Revit

[jeffhornsby]

I was wanting a little feedback.

Revit is a drafting software Autodesk bought and is starting gain popularity. In AutoCAD you insert geometry, but in Revit insert actual objects. You build a actual 3d building were you can walk and make sure there is no interferance with other designers etc... Some CORP districts require and the district we work with is going to. We have done a couple of projects in Revit.
You can look it up on the web if you want to know more.

Anyway it does not have any families for conduit you modify the piping to simulate conduit.

How would you feel or like about the engineer laying out the conduit runs on the drawing
because Revit is going to support conduit

The Architects always say they need hurry up and support conduit, but
I was an electrician I would not want all my conduit runs specified.

That is just one more thing for you to look at the drawings wonder why did this idiot do that.

EX: We do not design restaurants but I have wired a couple, and if you have you know its alot easier runnig the homeruns in the slab because of the 8000 miles of ductwork and they want it open in 2 months, and every body on top of each other. Then the GC has them install the celing grid, and your having to run your conduit per the plans.

 

[Smart $]

...

Anyway it does not have any families for conduit you modify the piping to simulate conduit.

You need the MEP version for that...

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?id=6668606&siteID=123112

How would you feel or like about the engineer laying out the conduit runs on the drawing
because Revit is going to support conduit

The Architects always say they need hurry up and support conduit, but
I was an electrician I would not want all my conduit runs specified.

That is just one more thing for you to look at the drawings wonder why did this idiot do that.

...

All I'm going to say here is there are pros and cons to having runs predetermined... but may change my mind later

 

[ptrip]

I'm just starting to run Revit as an engineer. I will not show the conduit runs in the plans ... only standard loops and homeruns as before.

I'm sure there are plenty of "pros" to showing it ... for coordination purposes. But I'm trying to slam too many projects at once out of the office and that's one more design "thing" to have to worry about.

Field guys are smarter than me when it comes to running this stuff! :grin:

 

[steve66]

It depends on the particular project if I show conduits or not.

On one recent project, I showed the main service runs, but the contractor asked for permission to run them in a different route (which was approved.)

On another project, I showed every single conduit that would be ran between a new control building and a underground drywell.

But even with Revit, I show conduit runs with detail lines, just like autocad. I don't see any real need to insert actual "pipes" for conduits. (And I don't think MEP has conduits yet, either.) Even if there were conduits, I probably wouldn't use them.

Revit projects get so large (and slow) so fast, you want to be really picky about what to include in a model. If its not necessary, its just extra overhead for the program.

I hope Revit doesn't slow your projects down as much as it does for me. The panel schedules are just horrible. And this program takes so much overhead for creating families and inputing data. It can be painfully slow.

I think the general consensus is that Revit is great for the architects during the conceptual and design development stage. But for actual construction documents, it not so great. Revit is after all, a "Building Information Model" program. That's just not the same as a drafting program like Autocad. Revit requires more time, and more data to be entered. But the end result can be much more than a set of construction documents. Revit can be used for things like maintenance a nd maintenance logging, record keeping, energy use and verification, and on and on. With Revit, the end product isn't always a sheet of paper.

Steve

Steve

 

[Smart $]

...

But even with Revit, I show conduit runs with detail lines, just like autocad. I don't see any real need to insert actual "pipes" for conduits. (And I don't think MEP has conduits yet, either.) Even if there were conduits, I probably wouldn't use them.

...

... The panel schedules are just horrible. ...

I think the general consensus is that Revit is great for the architects during the conceptual and design development stage. But for actual construction documents, it not so great. Revit is after all, a "Building Information Model" program. That's just not the same as a drafting program like Autocad. Revit requires more time, and more data to be entered. But the end result can be much more than a set of construction documents. Revit can be used for things like maintenance a nd maintenance logging, record keeping, energy use and verification, and on and on. With Revit, the end product isn't always a sheet of paper.

First, I have to say I have absolutely no experience with Revit. However, I do have experience with Autodesk Building Systems (ABS) circa v2004-6, the former name of AutoCAD MEP. Revit MEP is just Revit and Autodesk MEP combined. MEP is basic AutoCAD with MEP added... with ABS you could even run plain ol' AutoCAD without MEP additions (useful to see how the dwg would look to someone without the ABS dwg import addins).

FWIW, ABS had conduits... even what circuits or wiring they contained. The conduits were capable of being 3D/2D, meaning you could set the program up to draw conduits in 3D and have them represented as "labeled" lines in a 2D plan view automatically. Bends were automatically inserted, so drawing the conduit was as simple as drawing a point-to-point 3D polyline. Also had conduit bodies and such: tees, lb's, cees, jb's, pb's, etc. all the way down to wall switches and receptacles. IIRC, switchgear/MCC's had to be custom designed.

As I recall, circuits could be mapped and pertinent data could be entered for automated load calculation and panel scheduling. The downside with panel schedules in those versions was they did not automatically update when a circuit was changed... though it was fairly easy to just replace with a new schedule... and I thought the schedules were quite complete... far from horrible. If Revit is what I think it is, I can't imagine all the pertinent data entered into MEP having to be entered twice in the combined program.

I see predetermined 3D conduit runs as more of an advantage in heavy industrial environments. I was on a project in 2008 that had such 3D design. One of the electrical contractors had to relocate the run-in-rigid, wire-already-pulled-and-landed rack's for two 42 circuit panels because they ran it right through the location specified for ducting (the large round steel kind). This happened because they didn't check the 3D view on their computer (or the ducting plans), and went by the printed electrical plan drawings they had in the field (which did not have run elevations for the racks).

 

[steve66]

Revit MEP is just Revit and Autodesk MEP combined.

Sorry, but that's not quite correct. Revit MEP is a different version than the basic Revit Architecture.

It's really kind of silly. The architects can't do any wiring unless they have MEP. They can't even see our panel schedules. And if we happen to save a file with a panel schedule on an open sheet, they can't even open the project again until we save it with a different sheet open. (Revit defaults to opening the last open sheet.)

You are correct that every version of Revit comes with some form of Autocad. And Revit MEP comes with Autocad MEP (or whatever they are calling it this week.) But Revit MEP is very different than Revit.

There is also a Revit Structure program.

The fancy flavors of Autocad were made to try and compete with 3D programs like Revit (before Autodesk bought Revit.) But trying to convert a 2D drafting program to a 3D BIM wasn't the best way to go. Revit had the advantage that it started as a 3D BIM program. But it has so many frustrating quirks and bugs that it also sucks.

Steve

 

[Smart $]

Sorry, but that's not quite correct. Revit MEP is a different version than the basic Revit Architecture.

I'll take your word for it... but for argument's sake, here' a quote from Autodesk's site:

AutoCAD? Revit? MEP Suite combines Autodesk? Revit? MEP building information modeling (BIM) software with the widely used AutoCAD? MEP software.

It's really kind of silly. The architects can't do any wiring unless they have MEP. They can't even see our panel schedules. And if we happen to save a file with a panel schedule on an open sheet, they can't even open the project again until we save it with a different sheet open. (Revit defaults to opening the last open sheet.)

You are correct that every version of Revit comes with some form of Autocad. And Revit MEP comes with Autocad MEP (or whatever they are calling it this week.) But Revit MEP is very different than Revit.

As I said previously, I have no experience with Revit.

Used to have problems sending ABS file(s), and probably still do with MEP, to non-ABS(MEP) AutoCAD flavor users. Had to go through a "conversion" routine... I'm thinking it was called transmittal something or other.

There is also a Revit Structure program.

The fancy flavors of Autocad were made to try and compete with 3D programs like Revit (before Autodesk bought Revit.) But trying to convert a 2D drafting program to a 3D BIM wasn't the best way to go. Revit had the advantage that it started as a 3D BIM program. But it has so many frustrating quirks and bugs that it also sucks.

If you are referring to AutoCAD, it has been a 3D program for a long time. I'm uncertain what version AutoCAD actually went to 3D, but I'm thinking it was back around v10 to v2000... about the same time Revit was conceptualized/born (1998?) as I understand it. AutoCAD uses, or at least used to use the same 3D software engine that many other 3D CAD programs use—ACIS—but were generally several versions behind others.

 

[Karl H]

I'm against the time spent on Conduit detail.

As for Revit MEP I like the coordination and automatic updates to panel schedules. I'm just now starting to learn Revit MEP. So far IMO, AutoCAD
is way faster than MEP. Then again, I have more experience in AutoCAD.
When I saw the first BIM models last year I have to say I was blown away.

 

[ptrip]

If you are referring to AutoCAD, it has been a 3D program for a long time. I'm uncertain what version AutoCAD actually went to 3D, but I'm thinking it was back around v10 to v2000... about the same time Revit was conceptualized/born (1998?) as I understand it. AutoCAD uses, or at least used to use the same 3D software engine that many other 3D CAD programs use?ACIS?but were generally several versions behind others.

If memory serves me correctly it was Acad 2000. I was working with a very small architectural firm that used Architectural Desktop 2i ... which had the ability to draw the structure 3D and cut section lines etc. I thought it was way cool back then ... and here we are almost 10 years later. Things have only gotten better.

The big thing that Revit has going for it in terms of 3D design is that you technically can't just draw it "normal".

I think as an industry we've seen the benefit to drawing in 3D, but we've never been forced too. "This project is too big" "This project doesn't have enough fee" "This project is too fast-track". There was always an excuse to do it the same-old way and not progress.

Yes, Revit takes much longer to draw to start with. Once you've done a standard project or two you have your families figured out I think it will even out. It will still seem longer ... but once your done rogue drawing a lot of your other things are done as well. Panel schedules, coordination, etc.

Remember ... when AutoCAD first came on the scene people complained because it took way to long. Manual drawing was faster. Until the architect moved that wall 6" and you had to move everything to match!

 

[mparkstexas]

I'm with a earlier response, only show conduit for main service and special circumstances.

And in Revit MEP, the panel schedules only give you kVA, they wont even calc the amps. So we have to go through and calc everything everytime we change something. Thats what I call horrible.

 

[steve66]

If you are referring to AutoCAD, it has been a 3D program for a long time.

I agree, autocad is 3D, and I didn't really mean to say that autocad wasn't 3D. But there is just so much difference between Revit and Autocad, trying to soup up Autocad enought to compete with Revit is a loosing effort. Autodesk would really have to start from scratch, which is why I think they bought Revit.

Revit could be a great program if Autodesk would fix what I think are some basic problems. But they seem to have their priorities backward.

The biggest problem IMO: no keyboard shortcuts. At least not any you can define. If I want to add a receptacle to a circuit, I have to select an object on that circuit, select "Edit Circuits", select "Add to circuit", select the object, and select "finish circuits". If it were autocad, I would probably make a command called "Add" to do all that.

So why can't autodesk fix some basic problems like that? I think they like selling two different programs too much. They don't want Revit to directly compete with Autocad.

Steve

 

[MacG]

I'll take your word for it... but for argument's sake, here' a quote from Autodesk's site:



As I said previously, I have no experience with Revit.

Used to have problems sending ABS file(s), and probably still do with MEP, to non-ABS(MEP) AutoCAD flavor users. Had to go through a "conversion" routine... I'm thinking it was called transmittal something or other.


If you are referring to AutoCAD, it has been a 3D program for a long time. I'm uncertain what version AutoCAD actually went to 3D, but I'm thinking it was back around v10 to v2000... about the same time Revit was conceptualized/born (1998?) as I understand it. AutoCAD uses, or at least used to use the same 3D software engine that many other 3D CAD programs use?ACIS?but were generally several versions behind others.

FWIW I started on release 12 for DOS and it was 3D a that time.

MacG

 

[Smart $]

I agree, autocad is 3D, and I didn't really mean to say that autocad wasn't 3D. But there is just so much difference between Revit and Autocad, trying to soup up Autocad enought to compete with Revit is a loosing effort. Autodesk would really have to start from scratch, which is why I think they bought Revit.

Revit could be a great program if Autodesk would fix what I think are some basic problems. But they seem to have their priorities backward.

The biggest problem IMO: no keyboard shortcuts. At least not any you can define. If I want to add a receptacle to a circuit, I have to select an object on that circuit, select "Edit Circuits", select "Add to circuit", select the object, and select "finish circuits". If it were autocad, I would probably make a command called "Add" to do all that.

So why can't autodesk fix some basic problems like that? I think they like selling two different programs too much. They don't want Revit to directly compete with Autocad.

Steve

Autodesk implements features and fixes on their own schedule... been that way for years. I actually think they hold back on feature implementation until some other developer makes a product that is more appealing to the low-end professional consumer. Autodesk doesn't concern themselves with its high-end consumers because their the ones that are persistent upgraders and help Autodesk keep their niche in the marketplace. Though contrary to what the end user would believe to be the better sales philosophy, it has served Autodesk quite well to not develop any of their products or flavors thereof "ahead of schedule".

The problems you mention for most developers would be a top priority... to please their end users while increasing sales. But at Autodesk, I believe sales and market niche guide program development. Why give end users XXXXX for YYY, when we can give them XXX for YYYYYY... while for the most part, it keeps them content. We [i.e. Autodesk] have them in a corner.

From the end users' perspective, what is the alternative. In truth there are several alternatives... and internally viable ones. But then comes the big hole. No one is adept at these other programs. Even if there were adept operators, you then have to face compatibility issues across the board. There's the circle jerk and we're back to square one... and Autodesk knows it

 

[Mike01]

Revit

I have been using automated drafting software for approx 15 years, and it has come a long way. I believe Autodesk is headed in the right direction but has alot to learn the fact that they have programmers and not engineers working with the software is probally the first problem, I have experience with Bentley V8i electrical and will tell you it is lightyears ahead of Revit but autodesk is gaining ground. Our company policy is to only show large feeder conduits 4" and larger and where it occupies a large amount of ceiling space (large primary runs, and large secondary runs with pull-boxes) Altho it is lacking is some areas it appears that future releases (near future) have conduit tools and much improved panel schedules. Just give it time it cannot happen overnight, they run user usibility stuies to evaluate new commands etc. and have releases every 6-12 months. I believe the best is yet to come, it will be the way of the future and I guess you have a choice to get involved early and often or be cought playing catch-up later.

 

[ptrip]

I'm with a earlier response, only show conduit for main service and special circumstances.

And in Revit MEP, the panel schedules only give you kVA, they wont even calc the amps. So we have to go through and calc everything everytime we change something. Thats what I call horrible.

It would be nice to have a check-box type option for that. I've worked with KW on my schedules for years, so it doesn't phase me. I've just put receptacles on about 1/2 a middle school last night and am thrilled that one of my panels is filled out without "extra" work on my part! I guess I have yet to see what the end result will be, but I'm determined to design this new school using Revit to it's full intent (at least to the best of my new ability).

FWIW I started on release 12 for DOS and it was 3D a that time.

MacG

I also started on 12 (was lucky enough to have a tablet and 16-button puck interface!) and do remember that there was 3D capability for parts and machine design ... but it wasn't 3D you would use in this industry.

I don't remember having an "architectural" 3D capability until 2000. 12 was DOS, 13 was first crack at Windows (and was crap), 14 was 13's fix ... then it was 2000.

The biggest problem IMO: no keyboard shortcuts. At least not any you can define. If I want to add a receptacle to a circuit, I have to select an object on that circuit, select "Edit Circuits", select "Add to circuit", select the object, and select "finish circuits". If it were autocad, I would probably make a command called "Add" to do all that.

So why can't autodesk fix some basic problems like that? I think they like selling two different programs too much. They don't want Revit to directly compete with Autocad.

Steve

I am a heavy keyboard user in AutoCAD ... that's what 15 years of using it will get you. But ... Revit isn't the only program out there that is a heavy toolbar program. Microstation has no keyboard entry either. I had to use that program for a year (after becoming keyboard proficient in CAD, of course) and that just annoyed me to no end ... for the first couple of weeks. Then I got used to it and moved on.

Now ... I've used Revit for all of two days now. My company is just starting it and a good many of the people here that have been using it for a few months don't like it. But their first project was a renovation to an existing building ... that also has many different building levels and some stuff stays, some goes, phased project ... etc. A really difficult project to start with. I have the blessing of starting a brand spanking new building design ... so I only expect a few hiccups. Time will tell. Give me 4 months or so and I'll give you my 'real' opinion!

 

[Mike01]

drafting tool

drafting tool

I think you will find with a little snooping that the ?quick-keys? as I refer to them are still there are are user definable, in the 2010 version if you hover over the icon or command in the ribbon a box will come up that will give a brief description of the command and the command name next to it in () is the ?qick-key? for that command the nice thing is you no longer have to select ?enter?, mouse click, or space bar to enter the command after the second letter is entered It executes the command like (ze) ?zoom extents?, anywho one advantage is panel naming if you change it and your device tags are configured correctly it will re-name the associated circuits also, I guess the big thing for me is to stress that AutoCad is not an engineering software it is still a drafting software and to remember that ?garbag in = garbage out?

 

[Keri_WW]

We only show runs of conduit 2" or larger. Anything smaller is means and methods, and the contractor has freedom to run as he sees fit.

 

[1LAMSTER]

My job is literally to show all of conduit paths, counts and sizes based on design drawings. So I find it to be VERY advantageous (I have a job). It's specified requirement on all of the future projects that I know of for all trades to coordinate systems in a 3D environment. We used ACAD on the first, currently using MEP and the entire industry is transitioning to Revit in the near future from what I understand now that Autodesk has bought Microstation and Navis. This process is not going away and when it works, it works brilliantly.