Friday, February 15, 2013

Time for a Revit Revolution

Have you heard the news?! Autodesk has a new app to help you model monsters! (Cost: $2 introductory pricing) It seems pretty obvious these days that big A's attention has shifted away from core BIM tools and towards mobile app development.
Adsk-123d-creature
They are very proud to tout over 12 million professional customers, and in a recent Forbes article, “Autodesk’s Brilliant Customer Strategy” - they claim a new concept for development:
“Autodesk releases its new products first to consumers, thus turning the product vetting process upside down. Consumers pay less but they expect more. They can be far from polite or patient, and will only tolerate very short learning times—and few bugs—in new, untried products.”
Sure, Autodesk has developed some interesting mobile apps for our industry such as BIM 360 and FormIt, but lets take a look at their main BIM platform – Revit (Cost: ~$6,000 – $13,000).
image
When Revit was introduced to the market around 2000, it was ground breaking. Never before did the architecture industry have a database-driven, parametric modeling tool that was relatively easy to use. In the first few years of existence, Revit Technology Corp made vast improvements directly related to customer feedback sessions they would host annually, right after they'd have a major version release.
Then Autodesk took notice and acquired Revit in April 2002 for $133 million dollars. Since then, it seems there really haven't been the kind of innovative improvements we saw in the pre-acquisition years. Granted, those years were really about taking a brand new platform and getting it up to speed for the larger market of AEC users, but it seemed like the trajectory for innovation was much more steep than it has been in the years since.
The Revit development team often uses the term "fit and finish" referring to commands, tools, and features they initiated, but really haven't improved to work the way they really should. Take the fairly recent addition of the Parts functionality. This feature was intended to allow builders to take a design model at consists of singular assemblies such as walls, floors, and roofs and break them down into individual components (finish, substrate, structure, ...) for more accurate phase scheduling, estimating, and so on. Great! So, the builders can link in the architectural model and...uh, no. It doesn't work on linked models. Really? [CORRECTION: You can create parts from linked models in Revit 2013, just use the Tab key to select a model element within the linked file and the Create Parts button will become active.]
Allow me to review some specific issues my industry colleagues and I have been asking for over the past few years – a few of the larger ‘fit and finish’ issues that have yet to be resolved in my opinion:
  • Faster UI - While I believe Revit still has the lowest learning curve of all the BIM software on the market today, it's user interface still seems quite slow. Ever since the ‘drunken leprechaun’ debacle with the 2010 release of the new ribbon interface, it just seems that I'm always waiting multiple seconds for the ribbon and command buttons to react - even with a blank project file open. As a customer paying $6,000 and up, I would expect the basic software to function crisply and cleanly. As the Forbes article quotes about the app users, “Consumers pay less, but they expect more.” So, should the inverse be true…that we (I guess we’re not really ‘consumers’…) pay more, therefore, we should expect less?
  • Handle larger projects - This is another area in which Autodesk says that performance is always their top priority. They have made moderate strides in improving performance of large projects, but no real game-changers. They have improved the functionality and workflow for linking models, but certain quirks still remain such as walls not joining between linked projects, and it's still a pain in the butt to manage view references between linked projects.
  • Schedule templates - Here's one I was hoping would happen sooner because of the functionality Revit has for MEP related to panel schedules. The scenario is for buildings in which you need to create a series of schedules that are usually based on each level. For example, if you need to generate an area schedule for each level to include on code analysis sheets. To do this in Revit, you need to create a unique schedule for EVERY level - essentially using a filter to show only Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, and so on. Why can't we create one template schedule (kind of like a Keynote Legend...hint, hint) that is then placed on a sheet and will report only the areas visible on that sheet. Could be a huge time saver for firms working on mid-rise and high-rise buildings...but alas we must trudge ahead with the same functionality we've had since 2004.
  • Better custom/complex modeling - We've seen some interesting developments get infused into Revit related to their conceptual design environment, but there are still some annoying gaps that prevent truly complex forms from being developed through to construction documentation and fabrication. Why can't solids automatically join and heal? Why does a complex curtain wall system need to be created as a mass and then be inserted into the project? I'm simplifying a complex discussion, but I think this workflow could be vastly improved.
These are just a few areas where I feel Revit could be improved, but they have been at the top of my wish list for years. Perhaps it is time for Autodesk to let Revit go to a company who cares about true innovation for the users who are actually designing, constructing and managing buildings. I'm pretty confident we'll never see "Bentley Revit" or "Graphisoft Revit" - but at one point I was inspired by the possibility of "Google Revit." Given the latest trends, maybe the next idea will sound something like "Trimble Revit." All I'm saying is that it's about time a once innovative platform is returned to the status of hands-down game-changer.







10 comments:

  1. You can create parts from linked models in 2013 :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great post James! The development pace over the last 3 years (at least, but these last 3 years really have been more of a crawl) has been a major let-down for me. In the beginning years, I used to be excited about the release cycles and beta testing twice a year (remember the point releases?). Today's pace is abysmal and has taken the fun and excitement out of new releases. Heck, it's taken the fun out of blogging as the list of "Needs Fixed" continues to grow with no fixes in sight. Too bad. Maybe we'll soon see another kid on the block and get excited once again as I don't hold high hopes that Autodesk will get serious about its high-paying users. And no, I'm not spending 2 bucks to waste my time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Agree 100%. To me Trimble Revit sounds like a perfect match-;)

    Having recently exploring construction BIM side of things and looking at Trimble's offerings in terms of Vico, Tekla and the likes, Trimble looks more promising and committed to AEC businesses than Autodesk, IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Perhaps the most bizarre omission from this BIM tool is a model browser. Sometimes you can look at something for, literally, years without seeing the obvious. While using a 3D DWF (during a phone conversation) I gazed at the List, Thumbnail, Markups and Model panel and wondered, why doesn’t Revit have this?

    Why does a Building Information Model application only offer a document’centric representation of its model? The project browser is configurable, but only for view/sheet related items.

    I guess it's because Revit is regarded by too many as just a better way to create documentation?

    http://rcd.typepad.com/rcd/2010/08/why-doesnt-revit-have-a-model-browser.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good stuff. Not only have they slowed down the development of new features per customer feedback, they also seem apathetic to improving where the software falls short in standard architectural and engineering practices. Still no gas piping systems, still no feed-thru lugs on electrical panels to name a few.

    Yes, Revit is relatively intuitive but if you aren't able to come up with your own "workarounds" using the software as-is can leave you wondering if it's worth it to switch from traditional CAD practices.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have to agree, and could add to the list of unfulfilled potential like I'm sure many others could. My experience with Revit is like a roller-coaster, from the extreme pleasure of good solutions to the dark moments when I can't make even the simplest of operations work. These moments often occur when I think about what Revit could and should have been.

    Isn’t it quite natural that new core technologies appear at the expense of current practices? I remember very well when we discussed ADT versus Revit, and how the AutoCAD platform could never be what Revit already was. What now then? Should we expect a cloud-based IFC-modeler?

    Have any Reviteers ever seriously considered actually being that new kid on the block that Dave is wishing for? There's a lot of knowledge out there in the Revit community. And a lot has happened to both hardware and software since the nineties. Is it at all possible to make software without investing in a company?

    The best way to predict the future is to create it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Some thoughts from a different view:

    - While the 'Desk is a $2B revenue company, AEC is only about $700. Not the biggest guy in the stable, so not the most resources for innovation or problem solving.

    - Carl may drive the boat, but he's not steering: the stockholders are. Stockholders want return, and see more return in consumer acquisitions and innovations, not AEC based ones.

    - Why would the 'Desk innovate on Revit? They've got you, and most Reviteers aren't going anywhere, no matter what.

    - I was at a AIA technology leaders meeting where an AEC Vendor challenged the room to put 10% of their business in a different platform so they could be more nimble and have choice should they need it...they all complained about Revit and 'Desk and innovation and problems (like the items you list) but no one was willing to to say "Do it or else..."

    - Trimble: doubtful. I'd see Trimble buying Bentley lock,stock and barrel before just buying the Revit business from 'Desk.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's not unusual for a program to slow down in its development as it matures as a product. I don't see why there is an expectation that Autodesk needs to re-invent Revit as a game-changer. What Autodesk needs to do instead is concentrate their efforts on addressing the requests of users to make the product more efficient, more robust etc. As for Autodesk giving up Revit, I can't tell if this is intended as a joke. Give up a very profitable product just because some users are 100% happy with it? Don't think so!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I hear you loud and clear and the frustrations are far spread amoungst the industry.
    I have endeavoured to produce software that takes into account your frustrations as they were mine as well.
    We are doing a beta version and yes we have some bugs to iron out. It has been 4 years in the making and to be honest if I had realised the amount of work involved I would have thought twice. Never the less I will not be going back as the industry needs this and it needs it now.
    Simple cost effective BIM that has the functionality required to cost and schedule a job whilst making the model interpretable for the trades, the clients and colleges.
    We will be sending out for registration in our newsletter shortly.
    Just Google RubySketch
    BTW great post thanks for taking the time.

    ReplyDelete
  10. from an What Autodesk needs to do instead is focus their initiatives on dealing with the demands of customers to create the item more effective, more solid etc. As for Autodesk providing up Revit, We are doing a try out edition and yes we have some insects to metal out. It has been 4 decades in the creating and to be sincere if I had noticed the perform engaged I would have believed twice. Never the less I will not be going returning as the market needs this and it needs it now

    from an essay site

    ReplyDelete