Check out what I found on Harvard University's web site about Revit!

[cadkiller]

Group;

I just recently found this link. Check out the closing statements on the last page about Revits limitations.

http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/users/lburdi/databases/revit_formz/elements.htm

When importing a drawing from Autocad (.dwg or .dxf) Revit treats it as a block. If we explode it we loose some of the original data (layers, colors, etc.)Also, some of the 3d objects can not be exploded. On the other hand, when exporting to .dwg or .dxf we can save layer information.The imported drawing is a block that has lost its parametric ability. The fact that the user can not add new parameters limits radically the use of the import command. Actually the software does not support any user-defined commands (Macros) and does not have a full programming language.Additional limitations of the software: - We can not change a corner of two walls into a curved one (like the "fillet" command in Autocad).- We can not define a dormer window.- We can not extrude a solid by linking the sides of the top and the bottom polygon ("blend" command) if the polygons are not of the same shape.- We can import only .gif and .bmp images, which are view dependent and can be placed only in 2D views. In general, Revit is not a software for complex modeling. This means that it has serious limitations in modeling things other than the "normal" objects that someone would expect to find in a builing. For example it would have been impossible to handle a building like the Gehry's Gugenheim Museum in Bilbao with Revit. Also, the fact that the user can not customize it and can not have access to a programming language or build macros limits its functionality and capabilities.Some limitations of the software...

[J. Grouchy]

When importing a drawing from Autocad (.dwg or .dxf) Revit treats it as a block. If we explode it we loose some of the original data...

This person is at Harvard and can't even spell "lose" correctly?

...and he's not even correct (see attached).

[rodneyf]

From the look of the screen captures it looks to me like they were using release 3 or earlier.

[J. Grouchy]

ah...well I didn't study that, but it wouldn't surprise me. I assumed it was an earlier release...but something like that should either be updated with the software or removed from the site. People don't update their sites enough... too much old and outdated **** floating around.

[David Conant]

Check the creation date on that page: Sept 2001. Revit 2.0 was indeed a lot more limited than the current product.
Don't be too hard on Harvard. If it weren't for experiences and contacts I made there, I would never have started down the trail that lead me to meeting with Leonid and Irwin to plan out this thing.

[MikeJarosz]

OK!

Any volunteers to model a Gehry design? Disney, Bilbao.... anyone will do.

[J. Grouchy]

I think someone should go for the EMP in Seattle...much more of a challenge....

[beegee]

The Harvard link was referred to in this earlier thread.

There is a good Revit model of Ronchamp available, but its a bit "old hat" now. I agree we should do a more current design to show off Revit's abilities. Maybe someone at the Factory can squeeze this into their lunch hour ?

[tjk0225]

Marty Rozmanith had some excellent (current) examples of Revit's modeling capabilities in one of the classes at AU. Gehry's Stata Center @ M.I.T. and a couple others . . .

[Arnel Aguel]

Marty Rozmanith had some excellent (current) examples of Revit's modeling capabilities in one of the classes at AU. Gehry's Stata Center @ M.I.T. and a couple others . . .

Oh I Love to see that, would someone from the factory kind enough to post the images here.

That would be a very good marketing material to show off to people who always say that Revit's modelling capabilities is very limited to straight forward structures.