Vectorworks Propaganda

[Wes Macaulay]

http://www.nemetschek.net/news/bimwhitepaper.html

This article is balderdash. Here's why...

This is one application which is not in the same league as ArchiCAD and Revit... Vectorworks. Just so you know: Vectorworks uses layers to create the Z coordinates for the building. You use yet another layer to create a "layer link" which takes the parts of the building drawn on the other layers and assembles them together.

You can't edit the building directly using the layer-linked model. VW Architect, which is the arch'l add-on for VW, only adds some management tools (and a cool space planning module), so consider the following...

- VW doesn't create finished elevations and section from the layer link. VW can't assign elevation hatches to walls, so you have to add them yourself. Generally VW users take a 2D snapshot ("Convert Copy to Lines") of the layer link and do the rest in 2D
- Elevations and sections are NOT live-linked to the plans. VW does NOT have bi-directional associativity between views
- VW is not a single file database, so to split up a job, you have to use "workgroup references" - basically xrefs - and VW users will tell you they're not much fun.

Nemetchek DOES make a building modeller called AllPlan which is more expensive and more complicated than VW, but is much more of a beast to run, much more than Revit, comrades!

VW is less of a BIM platform than ADT, and we all know how much less elegantly ADT does the BIM thing compared to Revit.

This article angers me since it doesn't tell the story: you would never create a building model for construction documentation in VW. Their measurement of what BIM means is a stretch, and it's only to fit VW into their definition of BIM. Having used VW myself, I know its strengths (good for 2D CAD and light 3D models) and limitations. There are far more bugs per byte of code in VW than in Revit. Have a look for yourself: the users never lie!

http://techboard.nemetschek.net
THE HORROR! THE HORROR!

[Wes Macaulay]

Here's a topic that covers some of this precisely:

http://techboard.nemetschek.net/cgi/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=000655

[Scott D Davis]

When you are Top Dog, everyone has to take their shots at you.....

[Scott Hopkins]

That Vectorworks article was extremely poorly written. It was hard to wade through all of that double-speak and smoke & mirrors. The VW guys are really going out of their way to confuse and obfuscate the issues in the BIM debate. I am not sure where everyone is getting the idea that you can't effectively use Revit without additionally also using AutoCAD. I think this rumor might actually have been started by AutoDesk. I find Revit fantastic for drafting and detailing and have no need whatsoever of AutoCAD. The AutoCAD files made by Revit that I send my consultants are perfect.

[designer56644]

Hey Scott:


I am not sure where everyone is getting the idea that you can't effectively use Revit without additionally also using AutoCAD.

It's out there, on the portal sites, the ng's and the forums, and "product envy" and technophobia fuel the myths.

One source which cast alot of doubt in my mind before I took the plunge into Revit was some of the articles I've read on some pretty heavyweight CAD sites on the web, and by some pretty well respected and known individuals in our circles. These articles and comparisons refer to Revit/Autocad as a great combinationof "tools", and in other contexts or articles they refer to "droping back down" into Autocad to detail drawings. Other posts and FUD I've seen around refer to Revit as immature, etc.

At a minimum, for Revit's sake alone, I feel this is a bit of a slight, and I hope that our freinds who freely pen these types of articles and comparisons understand how it affects and fuels the potential user's
insecurities about this "new" technology. I know in my case, after reading one article that deals with Revit in this light, I came a blond hair from passing on the product. If not for this board, I am certain whithout a shadow of a doubt I would have, and purchased ADT instead. That would have been a mistake. And that leads me to beleive I was mislead about Revit's true functionality.

This tools is well rounded and mature. It needs alot of work, but so does every other BIM product on the market, sans none. Our job is to help dispell these myths about Revit, and tout it's perceived weaknesses for what they really are; strengths.

[aggockel50321]

Not for nothing, but one of our consultants (landscape) uses Vectorworks. Being 200 miles away he sends up a lot of .dwg & .pdf files.

They're always screwed up. The pdf files are the worst. I can never get them to print properly, unless open them in Adobe Illustrator, place them on a sheet & print them from Illustrator.

He's forever having problems dealing with .dwg files I send him (produced with acad, not revit).

I keep telling him to take a look at Revit, but he says "No, Vector Works is the greatest thing since sliced bread."

I've never tried the product, so I really don't know...

[david@stearnsarchitecture]

As a long time Vectorworks user, I have to say it's a great package for the $700 or so it cost. Easy to get any desired 2D effect, simpler to learn than Photoshop or Ilustrator. For a small office, you really don't need to train someone, they can learn as they go.

I hit the limit of what it can do in terms of using the building model for documentation - you have to convert everything to 2d lines at some point to issue proper drawings. Things that Revit excels at like automating schedules are a lot more work in Vectorworks.

Revit is a new idea from the ground up that I did not expect when I started Vectorworks/Minicad in 1992, which was the alternative to hand drawing.

Even so, it wasnt until Revit release 6 that I could do things I took for granted in my $700 program: rectangles, front/back object control, opaque drafting patterns, lines in front of filled regions, formulas in schedules.

My impression of Revit 5.1 was: it can do fantastic things I never imagined, but could not do many simple things I took for granted.

[hand471037]

Even so, it wasnt until Revit release 6 that I could do things I took for granted in my $700 program: rectangles, front/back object control, opaque drafting patterns, lines in front of filled regions, formulas in schedules.

David, the only thing I see that's new in 6 on your list there is Formulas in Schedules. What do you mean by Rectangles & Front/Back control? And the whole thing with filled regions? because unless I'm misunderstanding you, these are things I've been able to do in 5 no prob...

But I can't argue with that price. Revit costs as much as a small used car! :)

and Bill C., now that I'm working for a reseller here in San Francisco doing Revit stuff (to give me more time for my A.R.E.) I'm really beginning to better understand where some of the Revit critics are coming from. Many of them have never used any of these products (ADT or Revit) in a actual production envirnoment, and may not really understand how one would do so (esp. with something so new as Revit). Some of them haven't worked in a firm for years, and even then it was as a CAD manager, and not as a rank-and-file person. Their viewpoints can be slightly biased because of this, and they don't see things the same way you or I might. Sometimes it makes them make limited or poor judgements about the actual ability and usablity of the tools they are reviewing and/or talking about. Mix in personal bais and fear, and you get to right where we are. It's not fair, certainly. But for several reasons I think time will be on Revit's side, and that soon it will be more than apparent that it's the better choice, not just to those of us who are crazy about it, but to those who didn't like it at first look.

Heck, I simply tell the AutoCAD/ADT managers asking about Revit about how Revit uses Windows Printer drivers, Windows Fonts, has a built-in and easy to use Batch plot, and no CBT, STB, HPGL2, PC3, Profile, or whatever issues- and they get this faraway look in thier eyes... and say wow, damn, that sure would be nice to not have to deal with all of that mess anymore... :)

[Wes Macaulay]

...now that I'm working for a reseller here in San Francisco doing Revit stuff...
Jeepers creepers! Another one!

Fortunately, I have wormed my way in to most of our clients' offices and get to work on their projects. And I do some of my own. To teach Revit and not actually USE it... well, that wouldn't be fair. I would seriously consider a LOA from my employer to go back to the trenches.

The upside of my job is that the crew at Pacific Alliance are all heady university types -- hardly a bunch of "propeller heads" as one of our people says. We talk about usability and planning issues and the things we like to see our clients doing. I like that I'm seeing more about GIS and mapping stuff than I would if I was simply working in an architectural firm.

And I like that my job is all about freeing the masses from the tyranny of AutoCAD and ADT!

CHARGE!!

[hand471037]

Well, I'm still keeping one foot in the world of Architecture, for I took this job so I'd actually have the time to take my A.R.E. and renovate two different houses that friends of mine want me to work on. Working full-time for a busy firm meant random 50-60+ hour weeks sometimes, which really screws up any kind of study schedule. Getting my Architect's Licence is the most important thing for me right now, so I really felt like I needed to put myself in a situation that would allow me to pursue that to it's fullest. The local reseller really needed a Revit guy, it's a regualr 9-5 gig, and so I took the oppertunity to have more time.

And most Architecture firms are rather touchy about thier people moonlighting... :)

[PeterJ]

most Architecture firms are rather touchy about thier people moonlighting... :)

So don't tell them...Doh!

[david@stearnsarchitecture]

What do you mean by Rectangles & Front/Back control? And the whole thing with filled regions? because unless I'm misunderstanding you, these are things I've been able to do in 5 no prob...

Jeffrey,

I mean the new Rectangle Tool.

As far as front/back control, it seems like in version 5, I was unable to have a grey filled region behind drafting lines, such as showing a shaded area depicting a room addition beneath the lines of a roof plan. In fact even in v6, I am unable to do this graphic shading below the modeled roof. I have to use Detail lines to draw the ridge and hip again.

The problem with filled regions in 5 was that fill patterns were in wireframe mode only. So if I were drawing a a detail where a concrete filled region was surrounded by an earth filled region, the concrete would not hide a simple earth rectangle behind it; I would have to draw a more complex earth shape around it. Now they can be hidden line and one can hide the other with front/back control.

There are still graphic problems:you probably have come across this in your house renovations. When you insert a new door in an existing wall, the door jambs are absent in plan instead of being the same line weight of the wall. You have to use detail lines to draft them in.

One more thing that is puzzling: I spend a lot of time going back joining pairs of lines so I can get out of Sketch mode due to error messages. If Revit knows which lines need to be joined and is putting up a message, why doesn't it automatically join them upon exiting the Sketch?? Or at least some kind of "Fix It" button. Its best guest would be right 90% of the time.

[hand471037]

David, thanks for the clarification. You're dead-on. :)

And yeah, I've never understood why, even when Revit is highlighting the problem edges, that it couldn't have some automated recommendation. Like a built-in, non-user set raduis that if two end fall within for what it will 'guess' with, and will pop up, rather than a error, a box saying 'i've found these two ends aren't closed, and it looks like these to need to be joined- should I join them yes/no?'

Kinda like a spell checker. ;)

[designer56644]

Wow,

I did'nt realize this thread reappeared...

Jeffrey, good luck on your new gig.
Yes, Revit really needs to make the big jump into the mainstream
working/cd space.

Likewise, I'm now attending the arch. program at cal poly pomona....
(no wonder i've been off the board for a while)
My instructors have only vaugley heard of revit, and none have ever used it. sketch-up, same deal...

this is a major architectural learning institution, and the head of the area i am involved in recently disclosed the university was considering switching to a great new technology, archicad (!)

for now, it's autocad and form-z baby

hmmmm, how to pry open the eyes of the world...?

[Scott D Davis]

Bill,

You've gotta tell Proctor to forget about ArchiCAD, and get Revit! They can get the software on an educational license! Or some local firm (like us) can sponsor them and get them 25 seats for free! I'm a Cal Poly Pomona grad, so I know how those guys work. They are pro-Mac for everything, so that's why they push ArchiCAD and Form-Z.

Hopefully you can do some of your studio projects in Revit, and blow all of them away!

[designer56644]

SCOTT!

I did a mid term present last week in studio 201, and flipped everybody's wig with the "views" I was able to capture and print (spun the model). It's really wierd, they aren't making the jump to 3d, even at that level, and in fact, my professor told me he/she/it might not let me use "that program" anymore (!!!!!!). I think he/she/it perceived it as an unfair advantage, or too advanced for the level we're playing at (that part blew my mind, I thought they wanted us to, err, accel).

Certainly, I'm not any better than anyone else... I'm not....It's just that revit makes me LOOK so much better (slightly maniacal bwhahaha).

You are correct, sir, Cal-Poly needs a reality check. More on this later :).

Poor lost flat-earth society types.