Revit 9.0???

[mmodernc]

The real issue is that by release 8 the bugs should have all been ironed out and it should have had at least the full spectrum of functions of the competition. If we have to wait for release 13 then that is 5 years away.

[DaveP]

Let's say you have one hundred dollars a year to produce Revit.

We know Irwin and Leonid have left and probably a few more casualties from the buyout.

Hey, if they were paying me a hundred bucks a year, I'd leave too!
You guys at the factory are worth WAY more than that!

[Wes Macaulay]

They should give tours of the Revit development team's office in Waltham. It was pretty laid back!

Leonid and Irwin were huge assets to the development of the software, but you can imagine that it would be tough for these guys to tolerate orders coming down from above. Neither of them were worried about the overall quality of Revit -- they feel that they've left it in good hands. Plus the people who manage Revit development now are all hardcore Reviteers; so it's just a matter of waiting for wishes to be met

[barathd]

Wait ... R10 ... R11 ... R12. Seems to be much more customer dialogue occurring with other Autodesk product development then with Revit? Why? Very little reponse from the "f a c t o r y" about our concerns - very magnanimous of them. My number one problem remains inability to dimension "non orthogonal core elements." No excuse why this has not been fixed.

[BWG]

Publication was the term I choose for releasing a release. Could have said distribution? The point was that there is an effort to do this. Does that take time and development dollars away from a quality product? If it does, then I say wait. If not, then not. My bottom line is QUALITY. Here are are all ragging on them for wall joins and groups not working properly at the same time pushing for new releases. DON'T GET ME WRONG, if it is broken it has to be fixed, but that does not mean a new release, perhaps a new build?

So to summarize -

1. Quality
2. Broken - fix it

I believe the difference here is that most of us are equating a new release with bug fixed from previous releases and new features requested from the wishlist items, not trivial brainstorming. I am OK with yearly number releases as long as they keep the builds coming that fix critical bugs - like a number release, then at least one major point release in between. And, a new feature we have asked for every so often would hurt either.

[trombe]

I am OK with yearly number releases as long as they keep the builds coming that fix critical bugs - like a number release, then at least one major point release in between.

The rumoured strategy of one release per year in the near future would worry me.
I bought into Revit at 4.5 in the belief that the rapid release cycle was a significant factor in the push forward with Revit development.
To date, AD have maintained my faith and delight with the program development.
Perhaps it was naive to think this push and blue sky thing could continue.

Vectorworks 12 is out and I see they are claiming "live sections" now among some other pretty tricks.
Similarly, I have just read an article by the CEO of US Graphisoft on ArchiCAD 9 ( new modeling tools, energy analysis etc...).
These rival programs seem to be developing in closer and closer cycle competition to Revit for feature sets even though the are all different and are loved or hated as the case may be.

As far as value for money goes, I am not convinced that a yearly release will result in the sort of development that Revit has seen to date.
I think it will slow markedly so they can move more resource into their MEP /, Structure programs, and whatever else they have planned for the Revit engine, as opposed to maintaining the pace of new feature addition , bug fixes in build release.

That could easily look like the AutoCAD style of development, and it appears to be headed strongly in that direction.
Casting our minds back the original Revit Technology Corporation document where the founders talked about how AutoCAD ( as a direct typical example of the CAD industry) was pretty poor at meeting objectives and doing what it could / should for the outcomes needed / expected / hoped for, if it is the intention of AD to follow the yearly cycle path as they have with other products, then history would suggest strongly that the outcome will be a Ground Hog Day where the Revit founders original suppositions and mission statements, are locked in another AutoCAD iterative, slowly, moving forward "vertical", - except that it might be more like a horizontal asset product.

The impetus has diverged into Structures and MEP and one could assume that Revit Building was determined before the RTC takeover got near due diligence.
I guess the point is really that its a fait au compli - the technology patent is secured and a Revit user base is established under the new owners so they can slow down now we are hooked up better than a striped marlin off the Poor Knights.
sigh
trombe

[Steve_Stafford]

...The rumoured strategy of one release per year in the near future would worry me...

If Geoffrey Moore's books Crossing the Chasm and Inside the Tornado are to be believed then Revit is on the verge of successfully moving from early adopter to mainstream user, "Crossing the Chasm". They are two completely different types of people and consumers. What is exciting, vibrant and fast to the early adopter is scary, crazy and irresponsible to the mainstream user.

As a young product Revit needed a rapid release cycle to get missing features plugged in quickly, to maintain momentum and to keep people interested. Since Revit has matured such a move shouldn't be unexpected nor is change in staff, leadership. What worked then does not automatically work now.

Fwiw, hasn't Autodesk shifted the AutoCAD family of products to use a yearly upgrade cycle instead of two years or so as in the past? So either subscription has forced this or Revit's delivery methods have contributed to a little rethinking for those products as well, maybe a little of both.

I suspect that some of the things we want Revit to do are testing the original assumptions of Revit's creators and therefore they will need "more time" to revisit these so changes can get done instead of delayed. Revit is about seven years old now. Is every assumption made then as valid today as then? For comparison, can our clients allow us to finish a design for six months let alone seven years without forcing us to revisit some decisions? Can we?

I don't think such a change would mark the "end", just change...

As for the other products, it is natural for competitors to try to deliver the features that make Revit a pain in their backside. Keeping in sync with what Geoffrey Moore's books say...as time goes by and Revit's growth in the market continues "we" may find ourselves doing the same thing that other software users are doing today, protecting their turf, maintaining the status quo as Revit's position is challenged by either established competitors or a new one.

[SkiSouth]

Okay, I'll jump. Been using Cad since 1983. Seen IBM's FASTDRAFT, Strongly considered a workstation setup from Intergraph (at that time $110,000.00), then went with a little program called AutoCAD. Then Softdesk, Then ADT. What happened to my office was the ADT implementation required a RELEARN of every new release as Autodesk tried to adapt a graphics engine (AutoCAD) into a specific architectural market, with changes in processor technology, speed etc, all requiring rework from the ground up. It got the point where ADT was costing me production time with every new release, and not for a week or two for at least six months. It got the point I DID NOT WANT a new release.

Now to Revit. Almost every release I have experienced (Sorry - history - looked at 4.5 demo, finally jumped I think around 6 not sure when) has made improvements without a learning curve hit. If the point releases would simply address EXISTING bug problems, with or without new features, I think I could easily live with that. Not that I don't want new features. BUT, there are enough unresolved issues that have already been mentioned, that could stand addressing IMMEDIATELY. Yearly releases for ADDED features is reasonable, given Beta time etc. BUG fixes need to be constantly posted. (at least quarterly).

[Roger Evans]

I did not know Irwin and Leomid left. Is this true?

Neither did I know ..(though I got the impression / hint that something had happened)

but considering the times I read this forum I still can't believe that announcement was made a year ago & I missed it ... or (more pertinently) that more wasn't said on it.

I'd still like to have additional info on it though

My best regards go to Leonid & Irwin

[SkiSouth]

I can't remember a more specific reference, but I did find this that I recalled:

To say that was not funny would be an understatement. During my stay with Autodesk I witnessed continuing commitment and investment in Revit. AUGI members are very generous in their readiness to overlook Carl's unfortunate choice of words. However I must say that these words could only qualify as a dumb joke and hopefully Carl now realizes that. Can anyone imagine a GM senior executive quipping to a magazine that Chevrolet might outlive Saturn when GM was trying to establish Saturn in the market place? Nonetheless I see no reason to read any deliberate anti-Revit intentions into Carl's words. Autodesk positions Revit and ADT as products serving different needs of two different market segments. If interested you can read the official Autodesk BIM positioning paper here
__________________
Leonid Raiz

The bold lettering added by me. Note the tense.= past.