No announcement yet.

Leading architecture firms pen open letter to Autodesk over rising costs...

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Leading architecture firms pen open letter to Autodesk over rising costs...

    I wasn't sure exactly where to put this, but it struck a chord with me. I feel like the frog in the kettle which is coming up to the boil.

    If anyone thinks this is worthy of discussion, let's have at it. If this is inappropriate on the forum, the mods can take it down without hard feelings.

    I (personally) think if the conversation stays civil and constructive, there is nothing wrong with having the conversation here. When this topic has come up recently (several times), a couple of specific people have started with attacks aimed at specific people working for or at Autodesk, or within Development. If that happen, im locking this post.

    Having said that, i actually had heard about this few days ago, as one of my clients' firms was involved in the authoring of the letter, and the (obvious) displeasure that propagated the writing itself.

    I wasnt surprised to hear about it, honestly. Architecture hasn't gotten a lot of "amazing" features in the last few years, while the Engineering aspects have played a decent amount of catch up, and (obviously) the BIM 360 ecosystem has grown by leaps and bounds. All of that to say, when i approached someone at Autodesk that i talk to regularly (i figured if i already knew about the letter, they might have known it was coming as well, and i wanted to get their thoughts), they told me some things that DID give me hope for the future (both distant AND immediate) of Revit development.

    While i cant mention a lot of what was talked about, one aspect of it is already public facing, so ill leave this here: https://autodesk.wd1.myworkdayjobs.c...d223d9780d30be

    There are currently thirty four job postings related to Revit... most of which are in development, and most of which are recent postings. Of course, everyone can read in to it whatever they like.

    For me, i still evaluate and compare all of the software platforms against one another all the time, as ive worked in them all before. Its true that if things were to stay as stagnant (specifically architectural feature wise) as they have been, in a period of time (for me) it would be worth potentially evaluating other applications (were already working on branching out). But (even at the moment) its still not even a consideration, even though the constant shifting and changing of license structures and systems is annoying as heck.

    So im HOPEFUL all the potential new resources mean an uptick in development, and im HOPEFUL (i guess) that several firms getting together to, um, "write a comment card" achieves something meaningful, and... There are enough potential new players working on new applications currently, that if anyone really isnt happy... Hey: The market dictates the market. We can all buy other things, if we arent happy. Myself included.

    And ill remind everyone again: Constructive = it stays opened. It gets personal towards people at Autodesk = i close it immediately, and the other mods can yell at me later.
    Last edited by Twiceroadsfool; July 28, 2020, 02:25 AM. Reason: typos
    Aaron "selfish AND petulant" Maller |P A R A L L A X T E A M | Practice Technology Implementation
    @Web | @Twitter | @LinkedIn | @Email


      "A vision, roadmap and investment strategy that targets adding value and performance for design based organisations that prioritises the replacement of Revit from the ground up to reflect the functionality needed for a 21st century digital industry."

      That struck me in the letter... It asks for a replacement software; which is a pretty tall order. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but many design firms, manufacturers, and BIM support providers and developers have put a tremendous amount of resources into this one basket. To simply "replace it" would require unimaginable levels of legacy support for a long, long time, or risk losing a lot of customers that won't adopt it and developers that won't risk building on a platform that might not be around in a few years.

      As a BIM content and solutions developer, I've always looked for the opportunities to further BIM, and wonder how many of the issues / concerns that were raised could be better fixed with 3rd party apps or integration of different content types. I've always viewed Revit more like a smartphone - It comes with some basic tools to get you going, but the real productivity comes in with add-ons. Lets face it, if you ask 10 designers about the one thing they need most, you're getting 15+ answers. In many cases, the peripherals market abides. It just stinks when you have to pay extra for these kinds of features as the price for the core software goes up up up.

      At its core (singular pun intended), I understand Revit's limitations, and may not be addressable without a radical change, but really, are we asking too much of the Revit software? Could new workflows, interoperability and integrations allow us to more efficiently partitioning our models to gain better performance? Could content be source, configured and managed more effectively? Does visualization truly have a place in Revit?

      I read the letter, the article in AECMag and a couple others, and find myself with more questions than answers surrounding this topic. - I commend the firms involved for standing up, and hope at the very least, it provides ADSK with a wake up call that they may be missing the mark on their software.
      Robert Weygant
      President - Sumex Design
      Managing Partner - SPECtrumBIM
      Foodie, Dad, and Content Junkie


        FWIW, there are some things down in the *Core* i would like to see fixed/addressed/upgraded, as much of the BIM ecosystem that works downstream of Revit (including 3rd party apps and BIM 360) still need to start with the Base Modeling Object Types, or the model itself. While some of these are MASSIVE and i dont believe they will happen in the near or far future (but im always hopeful), these are my personal dream list items, for hardcore Revit development:

        EDIT: Im going to keep editing this post now, since ive started it. Ive been recording all encompassing training videos for a client, this week (my full 40 hour training regimen) and its making me remember how many silly things there are. So i hope yall dont mind, that im doing it by editing this post, instead of posting more. I dont want to be shouting in the thread.

        EDIT EDIT: So, this post ended up being a lot longer than i thought. And a lot of it is just a *wall of text.* So if anyone actually within Revit Development ends up reading this: Our team at Parallax will devote ANY amount of time you need or want, to explain these things in meetings that can be recorded, if it means someone will look in to updating or finishing these items. We can show you the workarounds people use Live, and why these things cause real pain on projects. Or heck, if it would be more entertaining, we could stream a giant session about this list.

        1. Closing the Modeling Tool Disparity between System Objects.

        Walls, Floors, Ceilings, Roofs, and Soffits to all have: Model by Path (like walls have), Model by Sketch (several have), Model by Extrusion (like Roofs have), Model by Face (the way walls and roofs have, as floors are hamstrung and ceilings dont have it).

        Walls, Floors, Ceilings, Roofs, and Soffits to all have: Ability to have multiple slope defining elements. Ability to have Shape Editing. Ability to host Augmentations (Slab Edges, Fascias, Gutters, Wall Sweeps, (Ceilings have no augmentation and need them for models to be high quality) including post-Shape-Editing (currently only roofs do this)

        Walls, Floors, Ceilings, Roofs, and Soffits to all have: Ability to replace with a "Modular-esque" object type, similar to sloped glazing. Currently only Walls and Roofs can do this.

        Dimensional oddities (and performance) during Shape Editing (added 2020.07.30).- I can show you this any time anyone wants to see it. Start shape editing a roof, and draw split lines to go around a drain, in a rectangle approx 2' x 4'. The "temporary dimensions" will be showing values like 100', while you draw that tiny box. Obviously its dimensioning something that isnt real (to us), but its nutty.

        Oh, and the whole "you cant drag a shape edited point more than 10-12", or it errors, but you can drag it ten times in a row, at values of ten inches, and its fine. Wut?

        What schedules in a Material Takeoff (added 2020.07.30): Slab Edge Materials and Roof Fascia Materials dont appear in a Material take Off. They need to. MTO's dont just get used for quantities... They also get used as Finish Legends, as they are the only way to show all materials present in a model. And... Wall Sweeps and Roof Fascias dont show up. Thats a real problem. While it seems like a small problem, we have a system (Revit) where we tell people "Its a model with data, use the data," and one of the tasks A/I firms have to do, is list all the finishes. This information is present in the model. No brainer. So an MTO is how you do it. But... Wall Sweeps get used for a lot of interior finish items, and their materials dont show up to schedule. The only way around this is (seriously) to place the same material on a little component or tiny floor, sitting out in Hyperspace. Its like AutoCAD's Phantom Detail Zone, out at 10000,10000, all over again. lol!

        2. Closing the Category Disparities. Options for Cuttability, joinability, mirror/flip-ability, in every component (it should be a family by family decision).

        3. Quirks and Issues in the Family Editor. There are some known issues in the family editor that create... odd behaviors. But in some cases, they are the ONLY way to make parametric items, so we are deciding between smart content that throws an error, or dumb content that doesnt. That shouldnt be a choice we have to make.

        4. Curtain Wall / System Tools (overhaul). It would take more than a paragraph to write it out, but... what Revit doesnt isnt real. Not with Mullions, not with how it breaks them, not with basically anything. It just isnt real, and needs to be tossed out.

        5. Massing System (overhaul). This one kind of always boggled my mind, because Autodesk has a bunch of tools that do massing already. I never understood why a WAY simplifed version of Max editing never made it in as the Massing Tools? Granted, with Rhino.Inside, its less of a "need," but the 'industry' needs to decide if RI is really the answer, or if Massing is going to get addressed or updated at some point.

        6. Site Tools Overhaul. (added 2020.07.30)- I cant believe i forgot this one. So, there are several SPECIFIC things that need to be done/augmented related to Revit Terrain and Hardscape, and it largely has to do with the fact that the Topo Engine/system needs to be retired, for a number of reasons:

        6a. To start, it isnt a real solid. Its a plane, that gets a 2d representation for its depth. This is a real problem, if you do any sort of work that is underground, or any sort of work where a basement has earth on top of it. Just like with Floors/Roofs, we need the ability to set thicknesses and variable thicknesses, to materials that go on site. We also need to sketch hard perimeters for those things, and the only way to do that with Revit Topo is with Split Surface, which is a joke.

        What whats been done between using Topo as a baseline, then converting between Revit topo, meshes, Nurbs, points, and forcing that data in to Floors and Roofs, it shouldnt be a far stretch for Site tools to be re-imagined, and NOT be trash.

        6b. When Eagle Point STARTED building Site Works, it had potential. A lot of it had bailed on Topo, but some of it relied on Topo. Surprise surprise, the part that relied on Topo sucked. The rest was actually pretty decent, as a starting point. Whats available now through Dynamo is better, mind you, but i digress. I was asked (during a discussion about Revit needing Site Tools) "What do you think about Site Works?" to which i responded by laying out all the technical flaws it had, so it could theoretically get improved upon. Those flaws were never fixed... And now that product is dead, so we are back at square 1.

        Parking Lots, Grading, Sidewalks, and how they interact specifically at the perimeter of a building, is not something that is acceptable to handle in Civil 3D or infraworks. And whats more frustrating, we arent THAT far away, with what can be done in Dynamo. (see for samples). Some of the stuff in the CS Artisan package is great too, but some of it still relies on Revit topo, which... yuck. But this needs to be fixed, and its doable, with the brainpower at the Factory.

        7. Model Group API expansion.There is a ton you cant do with Groups in the API... and what you can do, is because people hack it with *open the group file, and copy and paste* which isnt real. My team has done a lot with modularization for real benefits downstream, but there is a lot of reliance on Groups, and its close to perfect, if only the API was there.

        8. View Title API inclusion. Its such a silly request, but you cant REALLY do fully automated sheet creation without it. You can make the sheet. Classify the sheet. Make the view. View template the view. Place the view. Name/Number/Title the view and sheet... But you cant put the view title in the right spot. Period. And that means automation to cut out HUNDREDS of hours per project, still requires a grunt to go to every single page to check a view title. Its silly.

        9. Schedule Flexibility Its honestly so close. We can Sort by parameters, add break lines, add headers, etc.. I just want to tell the Sorting to "break in do dependent schedules" based on sorting, and let 200 schedules be created in the PB. THEN to auto sheet, auto place, and be on the way.

        9b. Schedule Filter by Family or Type. (added 2020.07.30)- Ive heard all the arguments for and against this. Every year that goes by that we dont have this, people just invent workarounds. Its so useful, i finally just made a Shared Parameter for Family name and Type name. It stinks, because i have to run a giant DYN that will copy the FN and FT in to the parameters, but then the Filters do everything the users want them to do. It stinks stinks stinks to have to do it that way. And ive heard the arguments against enabling it (somewhat), but its the wrong hill to die on. A LOT of users would be enamored, to get this.

        10. UI updates and improvements. There are still just so many quirky UI items, that you just *have to know* about. I can break my Properties Palette on demand. I know the PB has to be docked for certain commands, but not for others. The palette-drag-ghosting doesnt match what it does in the UI. No Dark Mode (not a real one). No auto-hideable palettes. And the Project Browser. OMG the Project Browser.

        11. Search Sets in Revit (no joke)
        (added 2020.07.30)- Filters in Revit are great, but you are editing them in a dialogue box that has to be edited and processed, before you can see what youve selected and engaged with, through that Filter. I tell all of my A/E trainees: If you build a Filter for it in Revit (in a project or in a template) ALSO go to Navis and build a search set for it, as its valuable for someone else as well. And coincidentally, everyone loves the way search sets work, SO much better. The fact that i can go click on the Search Set, and automatically have those items SELECTED, for isolating, viewing, querying, etc. I love that, when i am in Navisworks.

        Its totally true that third partys have built apps that do this. But the settings have to be saved somewhere, or loaded, and on and on. I really wish i could have Saved Search Sets exactly like Navis. I would use them every freakin day.

        12. pyRevit (not a joke) (added 2020.07.30)-I know its not constructive to just say *acquire this tool,* so instead i will say: I tip my hat off to Ehsan (we are Patreons for pyRevit). There are a number of features i think should be added to base revit, since he was able to make them in pyRevit:

        12a. Flexible and purpose neutral Renumbering Tool
        12b. Category Selection Isolator
        (we liked this so much John built us an internal one that is non-modal and can just float... Its a god send for Curtain Grids, and things like that. Image attached)
        12c. Internal Pattern Maker (Massive help)
        12d. Print from Ordered and Filtered Sheet List
        (the workaround it uses is a bit brutal, but the fact that it works is amazing)
        12e. Purge unpurgable Viewport Types (Or just fixing these so this doesnt happen)
        12f. All of the View and Sheet "finder" tools, and the Sheet Numbering setup. Its all incredible.

        13. Railings need some serious attention, even for the most basic Railings. (added 2020.07.30) While this could be combined in to a Stairs AND Railing discussion, i think its more paramount that it focus solely on railings. I know (from witnessing some of the experiments firsthand) that over the year there have been several attempts to "re-do" or "retrofit" the Railing tool in to something that actually works well, but it has come up far short. Not only that, but even the most BASIC Railings have massive shortcomings, unless HOURS are spent customizing them. I want to be super clear: Railings are WAAAAYYYYY better now, than they were when i started using Revit. Even though they frustrate many users, the modularization that happened with Rails (while frustrating) has helped a little bit. But there is still a long long way to go, and some fundamentals need to be changed. The following list is not exhaustive.

        13a. Corner Balusters. Go in the Baluster placement dialogue and turn on balusters, and draw a railing that turns a corner 90 degrees. If the "Corner Baluster" has the SAME OFFSET as the exact same baluster used in the Pattern of the stair, it ISNT INLINE with EITHER run of Balusters, on either side of the corner. Ive been in Revit for 14 years, and consider myself an expert. I feel ashamed when i teach railings, and i still tell my students "keep adjusting the offset for corner balusters, its trial and error. And after three tries, if you dont get it, turn off corner posts and place a family there." But i do.

        EDIT EDIT: So, have a laugh at my expense. WHILE recording my training video, and subsequently typing this section of the post, i went back in to my Railing Type Properties, and started doing the whack-a-mole-take-a-guess, at the Space and Offset.... and for the first time ever, i got the balusters where i wanted them. Naturally, its because im in a file that isnt a real project, but what the heck?! I think i might actually understand what it wanted, for the Space value... But im not sure i will manage to successfully teach it. Regardless, it needs to be simpler.

        13b. Balusters FINAL placement (or type) should not be by Type. Similar to Curtain Wall Mullions, or Rail Supports, its fine for the Type to define DEFAULT placement and type. But balusters need to be adjusted on a one by one basis, as part of Design. This is true for both: Placement, and Type/size. Even speaking strictly of "post style balustrades" only, in design they are typically detailed on a run by run basis. Currently, for a stair case that has two runs and a landing in the middle, i tell Architects to model:

        1 revit railing for the "handrail"
        1 INDIVIDUAL revit railing for EACH run, and EACH side of the Landing (5 on the outside edge, 3-5 on the inside edge... for a total of 8-10 revit railings, PLUS the two handrail railings).

        This is the only way to accurately get baluster spacings the way we want them. Typically, by the way, many of those 10-12 have to be different types. :-/

        13c. PANEL style Balusters: Currently, its POSSIBLE in some stair designs, not in others. Even the ones where its possible, its so tedious that i can do it, but its honestly faster to use a series of walls with edited profiles. There isnt an upside to duplicating and editing all the railing types to make it work.

        13d. Railing joinery, and the ends of runs and landings. Much to discuss about what doesnt work, but you absolutely 100% have to sketch the rails to bizarre end points, to get the rails correct. And for multiple levels, you have to make the railings partially overlap, or there isnt a way to get them to terminate properly.

        13e. Railing Default Type (minor low hanging fruit)- Should be set BY stair type, not by Project File (there is currently only one default. And considering you have to adjust all the Baluster offsets to make a CIP Concrete stair rail different from a Metal Pan and Stringer Rail, thats annoying...)

        13f. Rail and Baluster Joinery- You cannot currently actually tell a Rail and Baluster to join or cut one another. So when they should be joined/welded together, you cannot make it look correct, ever. All you can do is make one "die" in to the other, with no linework, at all. Especially annoying when they are pieces of stone meant to be showing hierarchy. EDIT 02: Also, this applies to when you are doing Metal Pan Stairs, and the Balusters have to "die in to " the Stringers. Theyre supposed to be cut/welded, but Revit wont do that. So they are actually both there. This leads to Z fighting, and/or lines that you can see if you have ANY amount of Extension Lines or Jitter turned on in a view. Or... if you simply zoom out far enough, they show. Thats crazy.

        13g Rail Materials dont show up in Material Takeoffs (low hanging fruit??)- Rail Materials dont show up in an MTO. They need to. MTO's dont just get used for quantities... They also get used as Finish Legends, as they are the only way to show all materials present in a model. And... Rails dont show up. Thats a real problem.

        14. The new Text Tool (needs some fixing) (added 2020.07.30): It has some unusual behaviors that should be addressed.

        When i go in a text note, and select all of the text, and then TYPE, nothing happens. Having text selected, and then typing, should write over the selected text, in MOST applications i use. The fact that i have to hit delete, then start typing, is weird. (this also isnt consistent. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesnt. Its working right now, because im not in a real project, LOL!)

        If i hit escape, i want to get out of my text note. If there is NO TEXT in the text note, i dont need to be asked if i want to save the changes. THERE ISNT ANYTHING THERE! If i hit escape, and the text note HASNT CHANGED, i dont need to be asked. Just exit!

        Given the chance, id sit around for a week and show all these items to the brain-trust up in development, but time is finite for everyone. lol

        EDIT: I also want to include (my simpleton user-esque thoughts) on the whole "multi-core rant," because i see it, or read it, on every forum or site that i go on.

        First, i think we all agree we always want Revit to get faster and faster and faster and faster. Thats true for any software that we work on. Heck, Anthony Remis and i had this machine between 5.2 and 5.3 for a few days, because we just wanted to go fast fast fast.

        But it needs to be said: What we really want, is for Revit to go faster. Its not as constructive as we (as users) think it is to declare "we want revit to do more tasks on more cores." Dont get me wrong: Where it makes sense, i would love to see Revit leverage more cores, and even leverage GPU processing. But the GOAL isnt to use more cores, the goal is to be faster overall. And there is a certain amount that we have to be cognizant that: Revit isnt as slow as it is for some people, for all people. And we need to understand why, because more cores might not fix that.

        An example of the first item that has come up with various developers over the years:

        Imagine editing the type of a family was done, and the moment you clicked OK, it let you go back to interacting with the model, while the changes were propagated to all other instances, on other threads. that sounds awesome. Right up until 5 or 6 seconds later while im in the middle of another task, i get a whack-a-mole error pop up, related to the task processing on another thread. Well that sucks. And i accidentally clicked Delete because i wasnt expecting a dialogue to pop up. That double sucks.

        An example of the second:

        You guys have seen how my teams builds models. Largely considered way over the top by a number of firms, tons of detail, all modeled, all groups, fully populated, very few links, and so on. And yet... the models run very well and very fast. Granted, we have baller desktops now, but these same models were built on Dell Precision 7510's, originally. Now, i too have been in clients models were performance is goddamn awful. Why? Combinations of all of the bad things we discuss. Links (vs groups), imported exploded trash, thousands of drafted lines, and on and on.

        All this to say: I want the developers to make revit faster every single year. And... well yeah, if there is a way to add in more cores to more functions, and get faster, then great.

        Printing: There is no reason this still happens on the main thread. Its a task in tons of applications.
        Rendering/Orbiting/View Regeneration: This all largely needs to be on GPU power, frankly. I know its not as simple as saying that, but the fact that we can navigate in real time in Enscape, WHILE editing in Revit live, sort of makes me want to ask Enscape to develop a non-rendered, non-shadows, version, that would just become my Revit Viewport. Because its so darn fast on GPU. (Granted, my electic bill would go bonkers...)
        Attached Files
        Last edited by Twiceroadsfool; July 31, 2020, 05:18 PM.
        Aaron "selfish AND petulant" Maller |P A R A L L A X T E A M | Practice Technology Implementation
        @Web | @Twitter | @LinkedIn | @Email


          Couldn't agree more with the Curtain Systems Aaron.... Trainwreck from end to end.
          Robert Weygant
          President - Sumex Design
          Managing Partner - SPECtrumBIM
          Foodie, Dad, and Content Junkie


            I'm glad that people are starting to speak up - it's the only way we might be able to affect change.

            The way they currently decide to implement fixes and features is kind of nuts, in my opinion. For "features" they seem to entirely rely on user-proposed fixes being upvoted on their Ideas board. So first of all the number of users that go to the ideas forum is going to be a small fraction of the userbase - and then you further whittle that down to the small subset of users with enough time on their hands to actually write up a post, and you rely on enough of the right kind of people to see it to upvote it.

            They might as well stick ideas on a dart board.

            As Aaron has listed there's a lot of fundamental consistency and just straight up "why isn't this already a thing?" head-scratchers. To me, FormIt is the perfect example. Instead of refining and working with the massing system inside of revit, they say "hey let's make a whole new program with an entirely new interface". Based on what I can only assume is an entirely different code base. Huh?

            How long did it take to support beyond v8 of sketchup? How long did it take to give us the ability to sheet a PDF? how long did multi-tab support take, let alone multi-monitor? how much longer will it take to simply drag the view boundaries on an image to crop it on a sheet, rather than requiring us to crop it before we sheet it in different software?

            And beyond that... multi-core support? When, if ever? It would certainly help a lot with view regeneration and the general snappiness of models... ArchiCAD has multi-core support...

            And the thing that always drives me a little bit nuts - our jobs as engineers/architects/etc primarily revolves around creating and issuing drawing sets. The process for doing this in revit is incredibly cumbersome at best. it takes clever use of schedules, programming in dynamo, or third party plugins just to be able to automatically renumber sheets - a function that is truly fundamental to the production of a drawing set. Why on earth is it still so bad? Well, I can tell you - because the idea wasn't upvoted enough, because half the time when you propose a problem/solution half of the replies are "well you can use this workaround..." I would love love love to sit down with the Revit folks and show them how insanely easy it is to make a drawing set in InDesign or ArchiCAD - and where and how Revit falls short. A lot of it always comes back to the fact that it just doesn't seem like they actually involve architects in the active development of the software - or the architects they DO involve are so used to workarounds and have dealt with these quirks for so long that they essentially have stockholm syndrome. there's so much room for improvement but all of the development just seems to happen in an echo chamber.

            The criticism is bang-on. For the huge amount that we pay for ongoing development, there isn't nearly enough ongoing development. When so many fundamental things are just straight-up bad and missing, what were the flagship features added for 2021? Slanted walls, print striped rows in schedules, rotatable section heads...


              Totally agree. I think Revit is pretty much getting in the state and phase AutoCAD has been for years. Ir makes no difference what AutoCAD version you use for 2018-2021. The difference and 'improvements' basiclly nil. Apart from the occasional 'file format change' as an attempt to shake competition. At least Revit still has an 'idea request' forum. For AutoCAD they just decided to skip it. My guess is that budgets is mostly spend on the front of online platforms, aquisitions etc. Only a fraction spend on R&D developments and products with excisting userbase. The growing list of known product to be transformed to 'project magic X' (online)
              Senior Member
              Last edited by HansLammerts; July 30, 2020, 07:05 AM.


                The Revit Ideas forum is only one tool used in the decision making process to determine what will be done in Future versions.

                Revit already has multi-core support, and has for years. As has been explained countless times, a software isn't just simply "all multi-core"'s function by function. Same goes for ArchiCAD...its not "fully multi-core" either. Certain parts of it are, just like Revit. Where the developers can take advantage of multi-core processing, they do.

                Want to get more involved? You can...
                Scott D Davis
                Sr. AEC Technical Specialist
                Autodesk, Inc.


                  But is rarely about feature suggestions or fixing currently half-implemented or broken tools. It's about testing new features whose inclusion has been decided upon elsewhere.

                  Aaron's post is excellent. There is so much there that could make Revit an infinitely better platform that's not about adding new features, just fixing the current tools.

                  I was astounded to read that Revit is 20 years old (perhaps because it makes me realise how old I am!) but I do remember it being the shiny new thing when I picked it up 17 years ago and AutoCAD was stale and old. Revit has slotted into that role now of being the defacto standard but people use it principally because it is the standard rather than necessarily making an informed decision on it being the best choice.

                  Regardless of whether we, the customers, are being listened to, the pricing increases have been truly outrageous over the past few years for no perceived increase in development.
                  Canberra, Australia


                    Originally posted by Scott D Davis View Post
                    The Revit Ideas forum is only one tool used in the decision making process to determine what will be done in Future versions.

                    Revit already has multi-core support, and has for years. As has been explained countless times, a software isn't just simply "all multi-core"'s function by function. Same goes for ArchiCAD...its not "fully multi-core" either. Certain parts of it are, just like Revit. Where the developers can take advantage of multi-core processing, they do.

                    Want to get more involved? You can...
                    The amount of surveys being spammed is beyond believe. And 90% has the most obvious marketing tags all over. What's to test anyway. 10 GB installs for 1 new AutoCAD feature, no thanks. Sorry, being honest
                    Senior Member
                    Last edited by HansLammerts; July 30, 2020, 11:46 PM.


                    Related Topics