Is it worth it???

[tc3dcad60731]

I have used ACAD since R13 and MDT since R2. Inventor has been a royal pain but now I have people asking if I can do dwgs in ADT. So I went and bought the newest book (2004) to start reading it and discover that this "appears" cool but Autodesk is coming out with 2005. IS this program really worth the learning curve and especially the PRICE?

The subscription rate is good but to buy in is very high.

[hand471037]

what kinda work do you do?

[tc3dcad60731]

I do 3d modeling of steel structures, structural & civil drawings, landscape & irrigation drawings, architecturals of homes, buildings, and remodeling, and hand drawing to cad conversions. The arch side is really picking up.

What do you do??

[hand471037]

Architecture, pretty much. Mostly Mutli-unit housing, mixed-use commercial things, and a few smaller custom residential and stuff. In the past have done Historic renovation projects and Museums and such. I use Revit, and if you want to go 3D for the kinds of work it sounds like you're doing, you may want to download it and try it out prior to going with ADT. Revit is a lot like Inventor in some ways, but tailor-made for the construction industry.

Unless you've got a huge investement in AutoCAD/MDT/ADT in licences/training/LISP, and you don't have the flexibility or time to switch to something else, I'd highly recommend looking forward at Revit, rather than looking sideways from MDT to ADT... :)

[richard.binning]

And then theres the other side. If you want to leverage your investment in training with autocad products and utilize software that is already fully integrated with the MEP disciplines through Building Systems then stick with the autocad based product and train on the ADT aspects which work on top of autocad. Check this paper out (http://www3.autodesk.com/adsk/files/4411301_ADT_Productivity_WP.pdf)for info on the productivity benefits of ADT.
Don't get me wrong, REVIT is a fantastic tool and we are currently running 14 licenses of it. However, we have 110+ licenses of ADT/ABS/LDDT which we use 95% of the time. REVIT is an excellent software package, but is still lacking in many areas critical to building design professionals.

[hand471037]

Well, while I'd not completely agree with the 'fully integrated with MEP via Building Systems (I personally feel there are a lot of issues still there, and that it's not fully integrated)' or the 'leverage your existing training (I've used AutoCAD forever, and know it pretty well, and ADT is a totally different beast)' comments, you point is completely valid: If you've got a heavy investment in AutoCAD, and are looking for productivity gains without leaving that AutoCAD platform, then ADT is a viable option. Additionally, if Revit doesn't work for you right now, for whatever reason, then it's another path you could take.

However you really should look at both Revit and ADT, for if Revit does fit your needs, I feel from the kinds of work you describe and the fact that you've worked with Inventor some you'll get much more productivity gains by going with Revit over ADT. ADT lets you work faster within AutoCAD, it doesn't help you work faster at your JOB. It's a subtle but important difference, and you'll need to ask yourself what you really need, as in 'I need to do exactly what I do now, but just do it faster' vs. 'I need to do what I can't easily do now, and do my whole overall job faster'. Also your workflow comes into play, for working professional designers who also produce CD's, Revit is the bomb. If you've got a huge drafting pool of CAD Draftspeople, then ADT can be the bomb. :)

So download both, and give both a try. Be objective about it to, and understand that there is every bit as much of a change in going with one as there is in going with the other, 'cept that with Revit you've got to jump in with both feet. :D

But trial

[tc3dcad60731]

Ok, So i can download these and use for what 30 days? Are they fully functioning versions/demos? Right now I have a lot of experience with different programs as mentioned. I am also a designer that owns their own company and am working on an engineering degree (like i need another one). The engineers that I work with want it in ACAD but the builders that I deal with want to know if I can do what ADT is doing because they have seen it used on other jobs I guess. The point is I am wondering which one is the best to stick with/move to?

I will research REVIT because i do not know anything about it.

Thanks for the input!!!!!!

[Scott D Davis]

Revit (and I think ADT) is a fully functional 60 day license for the demo version. Definately research Revit.....you will be blown away with it's capabilities.

[tc3dcad60731]

One more dumb question.......

How much is REVIT??? I do not want to call my vendor because they always give me a high price. Furthermore, Autodesk does not come out and state how much it will cost you to buy only what the subscription rate is.

Furthermore, I like what I see so far.

[beegee]

One more dumb question.......

How much is REVIT??? I do not want to call my vendor because they always give me a high price. Furthermore, Autodesk does not come out and state how much it will cost you to buy only what the subscription rate is.

Furthermore, I like what I see so far.You will need to contact a Revit reseller to get a quote. Depends on where you are ( geographically ) and what deals they may have going.

You may be interested in the Revit Series for instance, which bundles the latest AutoCAD and Revit together, on a subscription basis for upgrades to each as they become available. I understand there are some good deals available for the Series product.

[chris.yanchar]

"Sideways"? Not cool.

tc3dcad - I suggest you inquire as to the pros and cons of Architectural Desktop on the Autodesk newsgroup: http://discussion.autodesk.com/forum.jspa?forumID=138 There is much more activity there from customers using the software.

Cheers
--
chris yanchar | product designer
building solutions division | autodesk, inc.
http://autodesk.blogs.com/between_the_walls/

[hand471037]

Chris, get over it. I meant that going from MDT to ADT is a 'sideways' move, rather than a move to something completely different that might (or might not) work out better. How is that 'not cool'?!? They are very similar in that they are both running over the top of AutoCAD, and automate stuff for their respective disciplines, whereas Inventor and Revit are totally different platforms that give you new abilities while making some other stuff easier, but only if the tool matches your style of working.

Sheesh. What the hell is wrong with you Autodesk people anyways? I wasn't saying that ADT was the wrong choice, or that it was bad, or anything... christ. YOU SELL BOTH PRODUCTS!

Autodesk is seriously messed up. :/

I mean, as I was working for a reseller I'd have to face this kinda **** all the time, and it's no small part as to why I got out and went back into Architecture full time. Your little petty fiefdoms have NOTHING to do with what people really need to do their work, and your internal battles between Products is sad and pathetic, and doesn't help us, the end users, in the slightest, and worse only confuses and angers most users so that they have no idea what to do.

Get over it.

[chris.yanchar]

Perhaps my comment was a little terse.

I am not sure what you mean by 'internal battles' as we have normal, friendly relationships and respect for what the teams are doing on both sides. 'Sideways' with a smiley face and 'drafting pool of CAD Draftspeople' seemed to characterize that ADT would not allow the customer to work in new ways and grow their business over 2D drafting...which I think he might've been trying to elicit feedback on...and which of course he could.

I think the important thing for tc3dcad to note is that although both products are 'building information modeling' tools that are focused on the building industry, the biggest hurdle is the culture change to working in 3D and thinking 'data' vs. pushing lines around.

In addition to hearing from the trenches, speaking with a qualified reseller that can determine the best fit based on the company's needs is really important; both products have their place. I would also say that next to the big time ease-of-use issues ADT had for many years, the next problem would have been pushing software boxes with no context of what building modeling is all about...and both contribute(d) to ADT being used as AutoCAD.

Finally, I don't believe a trial version of ADT can be downloaded; I believe you need to inquire with a reseller so that the discovery process of which Autodesk solution is a best fit.

Thanks -
Chris

[matt_dillon]

There really is very little to compare between Revit and Inventor once you get past the surface.

Inventor was written from the start as an Autodesk application, and written with a core foundation to include an API. The initial release was really little more than beta, but the later releases have been very mature and with a robust API have allowed for amazing expansion of the capabilities by 3rd party developers, working with customers to build solutions that drastically speed up time-to-market cycles.

Revit, on the other hand, was originally written as a competitor to ADT, an Autodesk product, and written, BY DESIGN, to NOT have an API, the philosophy being that architects shouldn't be programmers. In my opinion, missing the boat. The API is not for the architects, but for the other disciplines needing to plug in to the building information model. Autodesk purchased Revit and says that it will add an API to it. I'm skeptical - if it was written BY DESIGN, to not have an API, I find it difficult to believe that Autodesk, as good as it's programmers are (and they are very good), can shoehorn anything more than a sad imitation of an API into it.

Maybe it will require a complete re-write from scratch, or maybe Autodesk will pull it off. But until there is a true and robust API in Revit, it will not be a true building INFORMATION modeler, but instead a pretty good ARCHITECTURAL modeler with the ability to pump data out to a proprietary ODBC database format.

Just my opinion, of course.

Matt


[QUOTE=Jeffrey McGrew]Chris, get over it. I meant that going from MDT to ADT is a 'sideways' move, rather than a move to something completely different that might (or might not) work out better. How is that 'not cool'?!? They are very similar in that they are both running over the top of AutoCAD, and automate stuff for their respective disciplines, whereas Inventor and Revit are totally different platforms that give you new abilities while making some other stuff easier, but only if the tool matches your style of working.

[hand471037]

I'd don't mean that Revit is similar to Inventor 'under the hood' so to speak. Under the hood they are totally different, I agree. I mean that they approach the problem of 'drawing stuff' in the same way; in that you produce a model, a virtual building of that object, which you use for design feedback, to solve design issues, and also to produce the documents needed to produce that object. They have both been coming from this mindset form day one, and are based upon non-Autocad and custom-made engines for realizing this goal.

Other solutions, such as MDT, ADT, or even ArchiCAD to a lesser extent, aren't quite coming from the same place. They are part BIM, part CAD. You *can*, if you're dedicated and savvy enough, do BIM with these products, but it's not their primary focus I feel. You *can* use ADT to make a virtual building model for design feedback and such, but only the most dedicated solo ADT user's I've seen do this; most just use ADT as an enhanced AutoCAD and aren't really doing BIM- they are just automating what they were doing in AutoCAD before (like using doors, walls, and windows, and *maybe* generating elevations or section which are then exploded and just made into 2D drawings). Their advantage is that they are great tools for someone who's AutoCAD-savvy and looking to work faster within that world. However that if that world doesn't really have much value to you, for whatever reason, then other platforms might serve them better.

For example, where I used to work we did a lot of renovation work being in the City. Being able to have something like Phasing built-in, active, and not requiring esoteric set-up was a huge advantage. Having intelligent sheets that simply work, and don't again require special knowledge was a huge advantage. And we weren't doing anything in Autocad that was so special that it couldn't be abandoned in favor of something easier and more automated. It totally depends on your needs.

And as for you happy little picture of everyone getting along within Autodesk land, that's a farce. I'm sorry, maybe you see a very different side of Autodesk, but when I was working for a reseller I saw, on more than one occasion, people with little fiefdoms battling over petty things, and not paying any attention in the slightest to what there customers really needed. This is something I simply can't agree with you on Chris, even your comments on the ADT newsgroups insinuating that Revit might be 'dropped' because of lack of sales, or throwing tantrums when people have the audacity to recommend Revit over ADT... I'm sorry, Chris, but we don't see eye-to-eye. But I certain that you and Matt probably feel that I'm simply one of those Revit idiots, because I can't possibly understand how 'great' ADT is.

I'll just go back to doing REAL WORK now.

[chris.yanchar]

You must be confusing my comments with someone else, as I would not, and have never insinuated such things. The only time I ever insert myself into such conversations is to correct the myth that ADT was slated to be retired or to correct misrepresentations. Of course I am a strong advocate for the product I work on, but I would never talk negatively about any of our products.

My perspective is from the inside between development, product design, and qa; I have no visibility to what is happening out in the reseller world.

[hand471037]

Chris, sorry to be mistaken. When I looked back at several posts from a year or so ago, it was a different Autodesk employee I was thinking about. I'm sorry to jump the gun, and sorry to offend you. I'm personally very sorry.

As for the reseller side, I'm very sorry to say it wasn't just the reseller side, it was also the Autodesk sales team itself that was every bit as messed up as the resellers. It was a very slimy, ugly world, and one that I'm very happy and relieved to not be part of anymore, and one that you should avoid if you can ;-). However all my dealings with the *development* side of Autodesk have been great, even with the AutoCAD developers I met once who wanted to talk to me because of my last firm's use of Revit...

And I think that this argument really highlights the differences Matt, and why lots of Revit folks and ADT folks don't see eye-to-eye; to you, the strength of the API is a huge, if not the most important, issue. It's your primary focus. So obviously, software with no real API can't possibly be useful to you, and seems valueless.

For me, an API is nice (and I look forward to one in Revit), but my primary focus is in having a tool that's as transparent as possible between me and the work, for it's the Work that's important ABOVE ALL ELSE.

My primary focus is on my personal overall effectiveness within the software. I can't stand tools that waste my time, get in my way, or don't help me in some very tangible and visible and immediate way.

For example, I love Photoshop. It's immediately useful, it helps me get work done, and has a huge amount of value. There is a very robust API there, but I've never used it. There's also Macros, and I've used that somewhat. But to me the most important thing is that Photoshop lets me very quickly do the work I need to, with a high level of quality, and with minimal set-up and overhead.

I love Revit. It's immediately useful, it helps me get work done, and has a huge amount of value. There's no API, but you can make very complex families, and export via ODBC to do almost everything I need. There's no Macros, but again with Families and parametrics this isn't that big of an issue. The most important thing is that Revit lets me very quickly do the work I need to, with a high level of quality, and with minimal set-up and overhead.

I don't love Autocad or ADT. It's not immediately useful, doesn't do anything to help me get work done (only recently have some things been added that would, with Sheet Sets, but even that's not 100% IMHO), and only has value in that it's the current industry standard. There's a huge API, heck there are four of them, and I'll have to learn one to really make best use of the software or pay someone else who understands it for tools. There are Macros, in the form of scripts, which I'd use to some extent. It doesn't let me do the work I need to do very quickly, it gets in my way constantly, and takes a large amount of time and set-up and overhead...

But this is just my opinion, after all, and your mileage may vary.

[chris.yanchar]

Ironically, we are probably in more agreement than you imagine. :)

ADT's biggest weakness is/was not its extensibility by 3rd parties and ability for other niche software developers to build on top, but its ease of use and 'architectural' sensibility. This is something we focused on in a big way for the 2004 release. I often think about writing a novel about how that all came to be <g>, but believe me when I say that the prime focus was on pushing the architectural/building model capabilities of ADT by making it easier to use, less AutoCAD in your face, and more "architectural." The foundation was there from the beginning, but unfortunately not accessible to the average user. And although long-time users will vouch for the strides it has made, there is much more to do in the ease-of-use area. APIs fallout of the natural development process now, but not at the expense of ease-of-use; so I would disagree with the assertion that is the primary focus. I would also disagree that you should need to program anything to get your main job of designing and communicating a building done, if so, it means we have either missed the boat or knowingly have not gotten there yet due to other priorities (or constituents); but that’s not why programming interfaces exist. Indeed there are many mid to large size firms that need the access to tweak and hone things to their specific ways, but the main reason for APIs is for other software vendors to write specific solutions for areas that are not our area of focus…and/or not focus of the majority of our customers.

There are a lot of constituencies we need to be mindful of, and a lot of that causes us to evolve the app over time. A good/recent example is the way callouts and sheet sets work. They take into account the myriad of ways that ADT (aka. AutoCAD) users have come to work over many years...so they are flexible...and with that comes a bit more questions for the user to contend with. It would be interesting to know the overall percentage of BIM process used by ADT, Revit Series, ArchiCAD, Bentley, et al. I think we would find that the numbers are pretty comparative…and that the majority are still thinking 2D drafting table/2D productivity…not data…not 3D. (Of course the industry is moving in the right direction.) A computer can only automate so much…and hopefully it is becoming clear that they will not simplify the practice of architecture at the push of a button. But rather it is exposing how much more complex building design, engineering, construction, and operation is these days, and how much more architects (and all the other players) can be doing to advance design, construction, and beyond. Not to say automating the basics is not important.

I can’t wait for 2014. :)

Cheers -
Chris