Related Posts with Thumbnails

« Its the Little Things - Default 3D Views | Main | Making Project Vasari »

November 09, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

AAARRGH! No one actually works like this! When will we be able to select multiple detail items and send to front/back en masse?!

Improving the conceptual modeling is well worth while.

Making it work intuitively like other 3D software with the push/pull axial handles is the right direction to go!

I’m still waiting for a family that has total freedom in the way of "vertex modeling"
a bit like this image shows [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/VertexEdgeRadiant.png[/img]
this would truly benefit in revit, especially when you can use those corners (upper 1 of the 2 on the image) to snap it to certain other points in your project. also in the middle you should have the possibility to add new points and drag/snap them.

cant edit previous post. but [img] tags were not working.
image link should be: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/VertexEdgeRadiant.png

This sort of work takes up less than 1% of our time. When you've been busy updating site tools, text formatting, stair tools, issue sheets and all the other things that have been half broken in Revit for the last 5 years, then I'll get excited.

Obviously Google Sketchup teases them :)

I'm with Tom. I spend hours trying to get Revit to do what I want (reading the actual wall and ceiling material and listing them on finish schedules, anyone?). The functional features that Revit doesn't quite have yet, would be far more useful than gee-whiz modeling tools for funky shapes that most of our projects will never use.

Well, it's obvious that a brick colonial designers are more likely to be drawn to Revit than the dude that designed the bird cage in Beijing. And therefore most Revit users prefer text formatting tools, better scheduling tools, sheet creations tools etc. You can't tell the difference between an accountant and a Revit user. That said, to get better site, stair and ceiling tools, Autodesk needs to improve the general modeling tools. Only now Eaglepoint could have made a site tools plugin voor Revit because of the new massing tools which allows them to create lofted roads on a organic surface. So, in order to get all of those nitty gritty tools in Revit, Revit needs to get up to par with tools like Rhino/Grasshopper, Generic Componants, Digital Project etc. Lets hope this new Vasari tools includes subdivision surface tools, mesh tools etc. If not, then it's a waste.

Looks cool, but alas I am in the group of 98% of architects that does not design curvy skyscrapers. I would love to see a demonstration of how this would be useful on a multi or single family project.

I find the Revit massing tools not particularly useful in my practice. The types of tower projects you keep showing are unique in that they are almost entirely driven by exterior form making. Any other type of architecture is an equal process of working from both the outside in and the inside out. I sense a new Revit product coming called “Revit Skyscraper”. How about some useful tools of the other 98% of Revit users?

I agree with the comments above. Give us tools to quickly model a building parametrically. Instead of drawing each wall, let us build from a form and then add parameters for courtyards, structural grid, exterior skin, roof etc. These objects would be drawn by the software using the current objects, but the help of a true "building maker" wizard would help us get started quickly. We can then use the regular Revit commands to edit the objects that were automatically generated.

We also need the ability to grip-edit the objects generated, and push pull surfaces on all objects, not just massing forms. Every profile and sketch should be editable on the fly via the canvas.

Hi guys,

I know how frustrating it might be to look for revit-round-about all the time and I do agree that Autodesk should focus on that.

At the same time massing in Revit is absolutely one of those tools which really need to be developed (I am working with it every day trying to fight against Sketch-up or Rhino users/lovers).

Therefore I would really appreciate if Autodesk would develop the tools of Revit (even massing) instead than coming out with new "light" web versions of it.

Any interesting news in this direction?

Revit is still the laughing-stock of the 3d world, especially when compared to Rhino. I spoke to an architect a few weeks ago who's involved in a few projects at the London olympic site. As far as he knows, most projects where done using a combination of Rhino, Grasshopper, Digital Project, Ecotec, Autocad, 3ds max. Revit isn't suitable for those complex geometries. I could imagine that Autodesk feels embarrassed when the biggest software company in the world isn't involved in the biggest architectural wonders. Yet they are only good enough to knock out off the self strip malls.

Well Ramond, this is an effort to change that. So, are you going to take his word for it or try out Project Vasari for yourself? Stay tuned for more details.

Well, I've just seen the preview and a complete explanation on a blog. THERE ARE NO NEW FEATURES, expect for 3d reference planes in the project enviroment. So, for who is this. SkechtUp users aren't going to use it. SU is far more easy, fast and intuitive. The Rhino, Maya and 3ds max users will see this as a huge step back. They have all the modelings tools needed. They might use a full version of Revit for construction documents, but no way will they use a tool like Vasari with where you can't even make a closed spline loop. The parametric people and scripters who use Digital project, Generative Components or Grasshopper also won't use Vasari, these tools have much more to offer. And last but not least the current Revit user will not use it because all features are available in Revit already. No one will use Autocad LT either if they own a copy of Autocad.

Autodesk has really dropped the ball with this product and will end up an early death, unless they strip all the conceptual modeling tools in Revit and make Vasari a fourth flavor like MEP and Structure.

Actually, there are other changes beyond 3D references, which I will outline in an upcoming post.

Take a look at David Lights Revit Blog, Steve Staffords Revit OpEd, and The Revit Kid

David Light “ Absolutely loves it! I had heard through the grapevine that Autodesk where working on something special, a kind or LT version of Revit.” David also says “There are some which will not get that excited, because if you use full Revit then you already have access to this functionality so Vasari may not offer anything new.”


David has it right there, for Structural and MEP Engineers that already have Revit, the fact that Autodesk are spending valuable time money and resources cutting back the code from Revit to create a kind of Lite version that will be superior to Sketch up seem to us to be complete and utter waste.

Autodesk still has so much that does not work properly in the full version of Revit, that we pay big bucks for, and that we keep on subscription in the constant hope that they will provide or fix the basic tools that have been moaned about by users over the last few years.

Will Autodesk be giving a version of Vasari or Revit LT when finally released away free like Sketch up?

Will there then be a Vasari or Revit LT professional version, that you will have to pay for like Sketchup Professional?

Normally Autodesk buys off the competition, buying the user base then if the product is any good it replaces what they are currently selling. Cast your mind back to Generic CADD which was bought and sold as an AutoCAD Lite before they killed and then replaced it with a true cut down version of AutoCAD LiTe within a month of an upgrade.

ADT got dropped in favour of Revit, It seem to me that if they can’t buy Sketchup to get its user base and then kill it, then they are going to try and compete with it.

Why call it Vasari?

David Light has his own ideas about why the name Vasari has been used, however according to the historian Richard Goldthwaite, Vasari was one of the earliest authors to use the word "competition" (or "concorrenza") in Italian in its economic sense. He used it repeatedly, but perhaps most notably while explaining the reasons for Florentine preeminence, in the introduction to his life of Pietro Perugino.

Autodesk spend some of our money and fix the darn Basics in Revit like the Text Editor, so that it give at least the functionality that AutoCAD has enjoyed for many years .i.e. Subscript, Superscript fractions etc etc.

still,
real tools of use for us (our company) as structural engineers building stuff like parking garages, briges, power plants. we would greatly benefit from tools such as vertex modeling where you can use snap on all the corners. this way complex ground work can be made and with navisword be but into 4D planning.
i really hope this project Vasari can work its way towards this too. i think loads of people would really benefit from such a tool. but they way i look at that video now, it doesn't look like anything that can be used for the real engineering.

This is tough. I'm split right down the middle on this one. I'm a big proponent of conceptual massing in Revit. Anyone that thinks you can only produce strip malls in Revit and that buildings with complex forms are out of its league just don't know how to use the program.

http://revitfutures.blogspot.com/2010/11/vasari.html

At the same time, since we produce all our projects in Revit seeing time going into something that doesn't improve the core program's functionality just drives me crazy.

I'd rather see the factory working on site tools, or getting the conceptual modeling tools into the family editor or project environment, or any 1 of 1000 other things I've got feature requests on. But, I can see the value in combating the mindset that Sketchup (in particular) is somehow a better conceptual modeling tool than Revit. If this helps on that front, I'm all for it...

Innovations at the high end is always needed to improve products at the consumers level. Innovations in the formula one circuit has led to innovations in the consumers automotive industry. Innovations in golfclubs for the top 1% op golfers worldwide has led to better more forgiven clubs for amateurs. So in that sense, it is very important for Autodesk to focus on conceptual tools, which will lead to better site tools or stairs tools.

However, bringing out a product with absolutely no new modeling tools is a waste of time and money. SketchUp is still more easier and more versatile than Vasari. 3ds max has far more modeling tools which greatly increase productivity in the design phase. And even Rhino is far better equip to handle real engineering problems than Revit. So for who is this Vasari aimed for.

I also don't understand why they keep down talking the use of better modeling tools, while Autocad, their own product, has incorporated mesh tools, subdivision modeling tools, smooth tools, nurbs, etc. While Revit keep saying that those tools are not useful for architecture, the majority of autocad users are architects. As a matter of fact, there are more architects using Grasshopper, than industrial designers. Can no one from the Autocad or Maya department walk to the Revit factory and explain the this in plain English? I hope someone from the factory can explain why these decision are made at Autodesk.

I just gave this Project V a go (looks usefull as a start)
but it is lacking something (bug/missing?)
when you do model-in-place in a project you cant have a elevation/section view. so i cant put parameters in vertical directions.

Dante, you have to use workplanes while in 3D to set parametric dimensions along that direction (vertical, etc.) We removed elevations intentionally, but it is something we are reconsidering for a future release.

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS

  • Subscribe