Related Posts with Thumbnails

« Introducing the new BIM Apps blog | Main | Revit Polska »

January 24, 2011

Comments

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

After taking the survey, I was a bit disappointed because it only asked if I use multiple Revits rather than if I ever need some of the functionality. We do not have any copies of Structure or MEP because we only do design here, but there have been occasions where better ductwork tools in Architecture would have been helpful because the MEP engineer was using a different platform (this was a remodel of a lobby space).

There should be some open questions where you can mention specific features but feel free to mention them here or send an email

I totally agree with David - the survey was so vague I see little value to it. I welcome the idea that at long last Autodesk is willing to discuss the merging of limited functionality. In short I believe all modelling functionality should be common to all platforms - only the analytical portion should be excluded. This I believe is what the original authors intended.

Erik, I can't believe that this question has even come up. 8^0

How many years have users been requesting that ALL modelling tools be in ALL Revits with only the analysis specific to each Revit?

ALL Revit users require the ability to model DESIGN INTENT, even if they aren't doing the final engineering/design.

I too agree that the survey was quite vague and offered no means to drill into specifics and reasons why.

Wondering aloud - how much money does Autodesk spend on these silly surveys - seem to fill out a half a dozen a year but see no results. Rember one a year ago that got me rather excited - would you like to be able to import Excel files? Wonder whatever happend to that one?

I wasn't going to bother to fill out the survey even before I saw the comments - all these autodesk surveys I've taken are really bad. I skipped right to comments, to say pretty much the same thing everyone says - you don't need a freaking survey - just put all the modeling tools from RST & RME into RAC. You can make it a check box in the "Options" to reveal the extra Ribbon tabs. That's it. Simple. You're done! Take the rest of the day off.

I echo what the others have said. Revit's initial intent was to be the *only* software you need to fully document a building. Splitting it up into 3 products is completely arbitrary and I can see no good reason other than profiteering.

We're a small architectural firm; we don't do MEP or structural design. But we work on existing buildings and we work with engineers who only draw in 2D. We need to include these items in our model. We don't need to analyse systems, we just need the modelling commands and libraries. We know they're there, because we can open up an MEP model and Create Similar all the components. Just lets us use them all instead of artificially restricting us by disabling some interfaces.

PS: We only have 2 Revit licenses. We can't reasonably afford another 2, just to get the functionality we need - not to mention the hassle of saving, closing, re-opening in another package, making a small edit, saving, closing, re-opening again. This is not an efficient workflow.

I'll try to answer some of the questions:
The surveys are not costly. There screening questions helps qualify the participant and some context. There are many methods of gathering feedback such as the customer councils where people are already known.
So far 190 people have responded to this survey and in general the feedback is constructive. People used the open questions to explain what they feel is missing or how the current workflow is hampered.
It is understood that when a tool is missing having to go to another version is not good yet solving this is a little more complicated than suggested. I'll give one example: When you create a new plan view what happens? How do the properties default? Is the type "structural plan" or "floor plan".
Does the view look up or down? Content?
Its not as simple as combining it all together and we have lots of feedback from people who don't want to see the AutoCAD CUI implemented in Revit.
Everything is solvable and learning details of how people work helps inform the solution.
Drawing the line at analysis is a common suggestion.

Erik:

Is this something that stands a chance of getting off the ground in real time or is this going to get bogged down in beaucratic wrangling and take light years to evolve. I think you get the drift - been waiting for improvements to site and stair tools for nearly a decade. This sort of strategic planning would make Fidel Castro and Valdimer Putin proud.

Regards

Dick Barath

Im restricted from discussing future plans and even if I could I wouldnt ...but yes, I do get your drift.  I can say making changes to the products so the different verticals can access each others functionality in a convenient manner has challenges but not necessarily technical challenges.  It depends on what the design is.

Erik:

Thank you for you response and understanding. I appreciate what your saying and hope others move forward with this in a meaningfull manner.

Regards

Dick

Roger that.

Seems the survey is closed. I would agree with a lot of the comments made. The inability to properly show Mechanical or Structural systems is aggravating. I have been doing a lot of work with log construction. The fact that I cannot reasonable draw a generic truss that can be modified in Revit Architecture really gets me fired up. I mean I could walk into MAX, FormZ, Auto CAD, heck even Sketch-Up and get something reasonable out of the software definitely has Revit falling short on this issue. We'll see how things pan out.

Brian

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS

  • Subscribe