New Procedures

[shaunv68276]

A year ago I implemented revit at a firm (12 Seats). last month they came to me with concerns that Its taking to long. the procedure seems to have changed. The initial build up from conceptual to stage 3 seems to take far longer than it did using plain Acad. from there the documentation goes to overload. I am busy putting a "Revit Best Practise" together to try sort there concerns. Has anyone found the same sort of situation that the normal office produres of the last 12-15 years using CAD, has had to drastically change to suite Revits way?

[PeterJ]

I sometimes find it's possible to get bogged down in modelling things almost for the sake of doing so and that can extend the initial stages. I have to remind myself all the time that if a window looks right in elevation and plan, then it is the rightgt window. Detail can go in over the top or a more refined model can be swapped in later on....

Similarly, the temptation to show things in 3D to clients can mean more modelling in key areas than I would ever have produced in other systems. The trick may be to offer these things as additional services and charge, or to say 'this is a by-product of drawing the plans and elevations but may not be a true representation of the 3D form' and stop working up the extra detail.

[Les Therrien]

It's been killing me with time! I have a lot of people angry. I could kill things off in Acad unbelievably quick, but Revit is quite slow even though I have a very quick system.
The benefits of Revit are still superior in my opinion, so I've been purging useless items as much as possible....... I am praying that Revit 7.0 has some fixes that allows quicker processing or at least screen regens. I use to be able to type like Stephen King on acid, now it's like a beginner at the computer.
I think day by day it seems to get better. When I was customizing ADT, I believe it took about 2 years before I was very efficient. Mind you that was lighting speed!
A lot of pre-planning and a little patience seems to help.

[Martin P]

for the avoidance of any doubt - I am working MUCH faster with revit than I have ever managed on any other software, the first year was harder, but now I can produce a set of drawings much sooner than we would (and do) with Autocad - we run both systems, anything needing done quickly - Revit. We will probably phase out autocad next year.

I used to find myself wasting terrible amounts of time trying to get every family completely parametric and to cover loads of variations, and trying to get all my wall joins to "work" every single time. Family inserts to "work" every time with wall closers etc etc. sometimes the best posiible way and ineed the only way to do things in Revit quickly (or at all) is to forget about the "right" way of doing it - ie having Revit do it for you, sometimes just doing things yourself is easier. Wall joins - sometimes it is genuinely impossible to get them to look right on plan - so do it with filled regions and move on to the next thing, rather than sit cursing for an hour trying to "make" it work. Walls attached top and bottom not behaving properly, sometimes it will be easier to just edit the elevation profile instead of hunting and hunting to find the problem, sketch it and move on. Rooms tags not enclosing properly - you can spend half an hour hunting the problem down - or you can draw round the room with separation lines and forget about it. A wall with a part cut out in plan? dont model a family in place, use a filled region. the whole aim is to do it quicker - not to do it 3D or parametrically, you have to keep that in mind.

2D drafting, 2D drafting and more 2D drafting and lots of detail families to overlay your elevations plans and sections. Dont try and model everything and make it all parametric, its the 2D drawings that count and not how elegantly your model works. what is the point in p**sing about modelling some shelves, or a light switch or kitchen units when you havent produced the foundation plans yet - what is the point in modelling all the structural info when the engineer has done autocad drawings? lay them on top of your plans as linked dwg files...... up until we used Revit nobody got 3D views of anything at all and things were ok, so forget about them - they are the bonus not the aim.

once I adopted this attitude my stress levels dropped and my output increased. If there are concerns about knowing what has been done as 2D etc, a duplicate view with some "notes to self" can be very helpful.

I used to find I could "draw" all the walls, roofs, floors etc very quickly then got bogged down with windows and doors - so I made a set of my own windows and doors that did exactly what I want, and are easily edited that helped me a lot too.

But the truth is I still sometimes think "should I try and model that?" even the rule of thumb that if it is in more than one view you model is not a great rule - why model a lead flashing?? it wont matter if you dont see this on a 3D view. You basically need to keep asking yourself "is this necessary" and "can I do it any quicker myself"

[ejburrell67787]

WHAT!?!?!?!?! I thought all the Revit Heros out there on this forum modelled everything and never cheated!!! :wink:

I have ended up using windows and doors that look right in 3d, elevation and plan but then when it comes to detail drawings of windows and doors I have used the visibility settings to actually turn windows and doors off somewhat ironically. The 'drafting' (draughting to me) tools are so good though that it is still far quicker than autocad. And having the base of the detail to start from is helpful.

It a sense it is no different to any other tool - be it a pencil or autocad - you need to be selective about what you draw/model based on the level of detail you require in the end result.

Elrond

[BomberAIA]

You need to 3D elements that will show up in different views. If I have to elevate kitchens & baths, I will 3D the cabinets. If I don't, I will draw them in 2D. Be selective.

[SCShell]

Hi there,

Put me down for falling into the beginning design phases "model everything trap"; however, I think that it is a natural impulse during the first year learning process. We are all SOOOO impressed with what Revit can once the basics are familiar to us, that we want to model EVERYTHING! (If anything, just to see the design for ourselves! Heck, let's face it, most of us using Revit are Architects and Designers. We are overjoyed to actually see our creations come to life before they are built!)

As time (and job cost reports) goes on, you learn what to model, what to blow off and what to simply draft in order to meet the project needs. I find that it mostly depends on what you plan to render, or show in 3D, and, most importantly, how you have set up your fees structure. I have modified my fees due to Revit. I think it is just another part of the learning curve.

Best of Luck
Steve Shell, Architect

[Vincent Valentijn]

Revit slowed me down in the beginning since I spend a lot of time making good content for myself [the imperial stuff was no use to me and the metric... well, let's just say they didn't discontinue the localized library because it was so great]... Also I spend lots of time making a project template with standards as I use them a lot.

Now things are up to full speed, I don't bother with the detail too much since I noticed, like most here, that it eats time like candy. That is also why I still don't do 'full Revit' work, I still resort to other programs when I get down to the details... though I'm moving to 100% Revit more and more and.. I like it a lot!

Difficulty for me is quite often walls and things misbehaving or simply inability to model some things in the normal way like tilted walls (I sometimes do some Ghery-type tricks and well.. I don't use Revit for that, I'd go insane I think)

It all comes down to 'know your tools' and use the right thing in the right way I think...

[SkiSouth]

I hear your client saying "Why aren't we making money" in their statement. Having seen your posts I know that a "solve all" presentation wasn't made with the proposed switch to Revit. So to your question, does it take a change in approach - I feel yes. I have drawn with Autocad since 1983. Started playing with Revit with 5.1, and now have completed about 8 projects for so (full buildings from "scratch") with it since then. Many small little -" I only need a plan " sketches... Having switched where are the problems:
1. The whole idea of a project approach is a complete change. In Acad, you can start anywhere, elevations, details, site whereever- Revit everything is so linked, you have to have a defined approach (NOT that Revit is not flexible).-
2. You must think like an architect, or someone with experience putting a building together, not a draftsperson. You must think, does this wall to to the next floor, etc....
3. I think its easier in Revit if you know where you are going. Have a defined sketch on the plan. I find it harder to concept draw in revit, but that could easily be my abilities, not the softwares limitation.

Oops - out of time, I will digress later...

[Martin P]

It all comes down to 'know your tools' and use the right thing in the right way I think...

This is very true, the unfortunate thing about it is to get to this stage you have to go through a process of using the wrong tools and doing things the wrong way! But once you have gone through this it all becomes second nature. There is a guy in my office insists on using floors for everything, it drives me mad if I have to use his drawings - he will even make columns out of floors??!!! very bad practice, but he wont be told......

[Yman]

I agree with a lot of what Martin said. Ihave never really felt it took longer to do it in Revit except probably for one project, way early in my revit experirence.

#1 rule. Do not model anything you don't need to unless you have a client that wants to pay you extra time to do it. We model the basics and keep fine items out of the overall pictures except in detail views. Use a lot of detail componenets and detail lines.

Also, any families that have a lot of jogs, sweep profiles with a lot of information in them will take time to generate in the reivt project. The windows and doors I made are very simple and have basically shapes and as few objects in them as possible. Basically, the less detail in the family the easier for revit to do all the math to produce a view, move, etc.

I know I save at least 30% of time overall using Revit compared to when I worked in autocad, and I have 3d views to see what it will really look like!

Y

[Nic M.]

Intresting discussion!

After ± 1year I also find myself still customizing (is it ..zing or ..sing?) basic families, template,...
The time spent on drawings is about the same I gues but the quality and quantity of our drawings is greatly improved .
The bigest advantage of working in 3d is that it helps us "understand" the building/spaces and there relation to each other and there surroundings. Not only for us but also to the contractors and clients.
Therefore the rule of thumb see it in one view - draw it flat only applies to details in my opinion.

'know your tools' but never are affraid to learn new ones

I ones knew this guy who could cut his toe-nails with his chainsaw
He limpt a bit but he could do it
so watch out ones I get my grip arround worksets

[Wes Macaulay]

One of the more important skills in Revit is knowing when to fish and when to cut bait. Don't model things. Compromise on modelling. Use 2D.

This is a very interesting thread...

[bclarch]

There is a guy in my office insists on using floors for everything, it drives me mad if I have to use his drawings - he will even make columns out of floors??!!! very bad practice, but he wont be told......
Perhaps he should be told where the door is.

[Steve_Stafford]

:shock:
Perhaps he should be told where the door is.Naah...wouldn't work he used a floor for that too...

[sbrown]

This is a very difficult issue and in my opinion you need a wholehearted switch in your deliverables, the second you use revit on a job. This is where the hang up lies, you have this great 3d model but the 2d drawings don't look good yet. So what do you do, maybe you don't need the 2d drawings, get your client into a meeting room, roll them around the model and move into dd. If you can switch the delieverables in SD you will get more financial benefit out of revit.

[BillyGrey]

I make money in the conceptual phase using revit.

(perhaps my projects aren't quite as complex as your's though, Senior Brown :)

Anytime I can get a client in front of my puter, and push the 3d button, they always
say "whoa".

That translates into cash flow, no matter the time frame.

But I do like to come in on time, and I don't think Revit has hurt me at all there either.
I know it has helped my immesuarably in cross check or even flat out mistakes that would be difficult for a nunge like me to conceptualize in 2d.

That is importante'

[juggergnat]

Fascinating, frank discussion....

I think every comment in here is great. I DO agree there is a necessary change in your process. With drafting you can hack something out faster, you can get over any given obstacle in front of you faster...but you pay for it in other ways. Revit requires a real "think forward" approach, and I'd argue that's far better in the long run.

Our work is a bit slower now. But it is also far better coordinated, there are less last minute cram sessions, and overall the work is much more satisfying. I think even if that formula had to be the case with Revit (and I don't believe it does), then its still not such a bad situation because you will have a lot less stress and you reduce employee turnover. There's a real value to that. Most drafting based firms I've worked in had unmotivated employees and lots of dropped balls between project managers and drafters.

Definitely knowing the limits and trouble spots of the program is absolutely vital. Each time, each new situation usually results in a loss of productivity the first time around. Knowing when to quit on a wall join that won't work...vital. Knowing when to toss 3d and go with 2d...vital. Experience pays with Revit. And having well rounded employees pays also. The individuals must have the intiative to figure it out a bit on their own, they must have the right mindset. If they don't that will definitely hurt productivity.

I think overall increased productivity will eventually result. But you have to custom tailor Revit for your needs, and you have to push it...work with it.

JG

[Wes Macaulay]

This is a very difficult issue and in my opinion you need a wholehearted switch in your deliverables, the second you use revit on a job. This is where the hang up lies, you have this great 3d model but the drawings don't look good yet. So what do you do, forget the stinking 2d drawings, get your client into a meeting room, roll them around the model and move into dd. Until you can make the switch in delieverables you will lose money using revit in concept and SD.So Scott, are you saying that Revit's essentially empty drawings at the beginning tend to mislead your clients? Like they're thinking 'what the hell have you been doing with all that time -- there's no drawings here'

...because I could see that. It takes some time to flesh out the drawings -- and often the first part of a Revit project is getting the virtual building built.

So you're saying, if I'm correct, that with Revit, the model and the DESIGN ITSELF are the deliverables during SD -- not so much the drawings. Interesting observation; I have seen this for myself on several occasions but never articulated it in the way you have.

This is an extremely important discussion because this gets to the heart of whether Revit is truly beneficial to the bottom line, and whether the effort of creating a virtual building is justifiable. I mean, I do, but I've always been one to sleep with user's manuals.

[GuyR]

This is a very difficult issue and in my opinion you need a wholehearted switch in your deliverables, the second you use revit on a job.

It's only difficult as long as you view Revit as a 3D version of AutoCAD? The process was 3D(design) -> 2D(documentation) -> 3D(construction) . As long as you are modelling something in Revit you have 3D->3D->3D. Any 2D views on a sheet as long as they aren't detail views are really 3D views :-)

In some ways the desire to duplicate the 2D representation of legacy CAD in a 3D system is amusing. For example I can think of many uses for exploded 3D views to efficiently and accurately representing construction detail. Why don't we question more how we present a design for construction?

As I see it the goal should be 100% 3D modelling and NO 2D detailing. The result would be a model I can cut/view any which way and get a realistic, accurate result. Of course this isn't possible yet and possibly never will be. When I stop modelling is answered by these 4 questions:
1.. How efficiently can achieve the result I want?
2.. Does the functionality exist?
3.. Is there a benefit for the client/ builder in a 3D representation?
4.. Is there a rendering/ scheduling requirement?

The 3D model gives you so much more than just a detailing framework. To be able to interactively generate 3D views/ costing/ structural/ rendering/ energy analysis/ interference analysis reports as the project proceeds is enormously beneficial. All potentially in realtime. Or as Autodesk would have it , the I in BIM.

With the pressure on to build smarter ,cheaper and more energy efficient buildings the potential Revit has to allow architects to concentrate on the architecture while delivering all of these technical requirements is one if it's biggest assets.

Guy

[sbrown]

The ultimate deliverable is a 3d built environment, correct. The problem is the past method of getting to that 3d building was a series on 2d drawings to explain what you want built. With revit you can start to explain that 3d environment from day one. However the industries current contracts are still based on delievering 2d drawings to explain this environment. After working in revit for 4+ years, I now design/work/think in 3d at all times so when I switch back to printing out something in 2d and see how it just doesn't describe what I want it to, I find myself having to embellish the 2d drawings more (in my opinion a waste of time) to explain what could be explained instantly with a projector and a screen in a meeting room.

The other issue is how do you change your contracts and the clients expectations in a way that profits you. I know I deliver a better more acurate product using revit, but you can't tell your client that if you pay me more to use revit I'll make less mistakes.

[Wes Macaulay]

Does your firm not want to let the clients see the 3D model? Some firms don't want their clients to know the power to make changes that they have.

Or is it a case of 'the client doesn't care about the model - they just want the drawings'... a 3D model is a waste of time to them...

You're totally right, tho -- drawings can look pretty think even when the model is well along. Heck, I'm working on a project where the drawings are confusing because the building is so complicated -- better to just look at the model than even look at the drawings. There is no way this building could be readily understood using drawings, but this project is a special case.

[PeterJ]

I've been thinking about this thread and, notwithstanding Scott's problem above - which I assume is some form of WATG constraint relating to not producing 3D work unless paid for - and my own concerns expressed at the outset, I have actually changed my working methods to benefit from Revit. Now I frequently produce much less detailed 2D information at the outset but provide 3D models alongside it, the reason for this is that where I have a lot of lay-clients they gain a much greater understanding of what they might be buying by seeing it in 3D. Similarly, when working with professional clients I have found there is a lot of Kudos in showing a 3D model early on and it certainly saves me offering so much detail in elevation, for example.

To put a real world example to this I am currently working with the vendor of a site that is suited to some 70-90 flats/apartments, depending on how we slice it up. I have prepared two schemes for the site, which are admittedly very similar, one for a social landlord, one for a second tier volume housebuilder. The schemes are presented as area plans, sample unit layouts, rendered perspective, site layout and schedule of accommodation. I have billed my client for about 15 hours so far of which perhaps one third is meetings (I had admittedly done a degree of pre-instruction work too). The volume housebuilder told me yesterday that he had never received such a worked up scheme at pre-purchase stage and that it was making his financial appraisal of the site much easier.

I suspect that working on paper and with a 2D CAD package I would have struggled to produce such an accurate schedule of accommodation, not have produced coloured plans with a key to number of bedrooms, certainly not have produced a rendered 3D. It would have taken me as long, if not longer, to get there too.

[Martin P]

This is a great example of using the power of a 3D view over a 2D view -

The local planning department want us to make a 3 storey block of flats into a 2 storey as they think they will be too tall when viewed from the major road nearby - I can prove them wrong with a 3D view, but not if it were based solely on the 2D view - they would have claimed to be correct. Won us a lot of kudos with the client.

the 3 storey blocks are quite a distance back from the houses and road, as you can see the 2D section makes them look as if they tower over the houses - the 3D view makes the look as they actually will - brilliant!!

[Steve_Stafford]

...a great example of using the power of a 3D view over a 2D view.. Yes it is and also great example of quick witted thinking to "save" your project concept.

[beegee]

I agree, thats a great way to use the power of 3D visualisation.

We once had a planner ( in a court case ) tell the court that he couldn't accept our perspective of the before and after, as the real world reality, since it was basically an "artists impression", not "solid evidence".

The QC acting for our client in that case had a fun time with him and that argument in court.

We won the case BTW.

[PeterJ]

Sounds like Colin needs to set out his fees for planning work on a cost per sgquare metre achieved, Martin. Then he'd clean up on those tricky ones and you could ask for a piece.

[Martin P]

We were kind of caught on the hop with that one its true Steve! I cut the section and Colin and I both kind of went "oooohhhh..... no!!" - when I dropped on the 3d view it was "ohhhh yess!!!!" - And yep, a piece of that project would be nice indeed Pete :)

I am sure I read something in BD magazine about some regulations coming regarding 3D renderings / photo montage etc with regards to planning and how they view them - as we all know it is possible to make things appear in your favour if you need to (another good reason for 3D!) - trees are another point I think they are looking at, we all show new trees that are actually 3 feet tall as being 30 feet tall !!