BIMfail. Why we're moving to Revit

[gester]

chris wanted to do bim. how does it work with 2d data transfer between two applications and operating systems?

[Bob Holtzmann]

It doesn't - for Revit, you need Autocad or something similar to fill the void.

And if you want a spreadsheet or table in Revit, you make an Excel file, import it into Autocad, and then reference the Autocad file into Revit.

But look on the bright side - Chris D has his automatically updating viewports!

[Dieter @ DWorks]

It doesn't - for Revit, you need Autocad or something similar to fill the void.

Not true! You can draw 2D in Revit. You could even draw all of your plans in 2D in it. But let us not speak of the presentation of those 2D plans....

[Assembly]

It doesn't - for Revit, you need Autocad or something similar to fill the void.

Not true! You can draw 2D in Revit. You could even draw all of your plans in 2D in it. But let us not speak of the presentation of those 2D plans....

The output of software is about the user.

While I like the 2D control in VW,

I have seen shocking drawings created by VW users & I've seen excellent drawings produced by REVIT users.

My guess DWorks is that if you used REVIT as long as you have used VW your drawings would look equally good with REVIT.

Personally, Im finding that the wall component joining in VW terrible to work with. Anything with slight complexity takes many goes to get to look correct. Different relationships between cladding set down / extend up requires a lot of wall styles. A management pain if change is required. When it finally looks right in the 2D representation, the 3D joins go wonky affecting the elevations and sections.

[Kizza]

But let us not speak of the presentation of those 2D plans....

Dworks, that's not quite true. You can get just as good results in Revit as VW.

Having about the same experience now in both Revit and VW this is my conclusion for anyone who might find it useful.

VW very good for generic modeling

Revit good also but not as free flowing as VW

VW excellent at 2D drafting - drawing objects, adding, composing, clipping etc - very natural

Revit more limited and has a line based approach to drawing rather than the VW's object based methodology. But it's tools are implemented better so less linework is required IMO.

VW poor for drawing co-ordination, lacks essential architectural drafting features such as live sections, materials, project levels, vector based hidden line rendering etc. Poor standard window/door tool. Pretty much the basics really.

Revit excels here. Some argue that the workflow is rigid, you're too locked in. But you can get the job done easily, intuitively and without so many workarounds.

So basically, if you are an architect/designer with a foot in a few camps then VW's 2D drawing and modeling flexibility may be more of a priority.

But if you're an architect/Designer who practically just does buildings then your best choice is not VW - there are much better tools out there to do this.

And you can get really good drawings from Revit - everything is customisable to suit your office standards. It just requires a bit of time to set up (as does VW).

Just look at VW's woeful elevation benchmark tool, there are only two marker styles that you can apply - both don't suit my graphic style. In Revit you can create your own.....that's flexibility.

Hopefully this is of use to someone.

If in doubt, just spend some time working on a program capable of live sections and you will never go back.

PS

No moderators where harmed during the writing of this post.

[Bob Holtzmann]

Regardless of whether Revit is good at 2D drafting, Autocad is still needed, because Revit does not adequately import Autocad drawings for editing. That was "the void" I was referring to. As a rule, offices using Revit rely on Autocad as well.

And I do applaud the civility of the discussion over this touchy subject - I know we are all passionate about our tools.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Bob-H

[gester]

i mean, we're talking about bim, right?

rob