Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Chris D

VW Architect vs Revit LT

Recommended Posts

The new kid on the block is Revit LT....announced yesterday. It's about the same price as VW.

Cat, meet pigeons

Share this post


Link to post

Well, with Revit LT, it could be a cat in a sack. You have no rendering capabilities in it, you need to buy a subscription to be able to render online. You can't work together with more people on one project, ... .

I think Autodesk does this to lure more people, but it's not the same if you ask me...

Share this post


Link to post

VW's target audience is small practices as sole practitioners...same as Revit LT's by the look of it. How many use rendering? And VW doesn't yet have Work Sharing either...

Share this post


Link to post

In the comparing matrix, it says that Revit LT doesn't have design options? I don't know, but that a big miss then... BTW. you can download the trial from the same day they launch VW2013, coincidence :-)

On the site:

Note: the trial for Autodesk Revit LT will be available on September 18, 2012...

I'd rather go for the full package or Archicad.

Share this post


Link to post
Well, with Revit LT, it could be a cat in a sack. You have no rendering capabilities in it, you need to buy a subscription to be able to render online. You can't work together with more people on one project, ... .

Sounds familiar.

Share this post


Link to post

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?)

Share this post


Link to post

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

Ah, but that's not quite right though:

Fundamentals ->Design module -> Designer (->Renderworks)

Edited by Vincent C

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

Feature comparison

I wouldn't be able to live without the stair by sketch feature - this Revit tool is ommited in Revit LT. This feature makes any shape of stair or landing possible.

Edited by Kizza

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

Bob, you just wasted five minutes of my life making me read a rambling incoherent piece from some plonker who didn't check the compatibility of his professional software before upgrading his system software.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Bob, you just wasted five minutes of my life making me read a rambling incoherent piece from some plonker who didn't check the compatibility of his professional software before upgrading his system software.

You're just emphasizing the point I'm making, Christiaan -- Autocad for the Mac is a waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

 

7150 Riverwood Drive, Columbia, Maryland 21046, USA   |   Contact Us:   410-290-5114

 

© 2018 Vectorworks, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Vectorworks, Inc. is part of the Nemetschek Group.

×