creating explicit relationships between objects. If you do this, a very small model can become a hog. Since you have to create these relationships explicitly - they're not automatic, you have the chance to ask yourself if the relationship you're creating is really necessary.

I am avoiding integrated sweeps/reveals and vertically compound walls because they cause more problems than just putting them in manually.

[Scott D Davis]

I had an issue along the same lines with AutoCAD last week. We have a project that has elevations drawn with complex hatch patterns depicting different materials across them. I needed to move the elevations, so I grabbed everything and moved it. The move and regeneration took about 5 minutes. I almost thought it locked, and was about to end task it....

Complexity in any program will bog it down as the computer has to handle more calculations.

[Vincent Valentijn]

We're having the same issues over here.. after setting up about 12 different apartments I decided to put them together as the apartment building it should finally be.

First of all.. the fact that you can't fully link a RVT file that has its own linked RVT's is a bit of a disappointment. I wished to cluster the apartments to floors, and cluster the floors to the building.. just to keep things managable, working in the total [huge] cluster would be almost impossible I anticipated. But.. there is no other option because of Revit's poor hierarchy. :cry: .. I guess the're busy improving this point though, I keep my fingers crossed.

Now I am left with a project file with about 32 linked RVT's [12 diff. models] which are completed with things like hallways, elevators and stuff.. I grouped these things, but you all know how 'great' groups behave? :? it took so much of my time.

And last.. I don't see any possibility left to extend things to the whole project, which has 7 of these apartment buildings! I tried a drastic full copy but the weirdest things happen with this. Walls suddenly become fully transparent making things 'float around'.. even in the renderings! so awful.. and .. guess what it does for my pc's performance. It can hardly manage the one tower, and I've got a good system already!

.. pfffff.. sorry guys, got a bit carried away there.. frustrations got the better of me. Just good to know I'm not the only one running into these walls.

greetings

[Scott D Davis]

Is it not stated in the Revit help files, that RVT linking should be used ONLY to link individual buildings together to form a campus of buildings? The RVT link is not meant to be an "xref" in the sense that you can link floor 3 to floor 2 to floor 1. I think you are having problems because you are trying to use Link in an AutoCAD way, not a Revit way.

[Vincent Valentijn]

YES.. it is stated.. and I knew it beforehand. But that doesn't mean it's not ****** that you can't use a linked RVT as one does an XRef, specially since there is no alternative at all.