Vectorworks v Revit

[michael john williams]

I have been fighting the cause for Vectorworks over Revit for a long time but feel that VW is losing. For example, Revit are coming out with some great 3D windows, with plenty of detail, parametric sash windows that incluses tapered reveals, window seats, etc:

http://www.revit-content.com/content/sash-window/index.htm

It includes an adjustable tapered soffit and reveals.

The kitchens are pretty good too:

http://www.revit-content.com/content/kitchen/index.htm

The render button is very impressive with great detail and shadows, as attached [hopefully].

So more and more architects in the UK are moving to Revit.

I feel VW is slowly becoming less and less attractive with hardly any back up here in the UK.

[J Lucas]

Note the lines in the counter tops in the second Revit image. That would be very annoying after paying so much. I think the rendering quality shown in the last image would be fairly easily achieved with Renderworks.

[Bob Holtzmann]

I've been checking out Revit first hand, and reviewing user comments.

One interesting thing I learned is that Revit cannot make a LOD 100 BIM model, because it has no space objects. This is basic space planning that architects do during the programming stage.

I am stunned how so many architects accept the omissions Autodesk puts in their products. There is a big difference between offering sophisticated and innovative design tools, and putting on a medicine show.

[Christiaan]

One interesting thing I learned is that Revit cannot make a LOD 100 BIM model

But, seriously, who gives a toss? For the vast majority of architects (at least the ones I talk to) wanting to transition to a BIM workflow there's very little point in fretting about the shortcomings of big-BIM when little-BIM Vectorworks is still pie in the sky.

We are still stuck in a 2D workflow and until we can break out of this workflow into 3D none of the interoperability matters of BIM are even on our radar.

[J Lucas]

When I started using VW, three years ago, I committed to a 3D work flow. The learning curve was steep but the results and efficiency gained have been great. Plus, now I fluidly go back and forth from 3D to 2D when 2D is more efficient. You just have to make the commitment to designing and modeling in 3D from the start of each project. What is "pie in the sky" about this?

Edited March 8, 2010 by J Lucas

[Christiaan]

How many people work in your office Jonathan?

[J Lucas]

One, me. But (given what I know of VW now) if I was still in charge of the Civic/Educational division at the 40 person firm where I used to work, I would strongly advocate switching to a VectorWorks 3D work flow.

Edited March 8, 2010 by J Lucas

[Christiaan]

The point is the vast majority of people who say they *use* a strict 3D workflow in their day-to-day work are sole practitioners. Working in teams is a different kettle of fish. You may well advocate 40 people switching to a 3D workflow but you're not doing it.

We use aspects of VW 3D where it's advantageous but if I started advocating a strict 3D workflow and all the freeform modelling and fiddling about that entails and all the laborious and slow workgroup referencing that entails I'd be rightly laughed out of the office. There is far too much heavy lifting required by the user to make it economical. There are too many of these kinds of issues. And the more people you have the less economic it gets because all the heavy lifting doesn't scale well; not in the least because all the heavy lifting required by VW can be done in a million different ways, requiring huge amounts of time just to manage the process and keep an eye on things.

We need a server/client form of teamwork. And freeform modelling needs to take a back seat; freeform modelling needs to be a last resort, not a first resort. And for some time now it's been marketed as a first resort; as if it's VW's major advantage over other 3D CAD apps. Well tell that to all the offices over 5 people who are working in a strict 3D workflow and making money doing it. Half of them won't even have heard that VW is meant to be a competitor to the apps they are using.

Put it this way: if VW did building modelling better than or as good as its competitors then freeform modelling would be a huge advantage. But it doesn't even come close. Even worse, I think VW's (very good) freeform capabilities have acted as a hindrance to it's development as a building modelling app. Clearly not enough people at NNA over past years have seen building modelling as a competitive advantage; as if being able to model an inclined wall manually somehow competes with the ability to use a dynamic wall tool that does it for you.

[Rostislav Maliar Kr?l']

We use aspects of VW 3D where it's advantageous but if I started advocating a strict 3D workflow and all the freeform modelling and fiddling about that entails and all the laborious and slow workgroup referencing that entails I'd be rightly laughed out of the office. There is far too much heavy lifting required by the user to make it economical...... And the more people you have the less economic it gets because all the heavy lifting doesn't scale well; not in the least because all the heavy lifting required by VW can be done in a million different ways, requiring huge amounts of time just to manage the process and keep an eye on things.

We need a server/client form of teamwork. ........Well tell that to all the offices over 5 people who are working in a strict 3D workflow and making money doing it. Half of them won't even have heard that VW is meant to be a competitor to the apps they are using.

Christiaan, none of the other BIM apps are the grail you seek, they all suck for the creation of architecture. They do what you say which is to allow for larger teams to work together. At the moment ArchiCADD does the best with the server(anyone here how it is working?) with REVIT and its huge slow files second. Vectorworks and Microstation are very 1980.

One needs to pick the tool that meets the need, can never quite understand the commentary on all these tools for architecture, as that is all the software is, just a more expensive tool for expressing the the minds eye.

Your firm will switch when you have the authority to make the switch until then........

[Ozzie]

And freeform modelling needs to take a back seat; freeform modelling needs to be a last resort

I can understand the point from a building designers view but why throw the baby out with the bath water?

Why not have both?

[Christiaan]

I agree Rostivslav. The point I'm making is that little-BIM (i.e., being able to derive all your documentation in-house from a 3D model) should be at the forefront of VW development. Big-BIM (i.e. interoperability and ultimately everyone working on one model) doesn't matter if you're not in a position to create your own little-BIM model in the first place. This is why Revit and ArchiCAD have BIM mindshare and Vectorkworks doesn't.

[Christiaan]

I can understand the point from a building designers view but why throw the baby out with the bath water?

Why not have both?

The term "take a back seat" doesn't mean to eliminate something. It means to let something else take a more active role.

I'm saying freeform modelling in VW is great; of course we shouldn't get rid of it. It just shouldn't be held up as the answer to our modelling needs (as it so often is).

NNA should be gunning to be the best building modelling app available. Freeform modelling can then take its rightful place as that method you use when a dynamic tool doesn't make any sense. Then it would be an advantage. For now it's trotted out almost as a reason for not needing dynamic tools, as if building modelling is just not the VW way.

[Ozzie]

I really wonder mate given the parents companies ownership of ArchiCAD, Allplan, Cinema 4D, Scia, etc; if in reality we are as I have said before just like little mice running around in a wheel

have a look at this

http://www.scia-online.com/en/return-on-investment.html

perhaps you have seen it before

is that then the barrow to be pushed?

all of the talk about BIM, IFC, little BIM, big BIM and the like

just a couple of weeks back from you even

http://techboard.nemetschek.net/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=27986&Number=136590#Post136590

and I know that was dwg

so how about real interoperability within the Nemetschek group?

we are all; or many of us at least are screaming out for certain things

VW is a spoke in a bigger wheel

at least shortly this will come out and those astute enough to delve into it can better understand what is being applied where ? perhaps

http://www.tradesignalonline.com/Markets/Story.aspx?id=570823&cat=3

and can you tell me for one moment that each part of this large parent company is truly autonymous

could ArchiCAD to VW file swaps be ever a reality?

could VW ever really be as good a 3D building modeller as ArchiCAD?

could VW ever really be as good an engineering tool as Scia?

I really think ultimately what you are seeking is correct but it probably has to come from the top down and perhaps in the process never happen at all due to software differences, difficulties today to integrate

So we live in hope of IFC

rightly so in the end it is all just a business

as an example can you tell me how NNA buying ArchiCAD has helped a VW user so far, or how does VW benefit from Scia or Allplan or Cinema 4D?

I understand what you are saying but .............

[Christiaan]

as an example can you tell me how NNA buying ArchiCAD has helped

NNA didn't buy ArchiCAD, NAG did.

[VincentCuclair]

The point is the vast majority of people who say they *use* a strict 3D workflow in their day-to-day work are sole practitioners. Working in teams is a different kettle of fish. You may well advocate 40 people switching to a 3D workflow but you're not doing it.

That argument cuts 2 ways Christiaan, to get 40 people in this day and age to change to a full 3D workflow would be equally hard even if there was a complete App available...just look around you, how many people use the available apps full capability (or for arguments sake 80% of it's capacity), I bet you it's not even 15%.......

We use aspects of VW 3D where it's advantageous but if I started advocating a strict 3D workflow and all the freeform modelling and fiddling about that entails and all the laborious and slow workgroup referencing that entails I'd be rightly laughed out of the office.

I think (and ofcourse it never happens fast enough) that the gap between freeform modelling and parametric objects has become significantly smaller and will dissapear in due course, the thing is it must not happen too fast, for the foundations that are layed out for this now will greatly influence the need for rebuilding within the app. later when this gap has dissapeared.....

[Christiaan]

That argument cuts 2 ways Christiaan, to get 40 people in this day and age to change to a full 3D workflow would be equally hard even if there was a complete App available...

Come on let?s stick with reality here. ArchiCAD is far easier to use in 3D than Vectorworks. It's whole basis is 3D. It?s also more rigid in the way it works, which is an advantage when working in teams. And Teamwork 2? Please, it doesn?t come close to be ?equally hard.?

[Christiaan]

I suspect most people who bought into VW instead of ArchiCAD early on did so for two reasons: it was cheaper and it was seen as a more natural transition from the drawing board to the computer. It's these two factors that also make it harder to transition a VW office to BIM. In fact ArchiCAD users don't even need to transition; they've been doing little-BIM from the start. That's why it's easier to use in 3D, that's what it does. Not more flexible. Easier, faster. Economical.

[VincentCuclair]

Come on let?s stick with reality here. ArchiCAD is far easier to use in 3D than Vectorworks. It's whole basis is 3D.

Depends on what typ of 3D (or BIM), presentation material vs sektions/elevations/plans for working drawings /background for other konsultants.......

When it concerns presentation/visualisation FORGET IT I 've tried several times....not even close to VW.

Concerning the others, sure it's somewhat easier to get into........having said that in my office we are 4 that use ArchiCAD, with a wide variety of competence in CAD, even if one person can't/doesn't want to join in the all 3D push it falls. We still use ArchiCAD like we used to use Point, an easy way to place doors and windows in a wall in 2D and draw sections and elevations in 2D!!! If I go over to the all 3D BIM and someone else in a teamwork project doesn't even know where to start to change an elevation it falls......... that is the reality in my office, and it is so in many other offices here.....

Edited March 10, 2010 by Vincent C

[VincentCuclair]

I suspect most people who bought into VW instead of ArchiCAD early on did so for two reasons: it was cheaper and it was seen as a more natural transition from the drawing board to the computer. It's these two factors that also make it harder to transition a VW office to BIM. In fact ArchiCAD users don't even need to transition; they've been doing little-BIM from the start. That's why it's easier to use in 3D, that's what it does. Not more flexible. Easier, faster. Economical.

To be honest I think the transition and the biggest difficulty lies in changing from 2D to 3D thinking, this applies to all the (BIM) Apps out there, with this in mind I agree, for an architect, ArchiCAD is the best place to start in that transition......for people already there (Yours truely) all existing BIM apps including VW (all be it with a bunch of workarounds) will do the trick.

[Christiaan]

To be honest I think the transition and the biggest difficulty lies in changing from 2D to 3D thinking, this applies to all the (BIM) Apps out there, with this in mind I agree, for an architect, ArchiCAD is the best place to start in that transition

I agree, I just don't think it needs to be this way (or at least wish it wasn?t). I think VW can and should be the best place to start. And I think it's just a matter of NNA well and truly embracing the principle that ?freeform modelling is a last resort? rather than ?freeform is the VW way.?

From talking to some of the NNA team it seems this is the road being pursued but sometimes I wonder. NNA responses to support queries that involve the user having to delve unexpectedly into freeform modelling often appear as if they?re extolling the virtues of freeform modelling over building modelling. But maybe it?s simply a case of not wanting to come out and say, ?well we don?t have a tool for that yet but we?re working on it.?

[VincentCuclair]

it's just a matter of NNA well and truly embracing the principle that ?freeform modelling is a last resort? rather than ?freeform is the VW way.?

I don't think you should get too hung up on that, I was deep into Bentley Architecture just when they were struggling with exactly this issue and they 'solved' it by simply integrating the 2 (freeform and parametric objects, nice ! but it came with a whole load of issues which infuenced all the other parts of the program mainly in a bad/complex ways) however I think it goes much deeper than this, I think solving this issue is going to be a corner stone in the foundations of the next generation of VW upgrades and also the reason to why the techs at NNA should bide their time and not commit by making hasty decisions.

Look what happened with Autodesk and ADT vs Revit, they committed to a certain solution in the form of ADT and had to make a 180 degree turn and develop a whole new program in the form of Revit to get back on track! The guys at VW tech have proven time and again that they are capable visionaries in this. I think they know what they are doing and if not the solutions will present themselves soon.

[VincentCuclair]

Christiaan, I'm just curious what part of VW do you find better/superior/nicer than ArchiCAD?

I ask because it is apparent you appreciate ArchiCADs capabilities, and rightly so. I have no idea what kind of office you are employed but if it is a straight forward Architecture practice why not make the jump? I must admit, if another architect would ask me which to choose VW or ArchiCAD even though I'm not objective (because I prefer VW as you know) I would have to go with ArchiCAD.....

[Christiaan]

Christiaan, I'm just curious what part of VW do you find better/superior/nicer than ArchiCAD?

First and foremost: familiarity and time invested on my/our part. 2D presentation capabilities, 3D freeform modelling, Mac-friendly interface (although I'd rather it was changed to a unified window), keyboard short-cuts, total cost of ownership (although we'd be happy to pay more for better building modelling capabilities).

... why not make the jump?

Mainly because of the investment in money, time and training?especially so in the case of my hands-on director, who doesn't want to be left with a system he doesn't know how to use if I up and leave. Were ArchiCAD to gain some form of freeform modelling and a Mac-friendly interface (including keyboard shortcuts), however, that would probably be enough to make the above investment feasible.

[michael john williams]

I like to get a great debate going!

Interesting thread and NNA needs to read it and take note if it wants to get ahead of the game and survive.

[RubenH]

Check this...

http://www.laiserin.com/features/issue26/feature01.pdf