Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Chris D

VW Architect vs Revit LT

Recommended Posts

Since I've been at least contemplating a switch to Archicad, t is a bit anxiety producing to contemplate Nemetschek letting them both languish in favor of AllPlan, and really why they would do this is a bit of a head scratcher given the larger user base(s) of VW and Archicad.

It seems very unlikely that a wholesale re-write overhaul of VW is in the cards, whatever changes are on the horizon are likely to be incremental, with VW never really "catching up" to Revit (LT) in the BIM department.

An interesting discussion, and one we mayor may not be capable of having accurately, since we are by and large VW users and not Revit, is: "what would be needed as add-ons to Revit LT to make it equivalent to VW Designer in the 2d presentation 3d modeling space". I suppose Christiaan's wish list is the other side of the coin.

Examples might be needing Artlantis or some other renderer to fill in where we might have used Renderworks before.

Is this worth starting another thread?

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to participate in the Utopian vision of M5D for a new VW.

Crowd-funding is a modern vehicle for communities of all kinds to drive . . let's vote with our idle upgrade fees and appeal to Ernst Homolka & Tim Alexander L?dke for directions.

Share this post


Link to post

after reading the links i realize that the case is more serious than i initially presumed...

rob

Share this post


Link to post

With this thread as a background, this text on the NAG homepage explaining the company philosophy feels more like a slap in the face than a comforting thought:

Freedom to Implement Visions

True to our motto "Freedom to Implement Visions" we attempt the impossible in order to enable innovative ideas to be carried out. With modern software, we help our customers tread new paths. To keep their mind free for what matters. That's what our claim "moving minds" is all about. And to achieve this, we count primarily on the range of our products.

If I were to sum up the amount of hours spent on this forum trying to push for VWs to function as I need and ultimately keep up with the competition instead of 'keeping my mind on what matters' and charge NAG for it, a large part of the Management/Board annual bonuses would have ended up in my pocket i can tell you......!

Edited by Vincent C

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting to read that NAGs flagship product is lagging behind VWs in certain areas:

...what Allplan also loses out on with the distributed rather than the centralized approach is the intelligence, associativity, and automated change management capabilities that centralized model applications provide. So, for instance, if you move a wall using the Move tool, the walls connected to it do not automatically adjust to maintain the connectivity and the room element too does not automatically fill out to the new boundary.

Makes this 'policy' (if it is true) even stranger, all their products lose out on it:

http://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=35794&Number=184468#Post184468

Edited by Vincent C

Share this post


Link to post

Now Solidworks on the other hand has been impressive Mechanical,Fuild and now Electrical Engineering with FEM/CFD inclusive.

game changer -

so this why VW-Mech was retired - no contest.

Share this post


Link to post
Interesting to read that NAGs flagship product is lagging behind VWs in certain areas:

...what Allplan also loses out on with the distributed rather than the centralized approach is the intelligence, associativity, and automated change management capabilities that centralized model applications provide. So, for instance, if you move a wall using the Move tool, the walls connected to it do not automatically adjust to maintain the connectivity and the room element too does not automatically fill out to the new boundary.

but the allplan is here ahead:

ifc 2x3 v2.0 certification

rob

Share this post


Link to post

What a great thread! Fantastic opinion and data - thank you all for our contributions!

Share this post


Link to post

From the Allplan review:

"Another key visualization enhancement in Allplan 2013 is a new ?hidden line image with shadow? function, which allows shadows to be displayed in hidden-line drawings"

Vwks has this already. Use Realistic Color White below Hidden Line.

Tom

Share this post


Link to post

What annoys me the most about this is the sad state of BIM on Mac. Vectorworks uses a distributed file system which is unintuitive. And ArchiCAD has an atrocious Mac GUI from the 80s.

The only hope it seems to me is for Autodesk to bring Revit to the Mac. By the time that happens I'll probably been an old fart.

Share this post


Link to post
Interesting to read that NAGs flagship product is lagging behind VWs in certain areas:

...what Allplan also loses out on with the distributed rather than the centralized approach is the intelligence, associativity, and automated change management capabilities that centralized model applications provide. So, for instance, if you move a wall using the Move tool, the walls connected to it do not automatically adjust to maintain the connectivity and the room element too does not automatically fill out to the new boundary.

but the allplan is here ahead:

ifc 2x3 v2.0 certification

rob

But the ability to output IFC has nothing to do with the intelligence, associativity, and automated change management capabilities inherent to centralised database model applications like Revit and Archicad.

Share this post


Link to post
Makes this 'policy' (if it is true) even stranger, all their products lose out on it:

It seems strange, but the software is really a side issue. I don?t believe software was at all relevant to the dispute. The corporate strategies and politics we?ve been discussing happen well above consideration of product strengths and weaknesses. The main content, particularly at the tail of the conflict, was most likely over corporate ethics. Nemetschek?s existing corporate ?strategy? was obviously an immovable object, but the fireworks that followed would have centered on corporate governance and the ?intent? behind the openBIM scheme.

Nemetschek?s choice, whatever the historic reasoning, not to strategically align the acquired brands would have been the precursor, but probably not cause enough, for the ?irreconcilable? end of the conflict. Prior to the openBIM scheme, Nemetschek's divergent BIMs appeared on the surface to be BIMs at tiered stages of BIM development. There would still have been hope of integrated advancement within the secondary brands. Long-term stasis, a growing sense of BIM isolation in a world of progressively more integrated BIM solutions, coupled with the availability of options for integration within the Nemetschek group, would have mounted pressure for the supervisory board to change its policy. We know change, in the form of a ?future strategic alignment of the company? was argued for and we know that change was rejected. We also know, openBIM was put on the table in place of moving toward a ?future strategic alignment of the company?.

OpenBIM was where, an argument for change likely transformed into a ?irreconcilable? conflict. BIM isolation was the ingredient that went into the pressure cooker and BIM isolation came back out, except now, it was renamed openBIM soup, and everyone had to rub their belly and exclaim yum-yum! With no change to Nemetschek?s existing ?strategy?, the openBIM scheme was structured and marketed, with ?intent?, to convince us, it was a mechanism for leveling the competitive disadvantage of the non-integrated solutions, against the monopolistic ravages of vertically integrated BIMs like Revit and Allplan (oops). OpenBIM?s ?intent? was to bolster the patronage and confidence in the non-integrated brands as fully competitive BIM solutions under openBIM ?contracts?, which of course, had no hope of ever being implemented because a structurally corrupt scheme attempting to exercise a level of ownership over IFC was never going to fly in practice. The CEOs simply could not standby and be associated with the ?intent? of the openBIM scheme so they acted in accordance with their ethical judgment and responsibilities as CEOs to oppose the scheme. It will be interesting to see how the openBIM scheme is ?reorganized? and repackaged now that it potentially carries the odour of a cynical exploit by Nemetschek at the expense of it?s own customers.

The future is motivated by one word, ?efficiency?. Industry wants it, governments want it, the planet wants it, Nemetschek knows it, Autodesk and Bentley know it. The difference between Nemetschek and the other players is Nemetschek can?t sell efficiency the same way they can, because it has trapped itself behind a strategic history and ?strategic? use of the holdings company structure that it?s not willing to surrender. So one anti-competitive strategy led to another anti-competitive strategy in the form of openBIM. Nemetschek wants the revenue but not the responsibility all corporations have to their customers, to act appropriately in everyone?s best interest while doing business.

Edited by M5d

Share this post


Link to post
Makes this 'policy' (if it is true) even stranger, all their products lose out on it:

It seems strange, but the software is really a side issue. I don?t believe software was at all relevant to the dispute. The corporate strategies and politics we?ve been discussing happen well above consideration of product strengths and weaknesses.

Nemetschek?s choice, whatever the historic reasoning, not to strategically align the acquired brands would have been the precursor, but probably not cause enough, for the ?irreconcilable? end of the conflict.

Well, even if this is all true and we try to see the 'logic' in not aligning the brands, I still don't see the logic in letting some of the brands idle into non-existence....the logical strategy in this case would be to let each brand individually develop at the pace and in the direction the individual R&D departments deem fit thereby strengthening all brands and therefore increasing revenue in general?!

The fact that Allplan comes after ArchiCAD, Revit, Bentley Architecture as a possible substitute for VWs in my book (and I'm sure I'm not alone) should ring enough alarm bells at NAG.....?!

Edited by Vincent C

Share this post


Link to post
Well, even if this is all true and we try to see the 'logic' in not aligning the brands, I still don't see the logic in letting some of the brands idle into non-existence....the logical strategy in this case would be to let each brand individually develop at the pace and in the direction the individual R&D departments deem fit thereby strengthening all brands and therefore increasing revenue in general?!

The fact that Allplan comes after ArchiCAD, Revit, Bentley Architecture as a possible substitute for VWs in my book (and I'm sure I'm not alone) should ring enough alarm bells at NAG.....?!

Yep, I agree whole heartedly, it's illogical. Below the CEO is the corporate strategic committee (CSC) containing the brand CEOs. I believe the actions of Ernst Homolka and Tim Alexander L?dke would have been supported by the CSC as well, but who knows. It would have been odd for them to have argued for change if they weren't supported by the subsidiaries, but there's no evidence to back that up. What do you make of Sean Flaherty's comment making the possibility of change public knowledge?

The company has a real structural problem, in that, there is no way to override the 54% control invested in Georg Nemetschek (the founder of Allplan) sitting on the supervisory board. Everyone from the CEO down may support change and yet there is no way to achieve it!

Share this post


Link to post

The company has a real structural problem, in that, there is no way to override the 54% control invested in Georg Nemetschek (the founder of Allplan) sitting on the supervisory board. Everyone from the CEO down may support change and yet there is no way to achieve it!

Yeah and that will be his undoing, it is understandable that he doesn't like the others doing well considering the fact that Allplan is his creation, however totally unacceptable that he is letting his feelings destroy further development as well as it being really bad business......!

Edited by Vincent C

Share this post


Link to post

Well that's something I guess. Change often doesn't happen in life until those in the way kick the bucket.

Share this post


Link to post
....the logical strategy in this case would be to let each brand individually develop at the pace and in the direction the individual R&D departments deem fit thereby strengthening all brands and therefore increasing revenue in general?!

Nemetschek uses a policy that prohibits subsidiaries hiring new staff if they don't achieve greater than 10% revenue growth year over year (2013 conference call 46:45). Besides being completely decoupled from the products, markets and the varying requirements for investment to stimulate the development needed to achieve growth, the policy would seriously disadvantaged the internationally established brands and advantage a brand expanding from a small base, like say, one country, Germany for example a little over a decade ago when Nemetschek acquired Vectorworks. Allplan has had no trouble being above the 10% threshold until last year.

The conventional logic is, invest in developing your products and the sales will come. Nemetschek?s inverted logic, get the sales or we'll strangle investment in product development. A static policy geared for revenue extraction, not growth, implemented in a technology / innovative industry, particularly one transitioning through a ?disruptive technology? like BIM is very odd. The saddest aspect of this policy is it?s accumulatively punitive in nature. It suggests a target of 10% growth year over year and yet, year over year it would reduce the capacity to achieve that growth if the target is not met. Why do that? Why acquire competing brands, exile them from avenues to growth via integration within the Nemetschek group, and then set static counterintuitive policies that potentially take away their capacity for internally developed growth as well?

Edited by M5d

Share this post


Link to post
(..)

OpenBIM was where, an argument for change likely transformed into a ?irreconcilable? conflict. BIM isolation was the ingredient that went into the pressure cooker and BIM isolation came back out, except now, it was renamed openBIM soup, and everyone had to rub their belly and exclaim yum-yum! With no change to Nemetschek?s existing ?strategy?, the openBIM scheme was structured and marketed, with ?intent?, to convince us, it was a mechanism for leveling the competitive disadvantage of the non-integrated solutions, against the monopolistic ravages of vertically integrated BIMs like Revit and Allplan (oops). OpenBIM?s ?intent? was to bolster the patronage and confidence in the non-integrated brands as fully competitive BIM solutions under openBIM ?contracts?, which of course, had no hope of ever being implemented because a structurally corrupt scheme attempting to exercise a level of ownership over IFC was never going to fly in practice. The CEOs simply could not standby and be associated with the ?intent? of the openBIM scheme so they acted in accordance with their ethical judgment and responsibilities as CEOs to oppose the scheme. It will be interesting to see how the openBIM scheme is ?reorganized? and repackaged now that it potentially carries the odour of a cynical exploit by Nemetschek at the expense of it?s own customers.

The future is motivated by one word, ?efficiency?. Industry wants it, governments want it, the planet wants it, Nemetschek knows it, Autodesk and Bentley know it. The difference between Nemetschek and the other players is Nemetschek can?t sell efficiency the same way they can, because it has trapped itself behind a strategic history and ?strategic? use of the holdings company structure that it?s not willing to surrender. So one anti-competitive strategy led to another anti-competitive strategy in the form of openBIM. Nemetschek wants the revenue but not the responsibility all corporations have to their customers, to act appropriately in everyone?s best interest while doing business.

i can't follow why open bim should negatively affect efficiency.

the inefficiency of the construction industry lies in the lacking communication while performing the processes. the owners communicated separately with the designers and the contractors via contracts, and that was it. further communication was not present because there were neither the incentives nor the mandatory necessities.

in order to change this state (causing, according to the surveys, up to 35% waste in the material, time and money) the three-tier contracts with goal profits for every stakeholder, enabling the collaboration from the earliest possible phase and the open standards for better information exchange have been conceived.

the efficiency in selling the proprietary software and formats is really built on sand, and not what healthy free market (if it was existing, which it isn't) wants.

the efficiency must be sustainable and green, even if the contribution to it may mean lower selling rate in the first place. autodesk, for instance, are developing two simultaneous ways of interoperability: the ifc in/output and their own revit api for handling formats.

being an open bim advocate i am aware i'm not very objective, but i'd like to hear counterarguments.

rob

Edited by gester

Share this post


Link to post

OpenBIM is under review. It doesn?t really exist at the moment, but anyway . . . Everyone here knows when you sign a contract, it?s important to know and understand what?s in the contract. Prior to being withdrawn openBIM was a contract designed to commercially repulse and then contractually ?exclude? other IFC compliant vendors that would not sign on to its participant requirements. There is no argument against IFC or its uses in the post above, what?s being discussed is the manner in which openBIM was conceived within the Nemetschek group and why. OpenBIM turned IFC into the antithesis of its mandate, an exclusive contract designed to keep competition out of the tent not bring everyone in. It was a Band-Aid for Nemetschek's internal problems discussed throughout this thread. There?s a link in my post above to another attempt made at explaining the nature of the scheme, but better still look at the scheme itself carefully to understand its implications.

As for the collaborative efficiency of proprietary systems, I could say something like, ?the time-consuming and error-prone multiple input of design data is no longer necessary, and planning changes cause hardly any additional expense?, but I don?t have to, because Nemetschek did. Regardless, software has enormous potential, it?s a creative industry and endeavour within itself, why limit it?

Share this post


Link to post

Reece, I think we should just pool together and get you a plane ticket to go talk some sense to the old codger himself.

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.

×