B3: Comparing Revit to Other Drafting/Modeling Programs - Lauren Kujawa

Being an AutoDesk program, Revit and AutoCAD are relatively similar.  The two programs look and function in similar ways, but AutoCAD is primarily used for 2D drafting whereas Revit is obviously BIM software.  AutoCAD uses simple lines to represent things in real life; additional steps need to be taken to draw in 3D in AutoCAD, but in Revit, 3D, elevation, and plan views are created automatically.  Revit also allows for the creation of schedules, cost estimates, quantities, and detecting utility clashes.  These aspects of Revit make the software appealing across multiple industries.  I mentioned in a previous blog post that Revit allows for multiple sectors to come together and model early in the design process rather than later.  This aspect of Revit really streamlines the design process and allow for conflict mitigation before the issues arise.  All of this is capable because of the level of detail that Revit models contain.  AutoCAD is a helpful tool, but it is difficult to see the relationship between lines on the page.  But in Revit, these lines can be modeled in 3D, allowing for an easy visualization of space.

Aside from Revit and AutoCAD, I am familiar with MicroStation.  Out of the 3 programs, I am most familiar with MicroStation, as I use it everyday at work.  In the transportation sector, MicroStation is a very common program to use; personally, I found MicroStation difficult to learn, but once learned, MicroStation is easy to master.  I would say the opposite of Revit.  In my limited Revit experience, I realized Revit was easy to pick up on, as the element pictures make it easy to find what you are looking for in Revit.  However, once the basics are learned, I found Revit difficult to master.  For senior design, we started modeling our building in Revit; a basic model is relatively easy to model in Revit, but making a great Revit model takes time.  The opposite can be said for MicroStation or AutoCAD plans: only so much can be done to plans, and only so much can be done to perfect the plans.  It is difficult for me to comment on deeper aspects of Revit, as I never model in 3D at work, and my Revit experience is limited to the assignments we have done in CAEE 201, AE 390, and this class. 

Source

https://www.pluralsight.com/blog/architecture/autocad-revit-draw-line

Response 1: Thomas Sisson

I really liked your point about Revit lacking a valid and reliable structural analysis program.  I completely agree that SAP should be used for the structural modeling, however it would be extremely convenient and time saving to be able to transfer information and models among the two programs.  I know Revit has structural components, however I personally would prefer to do my structural components in a structural program.  I also agree with your point mentioning the steep learning curve associated with Revit.  I made a similar point in my post, but to reiterate, Revit is easy to pick up on, but hard to master, as a great model takes a great amount of time to produce.

Response 2: Mark Odorizzi

I never would have thought of the disparity between hardware and software development when speaking of the future problems with BIM.  Companies already have to spend large amounts of money on software licenses, and as BIM capacity increases, companies will have to spend large amounts of money to replace computers.  This could eventually cause smaller companies to move away from BIM, which would be a major setback in the industry.  Aside from the financial problems that may arise, I also liked your point about the overdependence on BIM.  When looking for information for my blog post, I came across many discussion boards where older engineers were discussing their hatred for Revit.  A common theme I noticed in their posts was that younger engineers think they can model properly, but in reality the program is fixing all of the problems for them.  The discussion boards also mentioned that some learning is lost when you are taught BIM rather than hand drawings.

Response 3: Jordan Shuster

I liked that you mentioned that BIM will be moving towards an optimization of space while designs become more complex.  I do not draw in 3D at work, so the idea of inputting parameters and having a building spit out seems crazy to me.  In transportation, every road is different, so something like that in the transportation sector seems unlikely.  However, a few years ago, it was commonplace to say that building modeling in that aspect would be unlikely.  The idea of the designer being phased out could be seen as a future problem of BIM, but phasing out the designer may decrease the likelihood of human error.  The modeling process would also speed up, which would cost companies less money.  Projects ideally would get completed at a faster pace, and efficiency would likely increase as well.