How many times did you have to bounce out to ACAD to finish on time? [Archive]

ededios

2008-09-15, 10:19 PM

When I first started in Revit I did the same, export to dwg for the same reason, client deadlines. Because we weren't as comfortable in Revit, and didn't know how fast we could get things done come crunch time. It was panic mode reaction. I think we wasted more time doing that because of cleaning up, fixing some things here and there, etc.
Now my approach is, to do as much in Revit as possible, but if we need to speed things up, do sheets in cad that don't affect the model, like general sheets, cover sheets, details, not exporting out of Revit to finish in cad. We've changed our default font in cad to match Revit (arial) so our output looks similar, not drastically different. So far it's ok, but we're doing the majority of our work in Revit.
I hope I make sense.

aaronrumple

2008-09-15, 10:32 PM

...but if we need to speed things up, do sheets in cad that don't affect the model, like general sheets, cover sheets, details,

2D drafting is far faster in Revit - so just do more Revit drafting and less modeling.....

vgonzales

2008-09-15, 10:56 PM

My first Revit project consisted of working concurrently with AutoCAD & SketchUp as well. The project was started with AutoCAD & SketchUp. Then I started learning Revit at the end of the DD phase. I continued to use Revit in the CD phase. I used Revit for all the documentation except for the exterior elevations and the exterior wall sections and detailing. The wall sections and exterior detailing where done on AutoCAD by my co-workers who were not trained to use and did not want to use Revit. I eventually stopped using SketchUp. For the next set of projects I worked on, everything was done in Revit including the detailing. AutoCAD was used in a very minimal basis.

If you are just starting out, giving up and going back to AutoCAD is not recommended. If you do, you will never learn to use Revit effectively. You have to force yourself to learn it or just give up. I recommend that you don't have to use every feature in Revit in the beginning.
Pick and chose which drawings can be done effectively in each program. For example, I still was doing exterior elevation in AutoCAD but the floor plans, unit plans, other enlarged floor plans, interior elevations, building sections, drafting view details and other drawings where done in Revit because Revit was the better at it.

I only regret not using the exterior elevations in Revit. I used AutoCAD because there were so many design options that were started and created in AutoCAD and were kept for efficiency's sake. At the time, I was not able to model my own custom window families and was not able to be fast enough to make design changes for principal approval. Now I can model more effectively and no longer use AutoCAD to do any exterior elevations.

I understand your frustration and I had similar situation. If you give up, I do not think you will use Revit or learn how to use it again for the next project. Learning Revit is tough especially if you are the first one in your office doing it. I would continue using Revit (even just for floor plans) in parallel with AutoCAD & SketchUp. Eventually you should get better at it with more time and exposure. Frustration is part of the learning process in general but quitting is not. If you really do not find any utility in use Revit after trying for a while, then Revit might not be the software solution for you for your predicament.

As an Architect/CAD/Revit Manager for my office, I do whole heartedly believe that Revit is not for everyone. Some people have no motivation, no comprehension and no desire to learn something radical as Revit from AutoCAD. Drafting a drawing is easy compared to modeling a building. Some people just don't get it and never will. If designing and presenting a pretty drawing is more important than constructing a virtual model of a building then use AutoCAD & SketchUp. Less than half of the people in my office still do exactly that kind of work flow. But we still continue to use Revit for SD, DD & CD phases. We did not give up. You can use Revit to design buildings and make presentable drawings but you do not draw it. You build it. Building the model takes time and learning Revit takes time as well. We kept on using it and learned how to use effectively eventually.

Get some training and help from your nearest Revit reseller. Get as much help from this newsgroup on specific problems you are having. There are numerous websites to go to for help and online tutorials. Just ask.

Just hang in there. I sincerely believe it is part of the transition process to Revit from AutoCAD & SketchUp. I have gone through that painful process myself and never looked back for the better. Other people not just in my office but other places as well have and will go through that same unpleasant transition process. Not using Revit is choice you make. But to learn Revit, you have to keep on using it.

My sincere apologies if this response does not help alleviate your situation. I have been there and have gotten over it.

nsinha73

2008-09-15, 10:58 PM

We did it once only...and promised to never do that again.....Revit does a good job in details too. If you are uncomfortable in doing extensive modeling....just do basic modeling (Walls Doors Windows Roofs RCP's etc., then detail it out in Drafting Views of Revit. Do not use 2 formats, like others have said.
Good Luck

luigi

2008-09-16, 12:25 AM

uhhhhh...hmm....never!
Is this a data collection thread?

BomberAIA

2008-09-16, 11:52 AM

None, that's the worse thing you can do. That's like switching from an all wheel drive SUV to a Hugo on a dirt road. You do remember the Hugo? (car)

still.james

2008-09-16, 11:56 AM

none, i try to use autocad as little as i can tbh.

patricks

2008-09-16, 01:03 PM

I never have, not sure about my colleagues who started using Revit before I did, though.

3dway

2008-09-16, 01:34 PM

Not a data collection thread. I'm hoping for coping methods, encouragement, and ways to approach management for lattitude.

I spent a lot of time in the last project making window families.

A lot of what I've done so far has been learning and I would rather do it over the right way which I may or may not have discovered doing it the first time, but that can't be profitable. I have to cope with the wrong way and hope for a chance to do it the right way next project.

Right now, I'm having trouble making changes in Revit, which is what it's supposed to be good at. I can dump the plans and elevations out to cad and fix them up. We do post production on CAD design drawings to make them look hand drawn. We do this sort of thing with sketchup too. Modelling the building then outputting the oblique elevations is way faster than constructing oblique elevations.

The big impossibility of trying to learn and implement on real projects is that nobody is willing to slow down so we can learn and then save time in the future. What happens is I work an extra hours to try and keep up and still fall behind, then look like a failure for backing the jump to Revit. Sorry if I'm a complainer in the forums but it's a hard pill to swallow.

DaveP

2008-09-16, 02:24 PM

We've done over 50 projects in Revit over the last four years and there's only been two that we dropped back to AutoCAD. One was a fast-track project with client meetings every week. The architect was fresh out of training (in fact, he was trying to work on the project during training) and was all alone on the project. The other project was a remodel that required a lot of field measurements. The PM blamed Revit for the architect going over budget when i reality it was because they were on-site with a Disto and a tape measure.

We take a slightly different approach than a lot of firms. We stay in AutoCAD and Sketchup through Schematics, and then port over to Revit during early DDs. Once we get into Revit, we've never gone back - even post-construction. And we've stayed pretty profitable, too.

Hang in there. The first few projects are tough. Each one you do, though, increases your knowledge, your comfort level, and your Family Library. Next time around, you won't need to create all those Window Families. Once you've got a decent Library built up and you've tweaked the graphics so your Sheets look good, you're on the road.

Your profile doesn't say where you're from, but see if there's a User Group nearby. They are great for exchanging tips, learning new techniques, and just finding out that there are a lot of other people in the same boat.

And keep asking us. We're there for you. :beer:

anthony.67953

2008-09-16, 03:29 PM

I treated it like trying to quit smoking - JUST STOP

sbrown

2008-09-16, 03:42 PM

Not a data collection thread. I'm hoping for coping methods, encouragement, management manipulation strategies.

The big impossibility of trying to learn and implement on real projects is that nobody is willing to slow down so we can learn and then save time in the future. What happens is I work an extra 20 hours a week to try and keep up and still fall behind, then look like a failure for backing the jump to Revit. Sorry if I'm a complainer in the forums but it's a hard pill to swallow.

When I started using revit(Release 1.0) I taught myself on my own time because I wanted to. If you are being asked to use revit(not your decision) and you are working extra hours to learn it, you should be compensated. It's not your fault that its hard to learn a new software and new process on the job. If the project takes longer, it takes longer and thats part of the learning. If your projects or your boss doesn't accept that but wants you do it on your own then ask him/her to compensate you for your time or pay for training.

As for change being what revit is "good" at, If you have a well built model then most changes are very easy and much faster than autocad since you don't have to make sure you open all dwgs affected. However a poorly built model(ie not using the pick wall tool to create roofs, floors, ceilings etc. will make it cumbersome to change.

As for family creation, this is a new tool to your office and this is a needed thing for BIM, so you need to budget into your project fee and time schedule either the time it takes to create the content you will need or the cash to have it made for you. We have found outsourcing of family content on projects with untrained staff to be a savings.

It will get better and faster(in some areas) but it sounds like you(your company) may have some wrong expectations of the software. Its NOT a magic button. It a highly performing tool in the hands of a skilled architect and i have seen projects delievered in fractions of the time comparable projects would have taken in autocad. I've also seen project types that can be done much quicker in a 2d only world. You have to ask the question do you need BIM, want BIM or just think you should be BIM. The answer will then lead to you defining what you want out of a BIM model. It sounds like you just want 2d delieverables out of your BIM model. If that is it, sometimes it will be faster, sometimes it won't.

cdatechguy

2008-09-16, 04:39 PM

That's the issue with having the Revit Suite....you have the option to bail to something your more familiar with. Yeah, AutoCAD is a lot faster for placing lines into model space, and yes the text tools are way better. But now your faced with information in more than one file instead of being centralized in one. Which means if you have changes to the design at the last minute you have all those extra files to change instead of just making changes to the model and then to any details you placed in a section or plan view.

Being that my first introduction to BIM/3D modeling was ArchiCAD, I didn't have the option to jump in AutoCAD, and I had 10+ years using it, so I really missed it. But I found that all the stuff I could do in AutoCAD I could do in ArchiCAD as well. Yes, it took a bit longer, but I got a hang of it rather quickly. Its kind of like my first drafting job I did details all day. It would take me all day when I first started to do about 4 details. After a month or two of doing the same thing I could knock out about 4 details in an hour. Same goes for Revit....you start to learn the tricks of how to speed things up over time.

Other ideas is to have your building blocks of what you might need to get the job done faster already in your template. You have the capability to modify what is "already in the box"...use it to your advantage! But try, try not to feel the urge of going to the dark side and go back to AutoCAD!

rmejia

2008-09-16, 04:46 PM

No need to, just have to let go and put faith in Revit. Learn and accept "the Revit way". :)

3dway

2008-09-16, 04:50 PM

I'm starting to get the idea Revit is like abstract art. It's the process that is important. You have to decide, when you draw wall down, how to draw it down, base on what you want it to do.

The idea of sticking with 2d until early to mid DD is nice, but options and changes seem to always keep happening into DD in our office.

Thanks for the info and encouragment.

DaveP

2008-09-16, 05:05 PM

I'm starting to get the idea Revit is like abstract art. It's the process that is important. You have to decide, when you draw wall down, how to draw it down, base on what you want it to do..

Ahh, young padawan. You have taken the first steps on the road to enlightenment.

The next step is to realize that when you make a change, it changes everywhere.

After many steps you will soon be a Revit Jedi!

Jun Austria

2008-09-16, 05:27 PM

Well, I didnt bounce out. I kick off from ACAD. At crunch time, if I just do space planning. I still find Autocad is faster to use when sketching(second only to manual sketching). Once the single line layout is approved, then I import them to Revit.

ron.sanpedro

2008-09-16, 05:45 PM

I've started two projects in Revit and I've carried each part way through design development. I'm clumsy in Revit and things aren't working well. There is a stage of Revit user status associated with this that I've seen a post. I'm in the frustration stage where going back to Acad and Sketchup looks good. Management is giving latitude for learning where it's possible but client demands are the same and cannot be changed.

Is this a normal course, and if so how did you overcome it?

It is interesting that 100% of respondents would argue for never "punting" to AutoCAD, and yet a lot of "training material" goes into just how "easy" it is to do just that, even recommending it as a "transition" process. Indeed, I have even seen official reference to detailing in AutoCAD and Importing(!!!) those details into Revit. With no mention of the fact that doing that with a lot of details in a large project is at best a very bad idea, and at worst...
It seems to me that Autodesk would support a much better transition for users by actually detailing best practice, rather than promoting all the possible answers. It just seems to be that some of the "training" from both Resellers and Autodesk is more about making Revit less scary, and less about how to actually succeed. Sometimes it just sounds like "Yes, it is a really deep chasm, but if you are afraid, try leaping it in two bounds".

And that said, I will add that I am not sure "but client demands are the same and cannot be changed" is always true. I think if you talk to your client about what MORE they will get if they will allow you some flexibility then sometimes a client understands and plays team ball. And THAT is the project to Pilot Revit on. Once you have a solid understanding of the tool, then you can pretty much meet the expectations of clients who don't want to be an integral part of the process, and there are lots of those. But those first few projects really benefit from an enlightened client, and in the end they will get value for their patience and flexibility. And the team will learn good practice, rather than learning how to do it half way. I think it puts that Pilot team in a much better position going into their second project to not have "punt to AutoCAD" in their vocabulary anywhere.

best,
Gordon

balazs.trojak

2008-09-16, 06:01 PM

There is no shame or lost opportunity to go back to AutoCAD to finish the job. We live in a real world with real pressures. After some experience I still find myself having to be inventive and creative (ie. thinking hard) on how to tackle problem after problem in Revit. Don't get me wrong: I love it. Most problems can be solved, but let's be honest:

- It's not very intuitive
- Controls are a bit haphazard, especially the tiny blue dingbats - have you seen the anchor yet?
- It's not fully 3D - there are no free transformations and full degrees of freedom
- It's very different than line drawing - not neccessarily a bad point
- It's highly organised and the user has to be too.
- Many problems require in-depth knowledge, sometimes to solve seemingly simple problems

To me, the 2009 version was a lifesaver and I very much look forward to further releases. Consider the horrors of RA/RS2008, not to mention the ones before that...

- No selection count
- No ability to dimension to intersections or other points
- No ability to overwrite dimensions
- No custom view scale
- No multi parameter labels
- Poor jointing ability

Still, it has reached maturity and the benefits now outweigh the drawbacks... full steam ahead!

kcooper.190440

2008-09-16, 06:44 PM

I've started two projects in Revit and I've carried each part way through design development. I'm clumsy in Revit and things aren't working well. There is a stage of Revit user status associated with this that I've seen a post. I'm in the frustration stage where going back to Acad and Sketchup looks good. Management is giving latitude for learning where it's possible but client demands are the same and cannot be changed.

Is this a normal course, and if so how did you overcome it?

Currently, our office is jumping into Revit Structure, and I'm the only Revit operator here. We, too, used imported/exported AutoCAD dwgs w/ Revit, which was a known flawed plan from the start, but the only option we had to make the transition work. I've just recently graduated from that impossible, frustrating stage of meeting deadlines, and falling back on AutoCAD.

However, to keep learning, once I turned in my "fallback plan" of AutoCAD dwgs (to meet the deadlines), I went back into Revit and updated my model.

I feel the first 3-4 projects I worked in told me exactly how much I didn't know, and needed to learn. The first 2 were a nightmare - I still cringe when I open those drawings because once you start an unorganized model, it tends to remain that way.

I'm in Revit project #5 and I still use AutoCAD, but only for typical details - I'm in Revit heaven, and couldn't imagine ever going back to 2-D drafting. Anyone who tells you never to mesh the two must have a massive support system, because when you feel like you're resources are limited and you don't where to start it's a terrible process to endure.

Chad Smith

2008-09-16, 09:49 PM

Not once have I ever had to fall back on AutoCAD.

aaronrumple

2008-09-16, 10:02 PM

- It's highly organised and the user has to be too.

Something good for a lot of us unorganized designer types....

Andre Carvalho

2008-09-16, 10:06 PM

Me too never had to bounce back to CAD. And I think if I ever had to bounce back to something, I would just print what I had from Revit and complete it by hand, like the old days... Just kidding. :mrgreen:

Andre Carvalho

sfaust

2008-09-16, 10:18 PM

keep in mind that if you're bouncing back late in the project you're taking the worst of both worlds. Revit takes some more setup early on in the project to get things right, but in CD's is where you gain a ton of time since everything's already in the model. In acad, the bulk of time is spent in cd's, with slightly less or the same amount of time than Revit (perhaps) spend in early design. I know there is a graph of this somewhere, not sure where though.

So if you ditch out to Acad in CD's you're losing all that time you spent upfront in Revit making the model, and ditching out when you were about to get the biggest payoff. So I would not ditch out unless all users are completely inept in Revit and blazing fast in Acad (in which case either the training method or the project team need to be revised).

We have never ditched out to Acad.

kcooper.190440

2008-09-16, 10:43 PM

I think some are missing the point - this thread seemed to be created by someone who was struggling, and looking to see words of encouragement... While the ultimate goal is 100% Revit based drawing sets, it's not entirely wrong to use the tools are are most readily available to you as you make the transition into Revit - as long as you are constantly pushing to weed out old habits and evolve.

twiceroadsfool

2008-09-16, 10:52 PM

Its not "entirely wrong" at all... Depending on the POV youre taking. IMHO if you constantly encourage going back to what is familiar simply because its familiar, its impossible to grow.

That said, i dont think any of us want to discourage the original poster, so much as remind him of the implications. Working in revit, you dedicate more time up front, to save time and money on the back end. While i dont think there is a right or wrong, per se, doing what were discussing ("bouncing out to CAD") literally, is getting the worst of both worlds. as someone else already stated.

There is a lot to be sad for Work Smarter, not Harder.... and i think that is all were trying to encourage. It may seem like the besat thing to do in a crunch when you have deadlines, and if you can get it done, so be it... But literally, youre promising that youll take the long way through Revit, and the long waythrough the CAD docs too...

sfaust

2008-09-17, 12:07 AM

absolutely. I wasn't trying to discourage at all, just trying to save the o.p. some time and encourage them to keep with Revit.

iankids

2008-09-17, 06:04 AM

I am now one full year (just paid the subscription bill!!??), into my Revit life.

Ten months ago I thought I was a complete drongo for buying the software.

Six months ago I thought it was so - so but I was still faster in AutoCad

Three months ago, it was like a weight was lifted from my shoulders when I finally started to accrue some of the benifits of making the switch.

Now, I will pay someone, anyone, almost any amount of money so I don't have to open or use AutoCad ever again.

Hang in there, resist the temptation to port back to AutoCad.

Cheers,

Ian

balazs.trojak

2008-09-17, 08:53 AM

Well spoken there! I too get the shivers from AutoCAD these days. It's just too dumb.

DaveP

2008-09-17, 02:14 PM

Every time I get into a discussion like this, I try to separate the issues.
One topic is the learning curve. No question that it takes a while to learn Revit (or perhaps more accurately, to unlearn AutoCAD)
The other topic is the capabilities of Revit. There are some things that Revit does well, some that AutoCAD does well, and some that ArchiCAD does well (let's not go there today).

There's a common trend here in the AUGI Revit forum. You'll find a lot of posts from people complaining about why Revit does this or why can't it do that. Check the number of posts from those people. You'll find that they tend to have few posts which, I assume, means that they are new to Revit and most likely are trying to use he same processes in Revit that they used in AutoCAD. You get frustrated that you used to be able to do things must faster. But remember, when you started using AutoCAD you were frustrated because you could pencil-sketch faster. Now you've spent the last 5 or 10 years using AutoCAD and you don't have to think about it anymore. It just comes naturally. Then after a few months and several projects, there's a mental flip that happens. You realize that a change in one place affects things in other places. Usually that's good, but it does force you to think about the project globally. You used to be able to just slap in a line. Now you're placing an object.

I've found that the first two projects people work on are very painful, and they invariably want to return to their old habits. After the third or fourth project, though, there's no going back. Check out my Tag Line. That's a direct quote from one of my users. And she HATED Revit on her first project. Was almost ready to quit.

DaveP

2008-09-17, 02:25 PM

Check out his link, too, about the Six Phases of a Revit User

http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=31902&highlight=phases+revit+user

krista.manna

2008-09-17, 02:37 PM

Switching back & forth is never a good idea. Once you switch out you have to pick up all the pieces in revit once you go back in. I had a project where I went on vacation & came back to find it in cad & had to redraw everything I had already worked on before I left. Not fun.

barathd

2008-09-17, 08:10 PM

I do bounce back to Autocad - ONLY to make "tables" - otherwise I don't want to see Autocad at all. This is an annoyance however the powers to be do not seem to want to give us this capability in Revit.

Regards

Dick Barath

ededios

2008-09-19, 04:50 PM

. . . So if you ditch out to Acad in CD's you're losing all that time you spent upfront in Revit making the model, and ditching out when you were about to get the biggest payoff. So I would not ditch out unless all users are completely inept in Revit and blazing fast in Acad (in which case either the training method or the project team need to be revised)

Good point! The times my managers decided we needed to get out of Revit to our other program, the project was hardly ever past early DD, never in CD phase, that would be a bad idea (to put it nicely).

dlpdi5b

2008-09-22, 04:30 PM

I have a somewhat unique situation being a single Revit user in an isolated one person firm.

I did have to bail out to autocad on my first four small projects. But each time I would get farther and farther in Revit before bailing. For me, I had to get the sheets out the door, and if I didn't have the skills yet, I would export whatever I had from Revit and finish it in autocad. Now I am at a 100% Revit phase and really like it, but it has been a struggle at times. It takes force of will to learn new software. I remember when I started on Autocad R10, it was slow in the beginning but as I built up my library and my skills it got faster and faster. Same thing with Revit, as you improve your skills and your library, you will get faster and be stumped less and less. But every project I have seen has a budget and we don't have unlimited time to learn new features. When you have to, bail out to Autocad or Sketchup. But realize that you need to push as hard as you can to only bail as a last resort.

Advice: learn how to use invisble lines and overide graphics and modify cut face and the other 2d drafting techniques in Revit so you can deal with things you don't yet know how to model correctly. You can do a lot of 2d work in revit to make a decent drawing set, even if your modeling is not yet up to speed.

This forum is super valuable and is my favorite resource.

Accept the fact that it requires more careful thought (and more time) to organize a 3d model than a series of 2d drawings, but the quality of the information you get from that model outweighs the cost of that extra time.

I also realized that to stay current and competitive, I have to learn to use tools that will ultimately allow me to be much faster than people stuck with 2d tools.

No more autocad for me!

DanielleAnderson

2008-09-22, 05:47 PM

I work in a firm of about 100, I started here about 2-1/2 years ago already having close to 3 years of Revit experience (I started in v5). They have been toying with the idea of using Revit for about 3 years now. I spent a good year and a half working on a project in Revit that never made it out of schematics (the story of my life). During this time, other small groups attempted Revit projects (mostly interiors) which ALL got exported to Autocad, mostly because of insane project deadlines. Another year went by and finally, just a week ago, the first project was finished in Revit, well, sort of. I was brought onto the project in its very final stages, so I was not part of the initial concept set-up, or initial modeling. Basically, it appears I was brought on to fix the stair towers, since stairs are not the friendliest of Revit components. Nonetheless, this project was an interesting study for the firm (and me) in many ways. The way they chose to do it was to do all plans, basic sections, wall sections, elevations - that sort of thing - in Revit, and then do detail work in Autocad and import it into drafting views so they could have the capability of coordination. Seemed like a good idea on paper, I suppose.
The problems that occurred were:
-- strange model corruption potentially attributed to the importing of so many autocad drawings (a full analysis is yet to be done on this to know the exact cause).
-- free-for-all between Revit users, since the worksets concept was not fully understood
-- lack of interest in higher-level architects actually attending training, thus causing frustration in the end when they couldn't help with production (twice-weekly training was offered, but very sparsely attended)
-- difficulty getting annotation components to "match" the autocad look
-- lack of understanding of the order of how things are most efficiently done in Revit (i.e. "why do my dimensions keep disappearing?" "perhaps you should finish modeling BEFORE you annotate")

In the end, I am very proud of the team for actually having the determination and grit to FINISH in Revit, and I think much good will come out of this. The thing I learned from all of this is that up-front organization is absolutely vital. The team has to have a clear game plan BEFORE anyone draws anything. Also, upper level architects who are making the decisions need to be properly trained in Revit and willing to "buy into" the concept of using 3d as a good thing, or else there is a lot of potential for failure.

My question is this: in the natural course of a typical project, as anyone knows, design is not necessarily linear. Changes end up being made up until the end in every project I've ever worked on. So, how do you deal with annotation, dimensioning, etc. such that it isn't a huge headache at the very end? When we "sold" Revit to the group, one argument we made in its favor was that the majority of the hard work is done up front and then annotating at the end is easy and quick. It did not turn out to be that way for the team. I think, in the past, this has been why teams here have made the export to Autocad. (well, this and unrealistic deadlines and lack of training ...and... )

Scott Womack

2008-09-22, 05:57 PM

My question is this: in the natural course of a typical project, as anyone knows, design is not necessarily linear. Changes end up being made up until the end in every project I've ever worked on. So, how do you deal with annotation, dimensioning, etc. such that it isn't a huge headache at the very end? When we "sold" Revit to the group, one argument we made in its favor was that the majority of the hard work is done up front and then annotating at the end is easy and quick. It did not turn out to be that way for the team. I think, in the past, this has been why teams here have made the export to Autocad. (well, this and unrealistic deadlines and lack of training ...and... )

There is no "pat" answer to this. Luckily, this firm, plus my previous firm have been dedicated to using Revit from the Top down. If this is not the case, it's a harder question to answer, especially if the architects are not using Revit to maintain the majority of the model. The quality, and knowledge of the person(s) maintaining the Revit Model directly impacts the amount of change that can be dealt with in Rivet in a timely fashion. The amount of change it takes to dramatically affect the dimensions, etc. is a lot. That amount of change would make keeping up with it in AutoCAD even harder. To date, not one project has had to be taken back to AutoCAD to finish. A sheet or two that contained AutoCAD details, or other such data might have been finished in AutoCAD, but the last 4 projects had 100% of their Architectural and Interiors sheets finished in Revit. Our structural consultant has also finished their last two projects 100% within Revit as well.

Justin Marchiel

2008-09-22, 06:21 PM

fisrt starting out, i suggest using a 2.5D approach. Use REVIT for plans where you can quickly get the grasp of things. do everyting else in cad. then slowly project by project do more and more in REVIT. this way you dont have to worry about bailing out. you are just developing your skills.

as noted if you try to go all out in revit at the begining you will fall short. in the end revit is the best, you just need to get used to it. unitl then add piece of revit where you can. soon you will find that there is no need to cadd anymore.

my 2 cents.

Justin

DanielleAnderson

2008-09-23, 02:39 AM

In our debrief today an interesting thing came out from some senior members of the project. They know autocad and are used to being able to jump in and make quick mark-up changes themselves when doing QA/QC on a project. In this case they were unable to be helpful in that way and thus felt like their hands were tied. While it could be argued that these people need to embrace revit and then they would be able to help, that is easier said than done, I think. Not only do you have to get "buy in", as I mentioned before, there has to be MAJOR buy in by lots of people at once such that when people get thrown at a project (as occassionally happens), they are able to usefully jump in no matter what the technology is. It seems like this is mostly to do with growing pains, and it was interesting to hear one of these senior members mention the novel fact that he now had to "think in 3d".
For all you people that say Revit was adopted from the top down, how does the firm leadership mandate this? Is it kind of a "no option" deal or is it more of a "let's see how far we can get in 3d and if it doesn't work we can always fall back on autocad"?

charliep

2008-09-23, 09:57 AM

It's very interesting to read the various comments but I would suggest to our enquirer to ask "What is the purpose of the drawing?" It's so a builder can produce a building. So, IMHO it's whatever works for you. Only Revit? - Fine. Acad + Revit? - Fine. Scribbled on the back of a fag packet? If it gets past Planning and Building Control and the builder can produce the building - fine. Don't get too hung up on how it's produced - just produce it in a way that's best for you.

Scott Womack

2008-09-23, 10:26 AM

For all you people that say Revit was adopted from the top down, how does the firm leadership mandate this? Is it kind of a "no option" deal

We are a 75 person Architectural firm, doing large college dorms and student center projects, meaning 350,000 to 700,000 SF multi-story buildings. The management here dictates (for 18 months now) that all new projects get done in revit, even if the team we are collaborating with in a project is in AutoCAD. All of the staff has received rudimentary training in Revit, including several of the partners. They have accepted some difference in the appearance of the drawings, provided the necessary information is there. THAT is top-down acceptance/implimentation.

Charlie's sentiment is entirely correct. the end result is to get the building built, perfurrable with the minimum of RFI's, directives, and change orders in the field. Being registered for 26 years, and one of the Revit leaders in the firm does give me a unique perspective amoung my piers. Granted, if AutoCAD is needed to finish a project, by all means do so. However, that continued use of AutoCAD actually works against the implimentation of Revit. It teaches others that they can still function if they don't bother to learn Revit, and it fosters the belief that Revit can't do it all, when it is not the software's fault, but the lack of knowledge of those trying to use it, as well as a lack of knowledge/planning in Revit on the part of those running a given project. ?HArsh sounding words I know, but this is the third firm that I've been assisting in the implimentation on over the last 5 years, and all three firms had at least one or more individuals that basically refused to learn Revit for the reasons listed above.

charliep

2008-09-23, 12:09 PM

[quote=Scott Womack;890210. However, that continued use of AutoCAD actually works against the implimentation of Revit. It teaches others that they can still function if they don't bother to learn Revit, and it fosters the belief that Revit can't do it all, when it is not the software's fault, but the lack of knowledge of those trying to use it, as well as a lack of knowledge/planning in Revit on the part of those running a given project.

Well said Scott. I do a mxture of contract work and my own private work and first saw Revit about 5 yrs ago, ver 7 I think. My first reaction was, "Wow!" Now I use Revit exclusively for my private work and am finding more companies are coming round to its potential. So while I still hold to the point that its what works for you - my advice is stick with the Revit and become familiar with its usefulness and its weaknesses, you will find the benefit in due time.

3dway

2008-09-23, 12:22 PM

absolutely. I wasn't trying to discourage at all, just trying to save the o.p. some time and encourage them to keep with Revit.

Actually the post was one of the more enlightening responses.

At this point I am actually (almost) inept in Revit, and "blazing fast" (relative to revit) in ACAD. So it's the way to grind out a deadline where you know there's no time left to learn tools and methods in Revit.

I think that this thread has a lot of good information in it. Both for distraught Revit learners and for higher-ups who may be trying to implement Revit in their firm.

dwills.114624

2008-09-23, 01:13 PM

Here's my experience:

1. Almost anything you can do in AutoCAD can be done in Revit, and usually faster
2. AutoCAD has some drafting tools Revit does not (e.g. Divide and Measure) but Revit has different ways to accomplish the same tasks
3. Revit drafting is very slick once you understand it
4. There is great power in the following tools/abilities of Revit"
A: The Pick Line tool (with offset)
B: The Align tool
C: The Offset tool
D: Constraints
E: Project (and Shared) Parameters

DW

buhrito

2008-09-23, 04:15 PM

I really don't understand how anyone can say that Revit is better or faster for drafting. I mean, I'll give it credit where credit is due-and it is due in many areas but, drafting is not one of them. I work primarily on mechanical stuff with both AutoCAD MEP 2009 and Revit MEP but, I also do work for our other departments in Civil3D and I also have Revit Arch to play with. I certainly don't see it being better or faster for drafting. Revit falls short in a lot of areas that I think could be easily fixed. I haven't been in the industry long enough to be stuck in any particular ways but, I've been doing it long enough to know that AutoCAD is better for making a construction document look nice and proper. A lot of people in these forums say that same thing, except they say it with sarcasm, as though making a nice looking document isn't part of anyone's job. It probably just isn't part of their job.

Here are some things (and hey, if I'm totally missing a solution for something here, let me know)

text and leaders:
-I need to be able to do simple things like anchor a leader to the lower right on multi-line text-right now, I can only anchor top left and top right.
-Also, I need to be able to adjust the space between the leader and the text, as well as the line spacing of the text.
(this is CRUCIAL as every little bit helps when working in crowded mechanical drawings.)

-The dot leaders are OK but, the loop leader looks better for labeling pipe. Can other styles be imported or created?

I need to be able to do a polygonal clip of the "viewports" to cleanup the edges of a drawing. VPCLIP is also used a lot to "cut out" a mechanical room that will then be shown on a separate enlarged plan.

There are other things that will come to mind later, I'm sure. But let me make it clear that I like the Revit concept and, with the right tweaking, it probably will someday be the ultimate tool for designing buildings both architecturally and MECHANICALLY (still then, it will only be for designing BUILDINGS but, that's a whole 'nother deal there...)

More than anything, it's just annoying hearing people say that Revit is such an absolute superior to everything else and that no-one in their right mind should be using AutoCAD. It seems like people get so self righteous as to believe that if something works for them, then others must be idiots if they don't feel the same.

Now, I'll go back to working my various projects in both worlds at once.

twiceroadsfool

2008-09-23, 05:09 PM

Im sorry to say that we will just ahve to agree to disagree. I was great in AutoCAD, and im not dismissing the time and projects that i did in AutoCAD. But the issues youre describing, can be intepreted many ways.

Text leader location- Why is this value adding? What is so NECESSARY about text being in a oarticular orientation to the leader? Or just *because thats how we do it?* I would call this Non Value Adding.

Space between text and leader: I work in crowded drawings all day and all night, i cannot believe youre ever THAT close to out of room. IMHO, thats minutia (sp?)

Leader types: In revit i would be using intelligent tags anyway, and not leaders. Tags would save you time.

POlygon Viewports: Would be nice, but you can achieve what you want in seconds with a masking region. Works almost the same way.

As for making documents look "nice and proper..."... As far as im concerned, Nice and Proper is Buildable and Clear. I concern myself with the content of the drawings, not where my text aligns with its leaders. But thats just my two cents, and you can get change back with it. :)

buhrito

2008-09-23, 05:51 PM

Well, it isn't my hope to just disagree with people who love Revit. My"hope" I guess, would be to someday have a version of Revit that just fills in the gap between ACAD and itself a little more. I certainly don't think that ACAD has the BIM capabilities of Revit. I started dabbling with CAD around ACAD 13 and have since used Pro E, Solidworks, Microstation, later versions of ACAD, and now Revit. So, I don't feel that I'm too stuck in AutoCAD land. I just truly like it for a lot of its capabilities. And, if I ever get out of the building industry, I'll probaly be glad that I didn't abandon it all for the love of Revitting.

Anyhoo...

Whether the leader is anchored upper or lower right, IS just an appearance issue and I too can get over that (even though the people who check my work will ask me why I left it that way). SO yes, THAT is a case of "we just do it that way" and it's somewhat minute. It should also be an EASY EASY fix though, and should be an option if they want Revit to be as awesome as it could be.

As far as the space between text and leader, that is a real issue (and I think would be another easy fix). I know this is the Arch side of the forum and I'm talking about mechanical. But, here's an example, when we are required to label EVERY section of pipe with size and fixture unit value, and label every pipe rise up to the next level with things like (2" W UP TO WC), or something simlilar to that, the drawings get VERY crowded (not always, it depends on the content of the project and the drawing scale but, often they are very full). I also still need to have Room Tags in there too. That's when the little difference of being able to slide the leader in closer to the text, can help. Architectural documents just don't seem to need as many labels as mechanical. I do use tags for pipe and duct sizes, but where I need to do those things like I mentioned (2" W UP, or 12x12 DN, ect...) a tag doesn't apply so I need to use text and a leader.

As far as the "masking region" that's exactly what I'm talking about when I say "let me know if I'm missing something." I'm not yet familiar with that and will have to look into how that works. Thanks for the tip :)

cliff collins

2008-09-23, 07:27 PM

NEVER, NEVER, EVER!!!!!

luigi

2008-09-24, 01:31 AM

Whether the leader is anchored upper or lower right, IS just an appearance issue and I too can get over that (even though the people who check my work will ask me why I left it that way). SO yes, THAT is a case of "we just do it that way" and it's somewhat minute. It should also be an EASY EASY fix though, and should be an option if they want Revit to be as awesome as it could be.

Correct me if I am wrong...(in all honesty, although I have been around Autocad 2006 and 2008 for the past 2 years, I haven't used Autocad on a real project since version 2000....)

But you can't locate a leader to the bottom right of a multiline text....right? I mean, I remember creating a leader seperate from the text so that I could get the leader to show up on the right lower side of the multiline text. Is there a tool in Autocad that actually allows you to locate the arrow in a different location, automatically part of the text?

For our MEP, Architectural and Structural documents in Revit we minimize as much as possible text...we try to use it when it is absolutely unavoidable...we use tags (annotative, category, material) for all of our noting....

If you want, you can create a symbol text that behaves like text, but it is a annotative symbol...the leader shows us really close to the text and or graphic it may contain....just create a generic annotation with an instance parameter label (or see if a type parameter works better for your workflow)
Although this fixes the location of the leader to the text, if you have multiple lines of text, the leader will automatically choose the center....

anyways, just a thought to consider...we use this type of family for a "dumb" keynoting style in our MEP projects...use use a number inside a hexagon for a keynoting symbol (I even use the same symbol for the legend, just turning on the description of the keynote)....but I digress...

vgonzales

2008-09-24, 04:23 PM

I really don't understand how anyone can say that Revit is better or faster for drafting. I mean, I'll give it credit where credit is due-and it is due in many areas but, drafting is not one of them.

I would have to disagree. Being able to use detail components, filled regions, annotations and other drafting tools in Revit, our details (the drafting views especially) now look far better than the ones created in AutoCAD. As we work on more projects with Revit, we are constantly building up our library of standard details. We still use AutoCAD for cleaning up AutoCAD imports and exports to and from Revit.

I still think it is just a matter of personal preference anyhow. Some people are more comfortable working in AutoCAD and some in Revit. But it makes life easier when everything is done in one platform and is fully coordinated like Revit.

Scott Womack

2008-09-24, 04:28 PM

I still think it is just a matter of personal preference anyhow. Some people are more comfortable working in AutoCAD and some in Revit. But it makes life easier when everything is done in one platform and is fully coordinated like Revit.

I agree, that it is up to the individual, however, past experience has shown me that linking, or even worse importing a significant number of AutoCAD files into a large Revit project is just aksing for trouble on several different fronts. I personnally dislike the mix. I can't complain, since the mangement here has taken the stance I described earlier in this thread.

3dway

2008-10-14, 07:18 PM

As for making documents look "nice and proper..."... As far as im concerned, Nice and Proper is Buildable and Clear. I concern myself with the content of the drawings, not where my text aligns with its leaders. But thats just my two cents, and you can get change back with it. :)

The appearance of the drawings does add value to the project. A well put together organized set of drawings gets the attention of the builder and the client and tends to demand the next echelon of attention from the contractor. A messy scrambled set of drawings will lead the contractor to dismiss the technologist/architect/project leader as not knowing what he is doing and he'll assume that he knows better and is free to change things as he pleases. If the contractor starts out with a view of the architect as a professional a collaborative relationship is more likely. It just commands respect, and shows pride in what you do, and people and clients value that.

It may be that you're starting from a default of position of already having tight drawings, whick look organized and nothing less is acceptable, but not every office is there. Those that are "there" and demand the finer points of drawing graphics are the best at what they do. The built result is most of it, not all of it. The drawings are a tool in the process. A drill press drills more accurately and neatly than a hand drill, but both give you a hole.

twiceroadsfool

2008-10-14, 07:37 PM

Not to turn this in to an argument, but theres a few flaws in what youve said:

1. A drill press and a drill both give you a hole, but one does it better. A drill press and a drill press with a fancy on/off switch both give you a hole too, but one doesnt do it better. THAT is more the comparison youre making.

The items discussed in this thread do not contribute to a *sloppy set of drawings,* they contribute to a set of drawings that may pay no mind to archaic throwbacks in architecture that have been around due to nothing but tradition.

A leader poking off a certain piece of a text a half a millimeter in a different location is not "commanding more attention" from a contractor, and if it is... You and your client need to re-evaluate who is building your projects. God help the contractor who decides to "change things as he pleases" becuase he doesnt like the lineweight of a hatch pattern on one of my projects, LOL....

A well put together set of drawings is very possible in Revit. its even very easy. But if your definition of a well put together set is a bunch of traditional hand techniques that convey little to no additional information about the project, except to appease an onlookers sense of familiarity because 8thats the way its been done* then we may disagree.

Just my humble two cents, and you can have change back if you like. :)