5 thoughts on “Revit Architecture 2008

  1. I’d like to respond to the last two paragraphs and start by saying that I agree. Furthermore, I think that vendors need to take better advantage of the latest hardware available. For example, according to Autodesk tech support, Revit Architecture 2008 is still not multi-threaded. Therefore, it can’t take advantage of multi, or multi-core processors. So when users (such as myself) go out and invest thousands in high perfomance workstations, we’re only realizing a fraction of the performance potential from the system.
    Additionally, I’d like to see more cross-platform compatability. I’ll spare you my opinion on the Windows OS, but I will say that I don’t like being forced into continued use of it because of the time an money I have invested into my BIM application.

  2. Lachmi,

    At one point in your review, you recognize that Groups and Links are interchangeable. The workflow you request already exists because they are interchangeable. A Revit file can be loaded as a link. Take a Unit plan: that unit plan can be linked into a project in Revit, and then copied any number of times around the project. Changing the base RVT file of “Unit A” then updates across the entire project. The project does not suffer from “file bloat” because Revit sees the geometry of only one instance of the linked file, and the others are more or less just representations of the link. File size remains small.

    At any point in the project, a Linked instance can be “bound” to the Revit project, turning it into a group. This breaks the “live link” but then allows the geometry to be updated from within the project. This also will increase file size, because as you pointed out, this geometry is added to the project as many times as the Group exists. Then, at any point in the project, one can turn that same group, or any other group, back into a linked file, restoring the link and reducing the file size.

    Maybe what you are searching for is some procedure in between groups and links, where the reference is live, but the group can be edited in the project without having to initiate a bind or link to go back and forth?

    Thanks for another great review!

  3. I don´t know about you, but I hate to render with this render-engine that comes with Revit. We should already have some Vray or Mental ray to get it nicer when image is needed. Also, as a “smart” program, to render a heavy model, there could be a parametric option to use less geometry, so it would render just like Sketchup+Vray, for example.

    And how about slashing the “revit concept of BIM” into 3= Architecture, Structure, MEP? Some tools of the Structure version to draw the structure are so nice they can put it on the Arch version, don’t you think?

    Now a question: is the ramp tool working well in plan view, as stairs do? This was something that bothered me!

    Nice review, nice comments, people!

  4. Scott is right in pointing out that if file size is to be reduced, links can be used instead of groups. However, going back and forth between the two seems somewhat complex and not very intuitive. This is because linked files in Revit have traditionally been thought of as a means to break up a large project into smaller, more manageable parts that can be independent projects in their own right — such as multiple buildings on a campus. In contrast, groups have been specifically designed for repeating parts of a project, such as rooms. Ideally, groups should work like references (without adding to the file size) but should still be part of the core geometry, governed by the strong associativity and connectivity constraints and smarts between elements that Revit provides.

    Also, the point about groups in my review was made to also highlight that the same argument can be applied to individual elements such as doors and windows that are standard. It makes little sense for the geometry of a door to be repeated 100 times in a project if all 100 doors are the same! Getting referenced parts to interact intelligently with the main model is undoubtedly somewhat tricky – but that is precisely where the potential to innovate lies. It is possible to compute interactions on the fly using references – it might be somewhat slower, but with new and more powerful computing technology, the speed problem should be easy to overcome.

    Essentially, we need to continue to look for more powerful and efficient ways to model. I also gave another example of this in the concluding paragraph of my ArchiCAD 11 review: http://www.aecbytes.com/review/2007/ArchiCAD11.html.

  5. The link/group interchangeability doesn’t work very well in the real world. I have tried this with a large townhouse development and have run into problem after problem trying to created my links back to groups- it wants to create a variety of group types for the same link because Revit can’t handle mirroring a lot of the geometry and maintaining group consistency. This is less of a problem if your unit plans are all completely identical (same finish floor heights, no mirroring etc.) but there are few projects where that is the case.

    In addition, my files all seem slower with multiple links than they do with groups (I know this is counterintuitive) so it would be very advantageous if I could actually convert to groups but I can’t get it to work. Revit still has a long ways to go.

Comments are closed.