Chris D
-
Posts
898 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Marionette
Store
Posts posted by Chris D
-
-
it needs multi-threading as a background process
-
-
by default a worksheet counts all the occurrences no matter where the are. A window on a design layer and in three viewports will count as 4 in a worksheet.
You couldn't make this up.
Why would the default be so counter-intuitive? Why should people need to know how to use the cryptic interface of the appalling worksheet environment just to fix errant behaviours like this?
-
A central BIM server is only not practical YET.
We haven't evolved the software, the services, the working practices, the insurance model etc, etc, but it will come.
-
Do you know, what little I've learned about Revit so far, the thing I like about it is how fixed the interface is...despite my post above. You can't change the shortcuts, you can't change the toolbar positions, the palettes just dock or undock, and you have just one customisable "quick access" toolbar which you customise to suit how you work.
BUT, this is acceptable because it's a good interface to begin with, not the horrible mess that is VW's UI.
-
Of-topic: You look happier on the other side.
The future's brighter over there...
-
Haha...I joined in. Thought I'd play devil's advocate for you so you can keep the thread open...
-
I don't think it is confirming that. I think it's confirming that Revit via Windows on Mac is a work in progress.
It's a bit too cryptic for "we'll fix the graphics card issues for Windows on Mac hardware"...don't you think?
-
I was under the impression Revit was on it's way to Mac ... Does anyone know if there has been a statement made
4th post on this thread, from an AutoDesk rep sounds pretty conclusive that they're working on it.
http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/Autodesk-Revit-Architecture/Revit-on-Mac/td-p/3194928
-
Christiaan, considering the amount of threads you've made on the wishlist forum, may I suggest you ask for a total rebuild? Revit
Fixed it for you.
-
The pricing structure for Revit is front-loaded if you take their equivalent of VSS subscription...you pay a big chunk to get on board, but the annual subscription is reasonably low (under 1K GBP). I'm not sure the prices I have are public so I won't post them here.
The point being, writing-off the initial cost, 1K a year for your principal software (with support, updates, cloud rendering included) is not too bad.
-
Before this thread degenerates I'd better add some substance. Here is the list I posted in the other thread about the headline failings of VW. I will edit the post to add comments about Revit under each.
WORKING
- No live sections
R- You can edit in any view. Sections are live and editable.
- No multiple model windows e.g. plan and section open at same time
R- No limit on number of live views open at the same time. You can tile them, overlap them, expand and contract them, toggle through them. They're all live views, always updating when you edit any other window.
- Poor architectural tools, windows, doors, stairs, roofs, curtain walls etc
R- Great tools, sensible metric defaults, sensible automatic insertion points (e.g. windows of common metric sizes insert at a default metric brick coursing height), great easy-to-edit parametrics with clear guides. Fantastic curtain wall tool with configurable panels like spandrels , mergeable adjacent panels, different cap styles. etc etc.
- Missing architectural tools rooflights, gutters, foundations etc
R- All there. Had a good demo of the gutter tool, with height and width offset from the fascia, profile selections, automatic corners etc.
- No multi-core / multi-thread support e.g even auto-save stops you working while it saves
R- Multi-threaded for key processes including open/save, background render, preview generation etc. Multi-core rendering.
- No building materials, just 2D hatches, textures, fills with no relationship between them.
R- Building materials pre-loaded with U values, density, etc, each with a section and elevation appearance property for several view types and pre-defined render textures. The colour for shaded views can even be set to take an average of the render texture colours.
- Poor workgroup referencing. No workgroup server or BIM server
R- Work Sets and Work Sharing approach from a central database file on the server. We couldn't see this in practice but it is implemented in large offices like HOK so it must work well.
- Poor stock component library, especially for the UK
R- Great defaults included in the metric library within the software and of course the single biggest set of resources on the UK's National BIM Library.
- Poor Coordinate System support. No multiple UCS (moving origin doesn't qualify).
R- Great twin Project and Survey origin system, with ability to query either the site level/coordinate or the AOD/Survey benchmark levels.
- No 3D working grid or reference lines related to storey settings
R- Level benchmarks appear in all working views including elevations and sections and can be configured to appear individually or by category etc. Can be measured to, or used for parametric constraints.
- Poor Stories implementation. No split levels, mezzanines, double-height spaces etc.
R- Unlimited individual definition of 'levels' that can be stories, mezzanines, ceiling heights, parapet levels. No rigid stricture about stories being layers (in the VW sense). External walls typically go the full height of the building for instance.
OUTPUT
- No 3D hatches so all drawings need to be rendered for presentation
R- 3D hatches, vector-based shaded elevation/section views with hatches AND vector shadows...the shadows can be real world or use architectural graphic conventions. THIS is the killer feature.
- Render quality needs to be set very high for decent elevation output
R- See above. No need to render elevations while you work just to see what your elevation looks like. Open GL is NOT equivalent as it draws lines at floors etc and doesn't have 3D masonry hatches and shadows. Rendering not necessary unless desired to have render-style elevations....normal presentation drawings like you would have drawn in the 2D CAD process are entirely vector based.
-
Bob, I think the prospect of your shares in NV Inc going on the slide are affecting your judgement.
No offence intended. You're free to put forward a positive spin on Vectorworks on their own Techboard of course. Please don't suggest I can't tell the difference between marketing and substance. I've used Vectorworks, Microstation, AutoCAD, ArchiCAD and even Revit (pre-AutoDesk) over the last 20 years. We gave the Revit demo guy a real grilling, got him sweating. It wasn't all good, but it's night and day with Vectorworks from my perspective.
-
The demo did the job, it was so utterly convincing.
A lay man off the street wouldn't have been impressed in the least, because it was all so logical that this is how architectural software would work. The perspective of coming from a struggle with Vectorworks is what makes Revit so impressive.
It's not about features, but implementation. NV Inc could tick many of the boxes on the marketing literature (and do) but the implementation is so slick on Revit that it is worlds away.
-
How are you dealing with the issue of cost difference?
How are you dealing with the cost of missing those recent deadlines and the time spent on workarounds etc?
I'm not trying to be funny...I think it will pay for itself.
-
I'm not going to resurrect my recent post on this topic which was slightly inflammatory, but I did promise to report back after the Revit Demo which we booked when we realised VW couldn't do BIM in the way we wanted...
About 5 minutes into the demo one of my colleagues summed up the difference between Vectorworks and Revit with these words "Night and Day". This just about sums it up.
I don't have time to give a full rundown of the differences, but they are more stark than I had imagined. What I realised is that in my 9 years of posting to the Vectorworks Wishlist, what I was doing was describing Revit, without knowing it.
I'm afraid that the decision was made to jump ship, and that we will slowly transition to Revit (and Windows) over the coming years.
-
I like the sound of this OVERKILL command. One of the problems of BIM data is the issue of hidden duplicates, so VW will need this feature going forward.
Only yesterday I needed to count the parking spaces on a large housing site - 470 spaces is a lot to count manually, but I did it with a print out and a highlighter pen. I can't trust the Report data from Vectorworks because it's so easy to have two parking space symbols sat on top of each other and not be seen. As it happens, the report differed by one from my manual count of 470 so it wasn't bad...
Has anybody wishlisted this feature?
-
1
-
-
- Seeing info like how much a symbol is placed in the drawing...
Man, I requested this years ago and forgot about it....I can't believe the RB doesn't report this...it's crazy to have to run a report to find out how many instances of a particular symbol there are in a file!
-
In fact there are loads of easily-coded* improvements that could be done to make the RB a SuperBrowser! Why can't we sort resource views by class, by real-world size etc etc....imagine sorting the browser view by size from house types down to door handles...how much easier it would be to find things! This September!**
*if it isn't easy you've got the wrong coders.
**if it can't be done by September you haven't got enough of them.
-
Folders are an old and inefficient way to sort resources such as symbols. They get untidy because they are manual.
Tags are a far more intelligent way to sort large ever-changing sets of resources.
The Resource Browser (Ye Olde Resource Browser) needs a massive update to show far bigger previews (if we want them), longer resource names, resource tags, the ability to sort by tags, the ability to save tag selections as smart folders etc etc. The RB should also be more dynamic and should get out of the way when you start dragging a resource onto your drawing!
I want this yesterday please, failing that, September.
-
Actually you do. And it's much better because you get to control them on the SLVP instead of having to use the middle man DLVP.
This drives me nuts about DLVPs....having to have duplicate references on top of each other just because SLVPs can't control the classes of the DLVPs.
-
Proof that rendering isn't the answer to getting 2D from 3D.
Vector-based hidden-line display of 2D, with 3D vector hatches as required is the solution for elevations from models. VECTORworks should be able to do this.
The building isn't complex but it looks like it's too much for VW to produce rastered (rendered) large scale detailed images on an iMac (even an i7 one with max RAM). A Mac Pro might help but the demands on hardware are still too much...yet.
-
If there's one item on the wishlist for VW2013...it's 2D elevations from 3D models...working...out of the box.
Forget everything else until this works.
-
VW is second placed according to this:
http://constructioncode.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/national-bim-library-first-four-months.html
Revit Thoughts
in General Discussion
Posted
In my very limited Revit experience so far of going through some tutorial files, the mutliple live view is fantastic.
It's not that you necessarily have them tiled side by side to fill your screen (although you can do that automatically for any number of open views), but just to have windows loosely overlapped on screen of a plan, elevation and iso view all at the same time, with very rapid switching between them, is a revelation.