Is Revit what they need?

[dtransom]

I am doing some contract drafting work for a project management company; the work is documenting communications outlets in existing buildings.

I have been given the architectural drawings (autocad) and have to transfer the information contained in Corel drawings done by the client. Apart from the usual nightmares of trying to interpret between the NTS Corel drawings and layout differences between them, all is fine.

The client (a government department) to date has been using Corel Draw. They have been persuaded to buy Revit to do this work in the future; that is to just edit autocad drawings, not to transfer into Revit format. I have only limited experience with Revit, but don't feel it is right for them.

I have imported some of the dwgs into Revit and have identified a number of issues. Maybe there is a way of overcoming these, if anyone can give me some tips...

- the dwgs are not editable unless they are exploded
- some of them cannot be exploded, just get an error without explanation
- solids hatches in the dwgs don't appear (ie inside symbol blocks)
- attributes are no longer attached to blocks
- blocks are exploded into individual entities
- text hides anything under it
- titleblocks and other notes etc, in paperspace don't appear
- xrefs don't always appear at the same scale
- lack of layer control

I think the xref problem is related to the base drawing not having paperspace, and all the others being at 1:100 in viewports????

I feel they would be better off with LT, especially as the drawings have ultimately to be returned to another government department which oversees all building work. They are very insistant on standards, and I doubt that inexperienced operators would be able to comply with this if using Revit.

I get the feeling they are using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, and all that will be left is a mess.

Any comments?

Dave

[Wes Macaulay]

Who in the world badgered those people into buying Revit for that purpose? You're right on the money, and whoever gave that directive has some serious explaining to do. :evil:

[mlgatzke]

I agree. I hate to admit it, but if it were me, I'd do it in AutoCAD (sorry Factory). Sure, Revit would be nice if the project would have been started in Revit -- or 3D in ADT or AutoCAD, but not the kind of project you're talking about. Sorry, but that's what I'd do.

[sfaust]

yeah, no chance that would be needed. All they need is a standard cad program, especially just to edit existing drawings.

[Martin P]

Any comments?

Dave


They need to be using Autocad, Revit is not the right tool for editing Autocad drawings - infact most Revit users will advise you not to explode Dwg files at all -

that said who on earth had them editing dwg files in corel draw, is that not a paint/graphics package?

[aggockel50321]

They have been persuaded to buy Revit to do this work in the future; that is to just edit autocad drawings, not to transfer into Revit format. I have only limited experience with Revit, but don't feel it is right for them.

It probably depends on how your client wants to see the data (comm outlets) in it's final form. If they want a database type listing of the outlets, LT will work only if you go through the pain of exporting the blocks & importing them into access or xl. If you get a lisp extension for LT, you can buy or find lisp routines to automate the process, but one add-on might not mesh easily with another.

If they just want revised partition layouts showing the outlets in a graphical form, as others have said above, stay with LT but if they're looking for more, I'd try Revit. The learning curve is certainly easier than LT with add-ons.

The nice thing about Revit, is that it'll give you the info in a database format, easily sorted & scheduled by whatever parameter (floor, dept, etc) you choose.

As for the .dwg changes, imho, in Revit, I usually will go through the pain of tracing over .dwgs with Revit, & then add the other stuff I want to sort & group, just because I can keep it in one file and have the advanced sorting / filtering capabilities of Revit. As you build up the project model, you'll be amazed of the ease of getting other ifo out, i.e room schedules, areas, wall quanities, .dwg exports, ODBC, etc.

I think just the fact you can forget about layer standards, that I'm sure they'll beat you over the head with, makes Revit worth the price.

[Scott D Davis]

- the dwgs are not editable unless they are exploded
True - most advise against exploding DWG files in Revit


- some of them cannot be exploded, just get an error without explanation
Not sure what's happening there. Best not to explode.

- solids hatches in the dwgs don't appear (ie inside symbol blocks)
Use filled regions in Revit


- attributes are no longer attached to blocks
Revit does not use attributes

- blocks are exploded into individual entities
True

- text hides anything under it
Edit Text Style and turn off Opaque setting.

- titleblocks and other notes etc, in paperspace don't appear
Import Paperspace info into sheets in Revit, modelspace elements into views

- xrefs don't always appear at the same scale
If they are the same scale in ACAD, they will be the same in Revit.

- lack of layer control
Imported DWGs have complete layer control just as in AutoCAD...unless you explode.

[Cathy Hadley]

I've suggested Revit to a client, also government contractor, who I'm sure their drafters are saying the same thang... why? We just insert some blocks its a no brainer....

But in their case, its exactly as the Big Dawg suggests, their ultimate goal (and government requirement) is a written as well as drawn description of the project, I mean piece by piece... i.e. go down hallway 109 feet. Place 10 'x' pieces, at $$ each, etc... I see the database potential of Revit to be huge, plus the added benefit of exploring the as built conditions in 3D... up and over obsticles, etc... At this time they are doing these calculations by hand. 1, 2, 3 .... oops start over...

They were also very interested in the aspect of providing a living document that could used for many things in the future.

As to adhearing to the strict government layering requirements... no problem, set up the export once and you are good to go.

So maybe the person who suggested Revit (wasn't nuts) just thinking on a larger project scale than just creating some drawings?

Or not?
Cathy

[dtransom]

Thanks guys,

I was thinking for a moment maybe I was not getting what Revit can do, but you have confirmed what I thought.

The client said they were attracted to Revit because of its ease of use; that is, their operators are used to Corel and they thought this would be easier for them.

I don't know what the Revit salesman was told, or what he/she told them. I can see that the ease of use would be attractive. But when you take into account the difference in price, they would be better off spending the money on training.

I have a meeting with them this Friday, so will take a print of your replies. I don't think they have commited yet.

Once again, thanks for your comments.

Dave