Jump to content

VW Architect vs Revit LT

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The main advantage of a light version of Revit is that you/your practice can grow into the full version.

With Vectorworks there is nothing to grow into, you are stuck with it as it is.

As Chris said VW's target audience is small practices or sole practitioners, there is no next level. What happens when you get beyond this size you either have to make do.....until...? (I don't know the answer....either move on or wait for VW to develop further?)

Link to comment

True I guess that is not quite right, :-) There are levels of features that can be purchased within Vectorworks but VW is still aiming for the small practices.

The full version of Revit is not intended to be marketed to the small practices and therefore has much better features for larger practices e.g. multi user collaboration, better facilities for producing pictorial window schedules etc.

This is what i meant by grow into.....maybe Vectorworks could grow into Archicad?

If i were a new practice shopping around, this stepping of levels of software progression would be appealing.

Maybe Vectorworks and Archicad could integrate and market themselves similarly...... or Vectorworks cause a revolution rather than a rather slow evolving process.

Edited by Alan H
Link to comment

Such a heavy voice... It's not making me love what they show. And the song is so depressing.

Yeah it was more to do with my comment that I posted that: "Wake me up when a Mac version is released."

The Mac version of Autocad is a good indicator of how well it would work - read Ralph Grabowski's experience with it at World Cad Access

Link to comment
Can't export to IFC either (not that you would need to)

I would love to know if anyone has actually used IFC successfully. I watched Wes Gardeners "Using Open BIM" webinars, and their solution for handling IFC file exchange between disciplines is to create a new role / discipline dedicated to controlling, coordinating and providing quality assurance to and for the flow of IFC data, the new role or responsibility is called the "BIM Manager". It?s an interesting approach, instead of trying to create software that meets the industries needs, try and create an industry to meet the needs of your softwares.

The lack of IFC support in RevitLT simply acknowledges the fact that IFC is to complex and inefficient to ever be considered useful for small to medium scale projects, regardless of the software your consultants use.

Link to comment

The lack of IFC support in RevitLT simply acknowledges the fact that IFC is to complex and inefficient to ever be considered useful for small to medium scale projects, regardless of the software your consultants use.

Perhaps this is true for now but programs will become much more intuitive over the coming years and the need for 2D drafting will all but phase-out (Revit already shows this tendency, it is almost hard to find the few 2D tools that it has).

Edited by Vincent C
Link to comment
You're just emphasizing the point I'm making, Christiaan -- Autocad for the Mac is a waste of time.

What's a waste of time is reading the rambling of someone who's written "140 books on CAD" but doesn't think to check the requirements of his own professional CAD software before updating his system. You can't blame Autodesk for the ignorance of people like this.

I'm not dismissing this as nothing but it's not like VW has always been compatible with the latest OS immediately on release. Think you're barking up the wrong tree on this one.

Link to comment
Just another trick to make their format standard....

Any program/app/file-format that is not as compatible as it can be, is just stupid, especially when it is a means of holding back the competition, because in essence you are holding back development and efficiency.

What you are overlooking is that Autodesk aren't interested in IFC working. They would prefer that you and everyone else use Revit instead. Monopoly positions are rarely to consumers' advantage.

I don?t see IFC representing a threat to Autodesk?s or any other proprietary format. The difference between proprietary formats and the IFC format is their ability to preserve proprietary information pertaining to proprietary technology. VWX is a proprietary format, is it open or closed? Is it anti-IFC for Vectorworks Landmark and Architect to use the same proprietary format? It was Autodesk who founded the IFC initiative and their goal was to exchange information with backend applications, they still support it, although I expect, with the same view to its use regardless of the elevated purpose now thrust upon it.

The narrative or subtext we?re fed by Wes Gardener and Jeffery Ouellette is that there?s an ideological war going on between open and closed formats. Nemetschek?s narrative and their motivation for perpetuating it, I believe, has nothing to do with the logical approach to BIM by Autodesk and others, and everything to do with Nemetschek's structure. As explained by Sean Flaherty in www.upfrontezine.com, ?Nemetschek is a financial holding company specializing in AEC, and so it gives no technical directions; divisions have strategic independence?. (thanks Christiaan)

IFC is, and make sense as a complimentary format to proprietary exchange by making the essential BIM data available to backend applications, typically after the editable proprietary information serves no purpose, it's not a threat to proprietary formats. It?s the Nemetschek company structure that is threatened by where the BIM paradigm has naturally evolved. The IFC equals virtuous, proprietary equals monopoly narrative appears to be all about negating the parent company?s structure, which is averse to developing it?s software suite in line with the way the rest of the industry is developing and interpreting BIM. Nemetschek is a company that wants to make money from owning a portfolio of AEC technology companies they can buy and sell, they are not a company that wants to make money from ?being? an AEC technology company. Steps towards uniting the technologies within their portfolio would make them progressively more difficult to sell off individually should a division within their portfolio begin to fail.

IFC is obviously important, it already has good backend applications, but is Nemetschek selling it because it?s a good solution for BIM collaboration or are they selling it because it?s a solution to a company structure that?s unable to develop, or is unsuitable for developing, a suite of connected BIM products? They appear to have created unrealistic expectations for IFC and they?re now getting tangled up trying to make it work. The central plank of the Open BIM platform has been ?the ability to work with anyone?, an argument that?s now been contradicted by the admission that an IFC workflow requires or should utilise a ?BIM Manager? to navigate it. What education, what expertise, what credentials, what responsibilities (start to end), what insurance, what cost does the new ?BIM Manager? or IFC ?work around? role represent? Meanwhile proprietary file exchange appears to have marched on successfully for projects of all scale using a USB stick, leaving everyone?s responsibilities and expertise where they?ve always been and without potential costly duplications of the skills required to manage projects.

Of course every company wants everyone to buy their products over the competition, I don?t like Autodesk?s dominance of the AEC market but it?s Nemetschek?s motivation for presenting IFC as they have on these boards and in webinars that?s questionable. I?d suggest that it?s the campaign of a ?Financial Holdings Company? that is potentially distorting and stifling the way BIM collaboration and BIM software should ?EVOLVE? not companies developing intelligent proprietary connections between their BIM software.

Hopefully I'll be proven wrong.

Link to comment

Those videos are impressive. WIll VW ever catch up?.

There have been so many #BIMFAIL posts to the forum recently, with no #BIMYEAH posts.

There are repetitive requests from users of VW: Live Section, Multiple View editing, Improved Multi User support. More intuitive UI. Smarter Tools: Stair / Window /Door. True drawing coordination. Matched by disappointment at each release for not having it.

Some VW users suggest they will pay more for VW if it does the above, and urge more to be spent on R&D to catch up. Arguing that if the software provides more they will be happy to pay more. I don't think this is true. Price is a significant influence in VW market share. When we moved to VW9 from the drawing board, we selected VW because it was the lowest cost option.

I'd say the reason most people who are weighing up between VW / Revit / ArchiCAD choose choose VW for it's price.

There is much heated discussion on this forum about how successful VW is for BIM. VW is BIM capable. There are a small handful of skilled Vectorworks users who will be using a full 3D workflow. That is: they generate all elevations and sections from the model. And generate schedules through the Worksheet interface.

However I suspect that most do not.

I can use VW in this way. In my experience the time overhead for a 3D workflow is too high. As the model gets complex the Viewport update times slow. The increased model management is high. As you push VW to the limit you start hitting things you have to 'work around'. The work around time is very unproductive and slow- (I suspect what drives the frustration of users trying a 3D workflow).

In my opinion, BIM is not the strength of VW. VW is first in class for 2D. Last project I did I used my old 2D work flow. I delivered the project in record time, and felt refreshed on how productive I could be.

The introduction of Revit LT gives me the option of testing that package at a similar cost for me to upgrade to VW2013. I have had a taste of the benefits of an integrated model. If I value the benefits and want them, I can have them today.

If Revit fullfil the promise of productivity that BIM should deliver, then the cost to upgrade to full Revit will justify itself.

My next computer might have to be Windows. :(

Edited by Assembly
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...