Revit(ness)

While we are on break I am taking this opportunity to schedule a post I have been formulating for some time.  Its not related to any specific feature but gets to the heart of "What is Revit" and therefore an exchange I have been eager to have with our customers.

evitness

In the beginning years of Revit there was a light hearted internal document that lived alongside the source code and other process documents called the “Revitictionary”.   Contained within were definitions of manufactured Revit terms.   Examples were “Revity”, “Reviteers”, “Revitorium”…you get the gist.   Sadly the document seems lost yet despite this loss I can recall one of the terms was “Revitness”.   If had to reconstruct the definition it would be something like this:

revitness

    -adjective
    The traits and behaviors of a feature that distinguish it as a Revit solution.

To me revitness is that behavior that caused you to grin when you used it for the first time - the venustas of the three vitruvian principles.

I am on a quest to gather some examples and work on this definition. Why? In the process of designing  a feature there are always precedents to consider.   Each new feature should consider the ones that came before to leverage concepts.   This streamlines learning and ensures consistent and predictable behavior.  These are the patterns.   I’ll cover how we identify and deploy these "patterns "in further detail  in an upcoming post. 

We are always looking for examples that should conform to a pattern yet don't.  In addition to improving consistency when there are certain behaviors that are known to be particularly enjoyable there might be elements of them that can be replicated.

This is my aim.  Its often easier to discuss what isn't working yet by calling out items which do work really well we can determine just what is about them and strive to replicate it in new features or enhancements.

Note: some may think Revitness is BIMness.  While this is certainly related I can think of examples in features that are not specifically related to BIM yet Revit users are glad for them - Annotation scale management for example.  Perhaps we can also explore BIMness in a future post.

What is Revitness to you? Do you have your own definition? What is your favorite feature? Why is it your favorite?

_erik

Comments

[Andre]

Course Medium Fine. It sold me years ago and I try to build all my families to take advantage of this. I think it's great when you sit down a new user at a project and tell them it's time to switch from SD to DD and then just "switch". Boom.

[iru69]

For me, it was the old Revit Classic UI. It was very simple looking and approachable. The toolbars in combination with the option bar was a stroke of genius because you didn't have to have a million toolbar icons, but it didn't bury anything that you would be looking for, which kept the look simple. I, like many users, *liked* the "crayon" cursor - it was fun and actually represented what you were doing - drawing! I used to describe Revit as "fun" to use and for me, that's what immediately struck me when I first downloaded it five years ago.

Unfortunately, I can't say that any more. Now it's a chore to use. I think there's an intangible missing in all the talk about lost "productivity" with the Ribbon (as true as it is). Revit is no longer fun to use... for me, it lost its Revitness.

Despite my sour feelings, I think this is a fascinating topic and am keen to read what others have to say.

p.s. - and before being accused of simply using this as an opportunity to bash the Ribbon (as much as it deserves to be bashed), I can sincerely say that I would have said the exact same thing a year ago (minus the part about it having lost its Revitness).

[Graham Briggs]

Great topic!

I really think that Adesk would reap huge benefits if they returned to this, and other similar, intangible concepts.

As obvious as it may seem, Revitness has always been exemplified by the inability to "cheat". That is, it had to be modeled correctly and could not be "faked" by simply changing a dimension's text, edges and faces of geometry became the lines in a 2D view, etc. Sure, there were ways to mask the true geometry, if absolutely necessary, but they were, for the most part, harder to accomplish than just modeling if right. For the most part this has remained, and the few recent exceptions (dimension overrides, element/category graphic overrides, etc.) have mostly served to enhance instead of "fake" the presentation.

As iru69 said, the biggest example of "un-Revitness" I can point to is the Ribbon UI. So sad...

Please, Adesk, let's get back to true Revitation!

[Anthony Hauck]

Yes, I am eager to hear everyone's examples. I assumed the ribbon would be mentioned. As a shared UI its inherently not unique yet there is flexibility. 2D drawings from 3D and Level of Detail are great examples of hat I am looking for. Linework might also be a candidate. I'll add Revitation to the new Revitictionary! This will be the post for the week. I hope to gather many examples. I want to make the intangible...tangible and as follows the sad ..happy.

[Joel Osburn]

Two things that routinely express Revit-ness to me are what is now known as color schemes, and sketch mode. Color schemes for the ease with which they allow us to effectively communicate ideas while not worrying about keeping the diagrams up to date as a design evolves; and sketch mode for it's elegant abstraction from the model proper, and it's generalized application to a whole variety of situations. Since you mention extending a concept to other areas of the program for consistency, I must add that the specialization that is now in 2010's various modes is a detraction, IMHO; why can't I make furniture or windows or whatever using the mass/form tools? Extruding solids and void is so 1990.

I often feel that Revit has such great promise, but needs a lot of development and maturation, especially when I bump into the following examples of un-Revitness, which happens all too frequently:

* Tags don't have access to enough data! For example, door tags don't know what room they open to, and wall tags don't know how high the walls are.
* Single level of object hosting; I should be able to have a wall that hosts a door frame, that hosts a door, that hosts panels, window lites, hardware, and signage.
* Copy/monitor doesn't copy or monitor nearly enough entities to be useful
* Three separate applications to make the model
* no tagging or keynoting in 3d views !! Now that three dimensional views are so easy to make, including sections and details, needing to annotate them with dumb text baffles me
* And most egregiously, the 2010 interface

We were happy to use the product with the "classic" UI, and work through the other shortcomings, believing that all Revit needed was time to mature, but the 2010 interface has us reconsidering the whole platform.

[Chad]

As I was reading the post, three things immediately came to the forefront of my mind.

The first was that I tend to associate Revit with Workarounds, and damn there are plenty to be used. This is both a good and bad thing.

It indicates that Revit is flexible enough to carry out just about anything you want in some way or another, even if it isn't so BIM-like. The classic examples are using the Curtain Wall and Railing objects for other repeatable purposes.

On the other hand, this flexibility with workarounds makes Revit sloppy and unfinished. It has a certain feel about it that gives the impression that as long as we are able to perform certain tasks through workarounds The Factory has no rush to go back and fill in those missing pieces with proper tools.

As an early Revit adopter, the second thing that came to mind was that Revit (when it was called just Revit) had a sense of one-ness. Revit WAS BIM, and that as a single application would start taking on all the other facets of a building which would make it a true *Building* Information Model.

For me, Revit lost it's Revitness the day that Autodesk fractured the development and removed parts of the Building part from Revit, and BIM, and placed them in other applications. That was truely a sad day.

And thirdly, as has already been mentioned, Revit was simple to use. The UI is the first thing that users encountered when using Revit. How Revit looks plays a major part of my impression of what is Revitness.

For me, despite some of the good things that have come to Revit in recent years, Autodesk is slowly eroding away those *fundamental features* that so many users loved about it, and gave Revit its Revitness.

[Bob]

Revit has lost its identity in three major ways:

First, Autodesk has developed the software as a part of its stable of products. Where there once were quarterly updates, Autodesk slowed this to twice a year and now to once a year. The only reason seems to be that all other Autodesk software is updated once a year as well. All other Autodesk software products were awarded a ribbon, so Revit had to have a ribbon, and on and on.

Second, Autodesk used our subscription money to develop Revit Structure and Revit MEP. Yet, those of us who paid for the development of the new software products were not even given the benefit of the "sloped columns" tool, let alone the many other modeling tools that Revit Architecture lacks. Two years ago, there was a near revolt during the beta, or Revit Architecture wouldn't have the sloped slab and roofing tools that had been reserved for Revit Structure. Revit Architecture should include every modeling tool. We don't need the analysis stuff, but architects locate ducts, beams, and conduit, and we need to be able to do it without paying extra.

Third, there is the strong feeling that Revit development is deliberately slow so that subscription dollars will keep flowing in to Autodesk. The only new drafting tool in the entire 2010 release was a slope annotation tool. The AUGI wishlist is so long because only 2 of the 40 top ten wishes from the last four years have been implemented. Many Revit capabilities (parametric blocks, for example) have migrated to AutoCad. However, AutoCad text tools haven't seemed to find their way to Revit.

Revit used to be the little program that could and that was trying rapidly to add those capabilities is did not have.

Based on the less than forthright comments about the continued presence of the 2009 UI within the program, I don't have much confidence that the situation is going to improve. I don't know much about writing code, but I know more than nothing, and I don't appreciate the supposed difficulties in bringing back the 2009 UI.

I'm very concerned that those in charge now couldn't define "Revitness" in a way that most users would recognize. If it were otherwise, the 2010 train wreck would not have happened.

[Robert]

I think in terms of "workarounds" one could understand "Revitness" in a negative connotation "oh that is just the way Revit does it". Often times that sad lament is applied to the development or ability to develop drawings in 2D. Please do not mis-understand, I fully feel that I can develop a robust set of documents in Revit, but too often workarounds do need to be applied.

One issue in particular that seems to come up quite often is what I would term "Depth of field" in views, particularly sections and elevations. Too often we have to resort to the dreaded linework tool to attempt to resolve this issue. :(

Another issue that comes up quite often is the ability to properly document and handle finishes in an intelligent way. There is an extreme disconnect between Room data, Composite Geometry, and Materials when it comes to being able to properly document complex finishes (interior & exterior).

Lastly there are any number of examples where I ask myself "why can't I do blank", it should work just like "blank" in Revit, quickly:

Perform calculations in system families the same way I can in external families, rather then having to resort to schedules (important for tagging & key schedules).

Control Phase visibility and filtering in the same manner that I can control graphics with filters (more complex filtering, conditions statements, more variables for overrides, etc.)

Have proper railing and stair tools that allow us to address real world conditions with flexibility that matches or exceeds curtain wall.

Curtain wall tools that allow proper geometrical development to match real life detailing (corners & "meeting" other systems).

Concatenate and otherwise modify text with formulas the same way I can do math.

Develop robust and logical text formatting and standards similar to the many other things that I can easily format and standardize in Revit.

Easily cross tabulate and schedule objects (same & different categories) to develop data linkages and relationships based on the information already in the model (seems to me this is where Multi-Cat schedules were headed long ago..).

Legends that work properly, they should be able to be used as the graphical/informational equivalent to a tabular data schedule. Imagine the power....

I hope this small list helps in understanding where the "Revitness" lies both in a positive and negative way.

-Cheers

[Donnie]

"Bi-Directional Associativity."

That sold me long ago, when Revit was new and I didn't know where it isn't always the case.

Now, I can't stand describing that concept to the people I'm training and conceding that "Crap, Revit can't do that" task that seems so Revit-like.

[Eldad Asoulin]

First, a great topic :)
For me, coming like most, from the Autocad/2D world, and watching how miserably ADT kept failing with complicated menus and poor quality (sorry ADT developers, you did have a hard job, building it on Autocad) Revit was a breath of fresh air, it had a simple interface that laid out everything in a clear way, anyone could jump on it and start producing models.
Another Revitness for me was the first time I produced an elevation :) now we need what ADT 2 had a few years ago, the ability to control various elevation depths, I would to see this implemented.
Not to mention, 3D. This changed the way we work in such a profound way. Buildings are changing, becoming more complicated and free forming in one way or another, we need to develop the 3D modeling capabilities of Revit. The Conceptual Mass is a great step in the right direction, now we need to bring it into the project...
there are many other examples like the way your whole projects documents are connected, sections to details... no more the tedious work done on Autocad.

Schedules really gave me Revitness :) it was awesome to discover schedules in Revit, now we really need to make them truly workable, the fact that sometime we have to drop into Excel to finish a schedule to fit with a spec. we need greater formating abilities, a full blown spreadsheet. this will make many people happy.

What gave me the opposite of Revitness, was the drafting tools, or, the lack of them. took years to get an ellipse! not to mention the "Arc by..." we need more drafting tools, i know it's contradicting the move to 3D but we will always will have a need for a good set of 2D tools.
and for the future revitness moment (possibly the biggest ever!) it would have to be Revitness on a Mac :)

[JoeF]

Revitness to me is the experience of being asked if there is enough headroom over the stairs and saying "Lets cut a section and see".
The notion that I am actually building walls and floors and not lines is for me the essence of Revitness.

[DoTheBIM]

Revitness:
1) Any task done in another design product that is significantly accelerated by the use of Revit. (ex. creating new sections & elevations, making a design change that is represented in more than one drawing/view, etc...)
2) Use of a feature/tool in Revit that has more human-like intuitiveness than other design products. (ex. moving a wall adjusts the roof, dimensions, and related objects, swapping out an object that is tagged automatically adjusts the text in the tag, etc...)

[Rafael]

I would have to agree with Donnie that the essence of Revit is "bi-directional associativity." In designing and/or modifying Revit features keep this in mind and you will keep the soul of the product.

All other features related to object technology, etc are found in other products so I doubt that this is what makes Revit unique.

[KTJ]

I think the Factory asking really what we wanted to do when asking for new functionality. The said they wanted that to make sure the functionality was really created correctly but also to understand how it might really be something that applied to all kinds of other items in the same vane. I understood it as programming in such a way that one addition to Revit really added a whole array of functionality on a more global level.

Revit as a database that is really just viewed in many ways: graphically, in schedules, legends etc. It seemed at the beginning anything way of view it could be possible with ease but that has broken down or at least run into some big hurdles.

[Anthony Hauck]

The data model is something that most experienced users are aware of and something I try to hammer home when teaching. Schedules of elements and model elements aren't being kept in sync.. they are the same information.
Bi-directional associativity is partially related to being able to make changes where I am now and/or where I think I should be able to make them.

[Rafael]

Exactly, but right now many things in Revit have moved away from bi-directional associativity and having one set of information. For instance finishes are applied to walls and other objects, but they are not reported by the room that they bound. So there are two distinct set of data to describe the same exact thing, and they are not linked to each other in any way. Many times we need to make changes in different contexts because of the design stage we are in and the amount of information we have available at the time. It is this process that needs further analysis.

[Rafael]

On the other hand I just found something amazing that I don't believe was listed in the new features for 2010.

In 2009 and before you could not link 3d models from dwg or SKP files into a mass and reload the link. You could only import the 3d mass into an inplace mass and the link was broken to the original file.

Now you can link 3d DWGs into an inplace mass and update the link! This means I can leverage AutoCAD 2010's modeling capabilities, or other modelers, and use wall by face on those linked 3d masses, which allows for a hybrid workflow that essentially expands the capabilites of Revit!

Bravo!

[kerny]

Experiencing "Revitness" is being able to make a detailed and elaborate 3D model with a rendered video walkthrough - but not being able to change the draw order of more than one 2D element at a time.

[Anthony Hauck]

Yes. I often hear people talking about "what Revit wants" or finding ways to use tools in novel ways to achieve a result. This may not be an enjoyable aspect but it is there nonetheless. My previous post on small enhancements covers some of the process we are employing to make progress on this.

[John Anderson]

Bi-directional associativity within a relational database as a dependable attribute for consistent and mass manipulation defines Revitness for me. So it grumbles me to understand why keynotes, assembly codes, etc. and specifications are all not part of this relational database, well integrated with improved text editing and scheduling. That has always defined the un-revitness of Revit to me.

[Michele Bousquet]

Being able to make parametric families. I can't get enough of it.

[Aaron Rumple]

...that R is soooo not Revit.

[Anthony Hauck]

Touché. I'll try a different one in my follow up post.