Jump to content

VW Architect vs Revit LT

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

From the NAG website:

Code of Conduct - for a Successful Working Relationship

Our common goal at Nemetschek is to shape a globally active company that creates sustained added value for employees, business partners, shareholders and the company itself. We want Nemetschek to be seen worldwide as a responsible company with high ethical and legal standards.

The common basis for our activities is our corporate culture. It is reflected in fair and respectful dealings between colleagues and with third parties, and is characterized by performance, open communication, integrity, trust and the protection of natural resources.

We have summarized these principles in the Code of Conduct of the Nemetschek Group. This code is binding for all employees in the Nemetschek Group regardless of their function or position in the group. Constant observance of the company's values and their application to all activities is a demonstration of a commitment to our corporate culture and secures the long-term success of our company.

Poppycock! It should read like this:

"This code is binding for all employees in the Nemetschek Group regardless of their function or position in the group(except for Georg)"

Our common goal at Nemetschek is to shape a globally active company that creates sustained added value for employees, business partners, shareholders and the company itself.

Yeah, but not the clients....!?

Edited by Vincent C
Link to comment
Maybe we should all contact Georg and ask him WTF the problem is?

Prof Nemtschek has done more for our industry than you care to give him credit for.... 6000 post doesn't entitle you to anything

Mate, what have you contributed?...you should apologised or get LOST.

I would only wish for my lifetime accomplishments to read like this:


Dude, for someone who pisses and whines incessantly about VW's shortcomings and how bad VW is, why don't you take your own advice and GET LOST?

Link to comment
Prof Nemtschek has done more for our industry than you care to give him credit for....

Georg Nemetschek is also responsible for miring that legacy, and NAG, in a series of anticompetitive strategies. The same strategies currently at the root of Nemetschek?s civil war and the same strategies responsible for acquiring, isolating and limiting the development of rivals to Allplan, or the ?Allplan group?s?, expansion.

You?ve been one of the most vocal and aggressive opponents of how those strategies have affected Vectorworks and Archicad's development, so more importantly, what does your defence of Prof. Nemetschek make of what he?s doing for the industry now?

The growing frustrations and concerns expressed on these forums, including yours, are with the symptoms resulting from a destructive, not constructive, force of will that has captured a sizable chunk of the AEC software industry. Nemetschek?s IPO and conversion into a ?strategic holdings company? was founded as a vehicle to fund Allplan?s expansion. That would have been ok if all acquisitions had been aimed at integration and building a united group. But the IPO?s funds and NAG?s growth have been turned towards the pursuit of a more nefarious and divisive set of objectives. Those objectives have led the company into its current situation and caused a succession of CEOs now, to make a clear stand against having to carry the liability for those decisions or objectives.

We all want to know what?s going on at Nemetschek?s HQ, it affects the future of the software we use and decisions we have to make for our own businesses, so please let the hostilities remain within Nemetschek and its boardroom antics, and keep a good supply of popcorn on hand for the next installment.

Edited by M5d
Link to comment
Maybe we should all contact Georg and ask him WTF the problem is?

Howz your german C? :grin:

You know i was kind of naively hoping we were doing that indirectly through this board......so much so that i've even resorted to a personal level, which i normally try to avoid (unlike some others on this forum btw...)

Edited by Vincent C
Link to comment
Frankly, I don't have an opinion either way,its his company and he's partial to Engineering and Allplan so what?

That's no reason to disrespect the great man.... can he defend himself on this board....fair go mate.

Maybe we should all contact Georg and ask him WTF the problem is?

I don't see what's so disrespectfull about the above post.?!.......if anything i was the one being disrespectfull then again i don't have 6000+ posts..

........he might have been a genius in creating CAD and CAD software but why then aquire and destroy other successful software to keep ahead instead of just creating the best software for that purpose? That's almost sacrilege in this regard!

Edited by Vincent C
Link to comment
Maybe we should all contact Georg and ask him WTF the problem is?

Howz your german C? :grin:

You know i was kind of naively hoping we were doing that indirectly through this board......so much so that i've even resorted to a personal level, which i normally try to avoid (unlike some others on this forum btw...)

My German is non-existent! I doubt he hears anything from these forums.

Link to comment
  • 3 months later...

Apologies for dragging this old chestnut out, but it deserves a wee dust off.

A new spokesman for the Executive Board is coming in March. There was a hope that the recent Executive Board appointments signalled change, but so far the interim chair has forecast the opposite is happening. In a recent interview posted at NAG, the current chair of the Executive Board (Dr. Tobias Wagner) answers a series of Dorothy Dixers for investors; in it he would have us believe nothing is changing at Nemetschek, it?s full steam ahead on the same old course. Despite everything that?s occurred regarding the Open BIM saga in the last twelve months, it appears Dr. Wagner is just there to push Nemetschek?s rickety barrow of contested Open BIM goods on to the next chair and oblivion. And so, the Open BIM melodrama carries on into greater weirdness . . .

Since April, buildingSMART has openly opposed Nemetschek?s proprietary scheme and conditions, displaying under their Open BIM banner this statement, ?We are reorganising the Open BIM initiative under new criteria to ensure an open approach in which all software vendors can participate?. Probably as a tit for tat move to buildingSMART?s withdrawal of support, Nemetschek responded by amending their Open BIM pages, removing buildingSMART's credit from the official definition of Open BIM and replacing it with, ?Open BIM is an initiative of several leading software vendors?.

Clearly Nemetschek isn?t going to surrender Open BIM, even though they?re now acting in opposition to buildingSMART, the body responsible for ?Open BIM Certification?. BuildingSMART has also recently added a second qualification to their Open BIM page, redirecting their Open BIM Certification back under "buildingSMART's IFC 2.0 certification process?. Presumably, for the time being at least, they?ve had to shift their ?Open BIM Certification? away from the term Open BIM, because of Nemetschek?s refusal to relent. But wait, it gets weirder still . . .

A curious part of the Open BIM story was, why did buildingSMART ever agreed to a proprietary interest taking control of Open BIM in the first place, and then, why did they withdraw support in April of this year if they had initially consented to proprietary involvement? The answer may be, they never consented, rather Nemetschek acquired the trademark without their knowledge and then used the ?initial? approval of the trademark to twist buildingSMART?s arm. This was, I believe, the ethical compromise forced upon the Executive Board, that saw Ernst Homolka resign and distance himself from the Supervisory Board?s actions in his exiting statement.

So why did buildingSMART withdraw support in April of this year? The answer is available at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Even though Nemetschek has continued to promote its Open BIM scheme and make public moves against buildingSMART?s legitimate use of Open BIM since April, they've done so after a Final Refusal Notice was issued by the USPTO against the trademark on April 1st. The USPTO's Final Refusal Notice, I assume, allowed buildingSMART to walk away from Nemetschek?s extortive grip on Open BIM and begin trying to reclaim the term for their original purpose.

So I?m guessing now, that in spite of the USPTO?s final refusal, Georg Nemetschek still will not relent on Open BIM and is forcing Nemetschek?s Open BIM circus to continue performing without nets or music. I think it?s safe to assume, this is what led to Tanja Tamara Dreilich?s resignation and similar use of an exiting statement to distance herself from the actions of the Supervisory Board in August. Final is not exactly final with trademarks, but Nemetschek has failed to respond to the final refusal notice in the allotted time (6 months), rendering the trademark?s status as Dead / Abandoned in October. Interestingly, the primary basis for the USPTO?s refusal was, ?Open is the opposite of proprietary. An open system is meant for everyone to be able to access and use without cost?.

What?s extraordinary is, Nemetschek has chosen to carry on since April regardless. Open BIM represents one thing to Nemetschek, it is a marketing device intended to conceal the long-standing, isolate and diminish, second-tier BIMs policy Nemetschek?s Supervisory Board has implemented on both the Vectorworks and Archicad acquisitions. Open BIM is a vain attempt to make Nemetschek look as though it has a united approach to BIM, when it doesn?t.

If Nemetschek had any genuine interest in the success of IFC as a viable BIM exchange path, they wouldn?t be stealing, opposing, distorting and destroying buildingSMART?s efforts to create a recognisable and ?open? Open BIM system within the industry. As has been said already in this thread, Nemetschek is simply exploiting the Open BIM term and using something they had to do anyway (IFC), to maintain confidence in their secondary non-integrated BIMs while they invest, build and roll out their vertically integrated monument to Georg Nemetschek. And to hell with the rest!


Edited by M5d
Link to comment
archicad. i think nemetschek should sell it to trimble.


Yeah, that would be great. Unfortunately, while the majority of Nemetschek?s subscribers are still Vectorworks and ArchiCAD users, it would be a lose-lose scenario Nemetschek would not consider. Selling either or both now, would see those products developed competitively against Allplan and their current users would likely never return to Nemetschek.

At the moment, Vectorworks and ArchiCAD generate revenue for the expansion of Allplan and the Allplan group. Both subsidiaries have fully paid for their own acquisitions and based on the time frame in which they achieved that goal, they?ve both been big money spinners for Allplan. While they?re profitable, Nemetschek isn't going to part with them, if or when they start losing money, I suspect Nemetschek would just prefer to "strategically" shut them down and liquidate their tangible assets.

Edited by M5d
Link to comment
first they would have to port allplan on macintosh, then.

Who can tell how the Mac figures in Nemetschek?s hair-brain scheming? I?ve always thought a large percentage or majority of Vectorworks Architect and ArchiCAD users would be Mac users because they?re the only choice Mac users have, but that?d be my Mac bias talking. This whole discussion is probably more relevant to the future of ArchiCAD than it is to Vectorworks, Vectorworks also has its Spotlight and Landscape customers who probably aren?t concerned.

If the Mac was significant in Nemetschek?s thinking, the clean and simple solution would have been to let their existing Mac products evolve naturally and in accordance with the revenue they generate as equal members of the Nemetschek group, i.e. Ernst Homolka?s ?strategic alignment?. As they say, the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, and they?ve continually elected not to develop their Mac BIMs equally. As for porting Allplan, that sounds like an even bigger stretch. If the Mac wasn?t a factor at all, the eventuality of forcing users to migrate between packages would be an enormous public relations nightmare in itself.

It looks like a colossal mess to me and BIM on the Mac is likely one of the biggest casualties of the Open BIM gamble. They don't appear able to back out now that they're carrying the baggage of Open BIM and a succession of Executive Board Chairs having abandoned ship. The need of their ex-chairs to prevent themselves becoming part of Nemetschek's collateral damage, suggests this isn?t going anywhere good. After repeatedly flushing their most senior people and advice down the drain, it doesn't appear there's going to be a third option to save the day. If a ?Plan C? was in the offing, I don?t think we would be watching this bizarre spectacle of Nemetschek digging deeper and deeper into its Proprietary-Open BIM hole.

This is a long game and the Mac just looks better and better. The graphics power in the new Mac Pro is begging for BIM innovations. Not so long ago, Architosh ran an article stating that around 80% of design graduates were using Macs. As BIM matures and dominates, Nemetschek?s platform schism will hopefully make the Mac look like a more attractive opening for one of the other major vendors to fill. That?s my hope anyway, until then, I guess we?ll just have to sit tight and talk quietly amongst ourselves. Mumble, mumble, mumble . . .

Edited by M5d
Link to comment
  • 2 years later...

*thread resurrection

I see that Revit is still not available natively for mac ... however it is available "in the cloud" supported for mac users.


Has anyone tried it?

I'm guessing that working on complex 3d models is going to be a bit laggy if everything has to happen over an internet connection. Or is that not necessarily true?

Link to comment
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee

In general, when done properly the lag is minimal. All it actually needs to output to your machine is compressed video, codecs for which have advanced significantly enough to make that nearly lag free, and then input from your machine is also a negligible amount of data. It's really all about how the server side is implemented and if the (usually virtual) machines that are spun up to run the application are powerful enough to handle it.

I've seen REALLY good implementations of this system and REALLY bad versions, however I have not personally tried Revit, technologically its entirely possible with even an average modern cable internet connection.

Link to comment


If it really works, it would be great - free users up from investing in computing power.

It would mean that you couldn't do any work whenever the internet's down - which makes me feel a bit uneasy, but perhaps the cost saved on computer hardware could be invested into paying for a fast reliable cable service.

Link to comment
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing us adopt that as an OPTION. We get many, many users who have had bad experiences in Vectorworks solely because of their hardware not meeting requirements, this would go a long way to help address that for interested users.

However, a huge portion of our user base invests in powerful hardware and prefers to fully own and possess their software package perpetually regardless of internet access and I would want to maintain that as well.

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...