I haven't attended a course with that particular company but in my experience the training courses are very very generic, the material used is similar to the documents Autodesk used to provide, I think from release 2011 it has now changed to web based learning, but in principle it will be the same, The exercises talk you through different topics using examples that illustrate Revits functionality.

In my opinion the training courses I have seen will generally show you that Revit can do something, but it is always something simple, and the real learning begins when you start project work.

The material used will most likely be similar to the link below.

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet...linkID=9243180

That's my experience with Autodesk trainings too. They are generally all the same as being derived from the official autodesk training courses. In my experience they are handy in getting a general idea about the software and learning to navigate through the software. But for these kind of specific questions they often (if not always) sell short. My advice would be to find a local expert and ask them for hands-on training / help during the course of one or two pilot projects.

I would think that taking a class on RST is going to cover basic Revit stuff and more Revit STRUCTURE processes. If you're using RAC, and want to add structural members, you'll need to find the subject(s) as they relate to RAC. There are some things that RST does that RAC does not.

This is one of my problems with most training courses. When doing training I never go off the book. Typically I will actually look at and teach from a project perspective. For instance, in RAC I literally go through drawing a building and go through flat roof systems and pitched roof systems. RST and RME both start out with how to link in an Architects' model and working in it from there. I typically also give an introduction to worksharing in essentials courses, i.e. how to enable it and work with others in a work shared project and advanced courses build on that as well as go into grouping, phasing, working with topo surfaces and introductions to rendering and visualization.

The buildings that we do the projects in may end up downright ugly but I've noticed a much higher memory retention in users that are going through a 20 hour course when done from a project standpoint and not simply opening random files and doing simple tasks inside of a fire house. I've also had the pleasure of doing a number of completely customized training courses from housing to interior design and using actual project files clients have done in AutoCAD to build them in Revit. There are some things I absolutely love about my current job and one of them is the people I get to meet and helping them get ahead with Revit.

We do the same thing. We train based on a real project. It takes 4-5 days.

My advice: Find a freelance trainer who has WORKED with the software, and actually gotten out real projects. Someone who will come in and say *yeah, this part sucks, here is how you work around it.*

The best part is is that you get a lot of questions raised on how to use the tools in different methods when working on creating a project from scratch. Things like creating vaulted ceilings in different styles or how stairs will never do what you want. Making angled beam systems for roofs and updating them to new angles and my favorite, getting MEP to do riser diagrams in a way that doesn't look horrible.

Thanks to all for the great feedback. the problem is that kind of training can cost $100/hr which makes these training courses seem affordable. I need more than the basics. I've taken a REVIT Arch class at the local community college and did great but I still have so much to learn and still hit many roadblocks. I get the impression that most in here have gone through the "trial and error" method of learning. I am assuming I will have do the same. oh well, I'm glad this forum is here!

Yep, this kind of training can cost to 100,-/h. Whilst training with the AOTC most of the times just costs half of that price.
BUT:
1. For your 100,-/h you get the undivided attention of your tutor instead of sharing it with 4-6 other people
2. You get to set the agenda, instead of having to listen to things being explained which you already know for half of the time.
3. You can use your own projects and problems for this training. It's based on real-world situations.

So, although it seems more expensive the truth is that having a personal trainer is in fact way cheaper! Also a method often used with my clients: we schedule a certain amount of hours (4-8) each one or two weeks in which we go over all problems they faced since my last visit. This way we garantuee a 100% match with their daily practise.

There is a reason youre going to pay that 100/hr, and it will pay itself back the first month after. You dont need some dolt to come in and show you RST, and columns, and structural Beam systems. You need someone to come in and show you how to nest shared baseplates, how to work around the lackluster column schedule, and how to master rebar.

You dont need to learn how to activate a viewport, and how to plot out drawings. You need to learn how to edit the OOTB content to be worth a damn, because its not when you get it. You need to learn how your firm needs to create their template, because OOTB with edited titleblocks wont make you fast enough to recoup the cost of the CHEAPER training course.

Ive seen the "basic Revit Structure" courses. They still preach exploding legacy CAD details, drawing drawing drawing, and not modeling very much. Whatever. If you have a well built library, your Super Structure down to your boxed headers and loose lintels can all get modeled just as fast as it gets drafted, and it can still look good on paper.

But youll need a real teacher, who knows the ins and outs. Pony up, and before the instructor comes, explain what you want. A few days with the user base, and a few days making recommendations on a good infrastructure: Template, content, deployment strategies.

100/hour gets reimbursed the first time you DONT lose money on a job you otherwise would have.